# Talk:Interstate 155 (Missouri–Tennessee)

Why is gray lock post on every Mo highways. I don't see racist non-sense or blue languange (profanity), or white out pages.--Freewayguy Talk Contribs 19:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The St. Louis Signer, an IP editor who intentionally edits against the Manual of Style and signs the bottom of each article with ~~~~, has been messing the MO interstate pages up (example). Since the IP range includes too many individual addresses, we can't block (due to possibility of collateral damage), so the Signer's favorite targets have been semi-protected. "Autoconfirmed" users such as yourself can still edit; only anonymous users and those with newly registered accounts cannot edit semi-protected pages. In the future, check Special:Log which contains the date of protection, date of expiry, protecting administrator, and reason for protecting the page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A series of edits in 2008 in turn corrected and undid information about the termini of I-155 with I-55.  Presumably the edits were believed to be vandalism, so they were undone. I shall refrain from commenting further save to say that the edits were correct and the undoings were not vandalism but merely misled.
I've traveled that stretch of I-55 and I-155 several times in the last few months and can vouch for the correct information (i.e. exits 17A & 17B of I-55 are the termini of I-155) which shows on my edit of today March 20th 2010 with a hidden comment. To be complete, I also checked the Google Maps which, although vague, support my statement (as, of course, they should do). This is one instance where original research (if you want to call it that) was apparently required.
I hope that this will not circle back on itself as it has done in the past, but in case it might, the hidden comment should alert anybody who innocently tries to undo my edit.  Twistlethrop (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
i've seen some anonys try to remove state-name specifics from interstate shields. Missouri is shade in blue and specifies state-name specific in sign drawing. Most of it is state-name shields, and they dont make too contraction errors liek Oklahoma does. Those changes is original source in fields. Green tour signs is only don't need state shields.--Freewayguy Talk Contribs 19:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 155 (Missouri–Tennessee)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 08:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

As a roadgeek, I figured I should review this. I'm glad to see people still working on road articles on Wikipedia, as I thought most road editors went off to AARoads wiki. 

