# Talk:Ohio State Route 11

The road project is a worthy endeavor.  As an economic historian I think the history of the funding of some roads would be particularly important.  In the case of Route 11 the reason Ohio shelled out the money for the road from Ashtabula to Liverpool (and ultimately Weirton/Steubenville) was that the railroads controlled the port of Cleveland and wouldn't let much less expensive self-unloaders avoid paying for Hulett service.  The Mahoning Valley and associated steel companies of inland Ohio (and Pittsburgh) needed a way around Cleveland's port.  Ashtabula offered to be a "self-unloader port" and the steel companies wanted to unload iron ore from the upper Great lakes into trucks to circumvent the railroads.  Alas, the road was not built fast enough and ultimately the railroads, the steel companies, and the ancillary industries became uncompetitive in the world market between 1965 and 2000.  Anyway, my suggestion is that in cases where a road on an otherwise seemingly bizarre route, for which taxpayers shelled out bucks, ought to be explained in these articles.  Ballbatter (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing per request, give it a day. Secret account 02:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Secret: Its been a week since you picked up this review. Are you going to process it? --AdmrBoltz 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing now....
How the route was decided to be part of the National Highway System?
Not including it, because most road articles don't have this either.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"The highest traffic count is at the southern end of the concurrency with I-80, where 38,360 vehicles travel the highway on average each day." Clarify whether it's the State Route or I-80, sentence structure is confusing there.
Slightly clarified.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
" only meeting SR 154 at an interchange" only is redundant here.... and how can a road "meet" another road? Maybe "connects with" is better? Correct me if I'm wrong with this.
Changed to "connecting with".—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 18:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
SR 11 was designated around 1969 as a connector between Canfield and Austintown.[10][11] One of the citations is from 1967... clarify the year.
Slightly reworded.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Try if you could see in a website like LexisNexis or Questa more about the history of this route, especially Ballbater's concern in the talk page, if you exhausted all your sources it's fine.
LexisNexis doesn't go back to the 1960s, and I don't have access to Questa.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you get the exact year of when it became a "limited access highway" without a map as a source?
The highway was slowly upgraded over the years...so I guess not.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Fix the year and date of Citation 24, it is not from 1984.
Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 17:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Be consistent with citation formats.
Better?—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Be consistent with numbers under 10 " in these 3 miles" for example per WP:MOS
Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
All images are free to use, no close paraphrasing concerns.
However I'm not sure if you used every available source for this article so I'm placing it on hold for now. Secret account 17:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok looks good to me passing. Secret account 20:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Before the incorrect exit numbers were added by 24.154.165.146 in April 2015, Exit 27 was numbered (after september 2014), and I did not realize it because of those edits, so this one will stay in the table, obviously.
Cards84664 (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)