# Talk:Connecticut Route 190

Anything needed? Juliancolton (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Looks good and no overall problems
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

--MASEM 21:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Connecticut Route 190/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Street names should not be italicized in the route description.
Done. --Rschen7754 03:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The route description has a lot of "At x miles...". These should be removed.
The sentence "In the 1932 state highway renumbering, modern Route 190 was created, incorporating old State Highway 303, with a westward extension via the village of West Suffield to the Congamond Notch in the town of Southwick, Massachusetts. " sounds long and choppy.
The junction list needs a legend to indicate what the concurrency colors mean.
Done. --Rschen7754 03:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Reference 3 needs an access date.
References 6 and 8 are Self-published sources and need to be replaced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The lead could use more detail as to provide a summary of the route.
The route description could use more information about the physical surroundings.
Counties need to be added to the junction list.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I will put this article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 02:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been a week and since all the issues have not been addressed I will have to delist the article. Dough4872 02:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Connecticut Route 190. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6aJzyxuKC?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ct.gov%2Fdot%2FLIB%2Fdot%2FDocuments%2Fdpolicy%2Fhwylog%2Fhwylog.pdf to http://www.ct.gov/dot/LIB/dot/Documents/dpolicy/hwylog/hwylog.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Connecticut Route 190/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources
Source 19 looks like a WP:SPS and cannot be used.
Done
Route description
where access is - to the river?
Done
the road becomes known as Main Street, as it - no comma should be used there
Done
Exit 73 - should be lowercase
Exits are usually in uppercase
History
In 1922... - not sure you can get that from source 5, a 1926 map.
The source still applies to the 1922 changes. I added another source
Ditto with "The Thompsonville Bridge was built in 1892" (but it looks like source 6 might work for that one).
Done
via Somers center - the center of Somers
Done
Modern Route 190 - shouldn't repeat it right after it was used in the previous sentence.
Done
The original Route 190 used modern Route 168 to reach Route 75 then, after a brief overlap with Route 75, it used modern Route 190 to reach the west bank of the Connecticut River - need a semicolon before then since this combines two sentences
Done
Source 8 is a deadlink
Fixed
The last few sentences of paragraph 3 have a lot pointing to the bridge log. I don't see how the years can be sourced to the bridge log, but then I could be missing something.
The Buckley Highway was mentioned in the log as was the Wilbur cross change,.
Mentioned, yes, but I see no years in the bridge log. --Rschen7754 04:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Added sources. The years of news publishings confirm. AmericanAir88(talk)  23:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is closer now. If you could find some source for the 1932 renumbering date and what it did to the route I think we would be good to go. (The main issue with using maps in the history section is that they can only prove that a highway was following a certain route in year X. You can't use a map made in year X to prove that the route was the same in year X+1.) --Rschen7754 05:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Added a source. Keep in mind, 1932 sources are hard to come by, but lucky the Courant came through. AmericanAir88(talk)  03:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Ultimately, the issue is with the sentence starting "Old State Highway 105 was designated..." I sympathize with the difficulty of digging through newspaper archives, but unfortunately our sourcing rules don't make any exceptions based on the year. --Rschen7754 04:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
now aging - remove now
Done
Not too long after the relocation, a freeway connection to Interstate 91 was constructed as part of a grander plan for expressways in the Greater Hartford area. - okay, but then we suddenly change topics to what happened with I-190, which seems abrupt to me.
I don't see an issue with it. Not much can be changed. Any ideas?
There was some opposition to the plan - do we know what it was based on?
Residential issues and construction. The usually highway protest.
Route 190, which was to be relocated to a more southerly alignment, was to cross under Route 159 at Canal Road - I feel that there is a more concise/clear way to say this.
Done
Funds - don't start two consecutive sentences with the same word.
Done
the scope of the project was pulled back - this doesn't really add anything considering the next few sentences
Done
The opening of the Route 190 expressway was delayed by a strike until later that year. - okay, but do we have a source for when it actually opened?
Honestly, I could not find a single source of the year. I see conflicting sources for this so I will remove the strike mention. If the strike was major, it would have gained more coverage.
Special designations
I'm not sure why this is a separate section that can't be included in the RD.
Moved
I think this could still pass but there is quite a bit of work needed here. On hold for the usual 7 days. --Rschen7754 04:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Thank you for taking this up. I'll address them all overtime. AmericanAir88(talk)  00:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I have addressed most of your issues and left comments on some. Thank you again. AmericanAir88(talk)  01:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


### Great news
@Rschen7754: I have great news. I have a newspapers.com account with The Wikipedia Library and I can now provide links for the courant cites. This also allows the 1932 part to have a ref! AmericanAir88(talk)  04:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


### Re-review
Because there have been substantial changes made I will be revisiting the history section.

"In 1922" - this is sourced to a 1926 map.
Done
"Route 20 was extended east to the Wilbur Cross Highway" - I am still uncomfortable with using a bridge log to source this sentence. That being said, you could probably delete this sentence and it would not have much of an effect on the rest of the article, as it is part of a three-sentence setup for "The portion of Route 20 east"...
Done
"Interstate 91" - generally you should say Interstate xx (I-xx) the first time any Interstate used in the article, and I-xx every time an Interstate is referenced thereafter.
Done
"I-190 opened to traffic in 1983" - this is sourced to a document written in 1975.
Done
I will also note that comments like Most of modern Route 190 are really cutting it close. The 1926 map doesn't know anything about modern Route 190. To make that determination you have to compare it to a map of the present day - but now you are bordering on WP:SYNTH. Some rephrasing to more closely match what the map says would be preferable. --Rschen7754 05:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Fixed the displayed issues. I'll do some looks to eliminate SYNTH. AmericanAir88(talk)  17:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
After taking a look at some other GAs I don't think the borderline SYNTH issue should hold up this article for GA, though if you plan to take the article further I would advise rewording those parts. Therefore I will pass it. --Rschen7754 03:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Thank you. I appreciate it. You have been a great help and reviewer. AmericanAir88(talk)  17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)