# Talk:Interstate 680 (Nebraska–Iowa)

Fredddie,
What is meant by, "You can't plan a former highway"?
Also, I apologize about the bolding.  I didn't realize that it was already in the lead.
Allen (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two reasons I reverted. –Fredddie™ 04:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The article hadn't yet established that the route was originally I-280 through Omaha.  Yes, it's mentioned in the lead, but you still have to establish your facts in the main portion of the article.  Rereading it again, the section needs some more work, and neither revision improved the article overall.
It just didn't make sense chronologically.  Here's how the article read, "In Nebraska, plans for former Interstate 280 to bypass Omaha to the north to I-29 were drawn up in the late 1950s."  When Nebraska DOR drew up plans for what's now I-680, it was going to be called I-280.  They didn't know that it wasn't going to be I-280 for a few years, so it couldn't have possibly been former I-280 yet.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 680 (Iowa–Nebraska)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
"South of this interchange, I-680 traveled through residential neighborhoods", try to mention this eariler, preferably toward the beginning of the route description.
Reworked, plus I fixed the grammar error you missed. –Fredddie™
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I don't think the NDOR log book or the Iowa DOT log discuss the physical surroundings of the route. Try using Google Maps or something similar here.
I've been thwarted by a lack of photography from the scenic overlook I mentioned, but I found a source that describes the scene from there. –Fredddie™
I still have concerns with the referencing in the route description. I do not think the neighborhood associations map can properly reference "Interstate 680 begins a complex interchange with I-80 in Omaha. Due to the proximity of the Center Road interchange on I-680 and the I and L Street interchanges on I-80, all of the exit and entrance ramps which connect I-80 to I-680 also connect either Center Road or I and L Streets." The NDOR log book cannot reference "South of this interchange, I-680 travels through residential neighborhoods, but to the east, the population thins and the interstate passes through farmland for 4+1⁄2 miles (7.2 km)." The Iowa DOT log cannot reference "In Iowa, Interstate 680 is markedly less urban than in Nebraska." Dough4872 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Can some more descriptive information and history be added to the lead?
Talked about the scenery, see below for history. –Fredddie™
Can some more information about the physical surroundings be added to the route description, particulually the first paragraph? Does it pass residential, commercial, or industrial surroundings?  In addition, it may help to mention the Westroads Mall, Nebraska's largest mall, is at the US 6 exit.
I still think mentioning the highway provides access to the mall is important and helps provide what kind of purpose I-680 can serve. A route description should mention attractions as to provide what the road is used to access. Dough4872 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Added a couple sentences about going through West Omaha.  I don't think the mall is relevant to the highway. –Fredddie™
When discussing the I-29 concurrency, mention which direction the route heads.
Added "north–south". –Fredddie™
In the progress of the route description, maybe clarify the route turns north upon meeting I-29. Dough4872 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Can some more details about the construction of I-680 be added?
If I could find more, it would already be here. –Fredddie™
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 place the article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, except for the mall, I have added what I could. –Fredddie™ 06:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
After some fixes I made myself, I will pass the article. Dough4872 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

or are there a lot of convert errors in the route description? — PCB 01:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be screwed up, but there were a lot of convert errors.  It used {{Convert/spell}}, which seems to have recently switched to requiring the second unit.  It didn't require it before. –Fredddie™ 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 680 (Iowa–Nebraska). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20061101234238/http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO2_Policy_Retention_HO1.pdf to http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO2_Policy_Retention_HO1.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kcci.com/news/28162112/detail.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kcci.com/news/28277512/detail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 06:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm about to overwrite this history...

(cur | prev)  12:10, 18 May 2015‎ Fredddie (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (46 bytes) (-17,206)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Greggens (talk) to last version by Xqbot) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
(cur | prev)  06:37, 18 May 2015‎ Greggens (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (17,252 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (minor clean up) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev)  06:33, 18 May 2015‎ Greggens (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (17,248 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (punctuation correction) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev)  06:29, 18 May 2015‎ Greggens (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (17,246 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Greggens moved page Interstate 680 (Nebraska-Iowa) to Interstate 680 (Nebraska–Iowa): minor error in name) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev)  06:29, 18 May 2015‎ Greggens (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (17,246 bytes) (+17,200)‎ . . (Interstate 680 (Nebraska–Iowa) is the proper title, per WP:IH) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev)  04:49, 26 January 2010‎ Xqbot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (46 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (Robot: Fixing double redirect to Interstate 680 (Iowa–Nebraska)) (undo)
(cur | prev)  15:06, 27 March 2005‎ SPUI (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (45 bytes) (+45)‎ . . (Interstate 680 (Nebraska-Iowa) moved to Interstate 680 (Iowa-Nebraska)) (thank)

...so I'm preserving it here as it seems relevant to a more general discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

So far, I have not seen anything in the news about the former I-80N in Iowa being changed from I-680 to I-880. I know that AASHTO is on record as having approved such a change, but until there are news reports on the numbering change, and signs have been erected to reflect it, we should assume that the change is not yet in effect. When it does go into effect, the necessary changes can be restored. Greggens (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)