Yes, I wasn't exactly on board with the AARoads wiki split, as I have concerns that it gives credence to users who in my opinion, aren't here to build an encyclopedia. But that's just my stance. I hope the remaining road editors we do have will stick around. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
In the first sentence, the link for "northwest" links to West Tennessee, followed by a link to Tennessee. I think you should remove the first link since NW Tennessee isn't specifically the target.
 Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"It begins south of Hayti, Missouri, at Interstate 55 (I-55) and passes eastward through Caruthersville, before crossing the Mississippi River on the Caruthersville Bridge into Tennessee." - I suggest splitting this so you can go into a bit more detail on the Caruthersville Bridge, since it seems the bridge is an important aspect to the interstate's history (from my glance at the 2nd lead paragraph).
Are you recommending that I provide a description of the bridge in this sentence? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yea, something brief would be helpful. It seems like the bridge is the most important aspect of the interstate. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
 Done - also added another sentence description about the bridge in the route description. Please let me know what you think about my changes. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"Construction on the Caruthersville Bridge began in 1969, and the bridge, along with the Missouri portion of the route, opened in 1976. " - again, this could probably be slightly longer. Maybe something like "Construction on the Caruthersville Bridge began in 1969, and the Missouri portion of the route began construction in 1974. Both were opened in 1976."
 Done - although I must admit I am usually hesitant about going into much more detail about the history of a road's construction in the lead than this, particularly for a road of this length. I guess since it spans two states we can summarize when construction states and ended in both. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"26.77 miles (43.08 km)–10.72 miles (17.25 km) in Missouri and 15.94 miles (25.65 km)" - can you double check that math? I'm getting 26.66 by adding these two.
You're likely correct, although this could be due to a rounding convention, or a slight difference in how the FHWA and state DOTs measure distance. Both are very common. The current source just lists the state level mileages, not the total. It's likely that I removed an older source that explicitly states the total distance without realizing I did so. As such, I'll need to check the history. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Update - in the original source, the FHWA listed the length as 10.84 miles in Missouri, and 15.93 miles in Tennessee, or 26.77 miles total. So that's where that came from. It appears they have revised their measurements in the newer version of the route log. I have since updated te length to be consistent with the present source. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the Caruthersville airport, I can't believe there's an article in the Cebuano Wikipedia, which I didn't even know existed until I did a google search on the airport. No notes here, just a chuckle.
Yes, that is strange. It would definitely be notable here, which is why I redlinked it. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
"Upon crossing the river, I-155 veers east-southeast and reaches an interchange with State Route 181 (SR 181)" - kinda small dumb note here, but since it's starting a new paragraph, it could be helpful reassuring readers what state they're in, such as "Upon crossing the river into Tennessee"
 Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
A small note about I-69. Is there anything more recent, now that the interstate exists in the state? According to TDOT, the plan is still for 69 to connect with 155. I bring that up because of the sentence- "it is unclear whether or not this extension of I-69 will ever be built." I haven't seen anything to the contrary.
Contrary to what Google Maps says, I-69 does not yet exist in the state. The bypass around Union City that was opened to traffic last year is signed as State Route 690 as a placeholder until it can be connected with a contiguous part of I-69, which will likely be the Kentucky segment. The only I-69 project that is currently planned is a short freeway conversion project at the Kentucky state line, which would bring most of the combined route of I-155 and US 51 between Dyersburg and the state line to Interstate Highway standards. Personally, I think it is likely that I-69 will replace the entirety of I-155, rather than an entirely new alignment (or upgrade to US 51) being constructed between Dyersburg and Memphis. It's extremely unlikely that the federal government would provide the funding for such a route today, with the exorbitant inflation that highway construction has experienced in the last decade or so and the fact that there is essentially a parallel Interstate right across the river. I would also add that TDOT may be the most poorly managed state DOT in terms of planning; it is very common for them to propose something, and even go so far as to undertake the engineering for a project, only to abandon it the next year and completely forget about it. So when it comes to planned projects, unless there is significant media coverage about them that provides intricate details, I think that going in-depth about them potentially infringes on WP:CRYSTAL, especially for Tennessee. I must admit this is a tough one, since there's not much coverage about how much of the proposed I-69 is likely to be built. However, we don't want to word it in a manner to give the impression that this is likely to happen anytime soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I trust in the future that the article will be updated when/if any of the I-69 stuff happens. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll definitely make sure to watchlist it and pay attention to see if anything does happen, and update it promptly as needed. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
No other major notes. The history section was good. Hopefully these are all easy to fix. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  21:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Update - I've addressed most of the points. Tomorrow I'll try to work on figuring out the mileage issue, and any other outlying issues. I also had a few more comments I'd like to raise that I'll try to get posted tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Appreciate the fixes so far! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink and Hurricanehink mobile: - I think I've addressed all the points you raised. Please let me know what you think of the changes. If you haven't done a more in-depth review of the history section, I'd recommend you do that. I thought I might also mention a few outlying points that normally I would have caused me to be hesitant to go for a GA.
First of all, as I'm sure you're aware, I was unable to find a precise opening/completion date for the section between the Mississippi River and SR 182, just a partial opening date. Normally I wouldn't go for a GA unless I could find definite opening dates for all sections, which I have usually done for my previous road GAs from newspaper articles archived on Newspapers.com. However, none of the papers on this site appear to give a completion date for this section; only a projected completion date. I've been meaning to get over to Nashville and look at the microfilmed archives of the Dyersburg State Gazette to see if they covered the opening. But until I am able to do so, I think I am satisfied with what I've got.
Second, this bridge is definitely more susceptible to barge strikes than normal, probably due to the bend in the river immediately to the north. The Benjamin G. Humphreys Bridge had a similar situation. However, I haven't been able to find a source that explicitly states that this bridge is unusually prone to strikes, although this is very clear if you look at the statistics for other bridges on the lower Mississippi. As such, I wish I could find such a source, but I haven't been able to.
Finally, I'm wondering if I should improve the description of the interchange at the eastern terminus. If you look at it on a map, you will see that the freeway seamlessly transitions from I-155 to US 51. However, a lane change is necessary to stay on US 51 and US 412 coming from both directions. I'm wondering if I should describe this in better detail. I'm wondering if I should also mention that US 412 behind a brief concurrency with US 51 here. Any suggestions? Bneu2013 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Just noticed that I had forgot to add a sentence about a barge collision and sinking, which I have just done. Also, I caught a missing period, so if you haven't done so, I'd recommend giving the article another read-through before finishing the review. I will do the same. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
You're only able to write articles based on the availability of sources. So while it would be ideal having a definite opening date, you might be able to get an alternate source. However, not every interstate article mentions when every stretch of road opened up. That would be good aspirations if every piece of the interstate highway system was eventually a featured article. I'd say a microfilmed archive would only be worth the trip if you plan on taking this further. I think the description for the eastern terminus is fine, as it's accurate, and that's good enough for GA. But in the future if you want to take this to an FA, that would be something worth expanding. 
One last thought, is it worth merging the Caruthersville Bridge article? It seems like everything in that article is also in this article, which makes sense, the bridge was the main reason for the interstate. That doesn't affect this GA nomination, and after reading through it again, I'm happy to pass the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so. Bridges like this are typically notable on their own, and covered by a different WikiProject. I'm actually planning on improving that article, although I'm not sure I'll try for a GA. There's a lot more history I'd go in depth about that I wouldn't mention in this article, such as when each construction contact was awarded, who the contractors were, more bridge strikes, etc. Thanks for the review! Bneu2013 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

... that Interstate 155 is the only piece of surface transportation infrastructure that directly connects the U.S. states of Missouri and Tennessee? Source: 
Reviewed:

Bneu2013 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC).

Comment: AAroads copied Wikipedia, so Earwig is wrong by saying this article is a copy; disregard it. Roast (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Another comment: Can we use, perhaps, some clearer and less jargon-y language than "surface transportation infrastructure"? While I understand that the point is to make clear that there is no rail or pedestrian connection, I don't think most readers will pick up on that. It sounds too clever ("Why Don't We Do It In the Surface Transportation Infrastructure?" "The surface transportation infrastructure to hell is paved with good intentions") Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. This is something I was on the fence about. I did indeed want to emphasize that there is no rail or pedestrian connection. If anyone knows of a better way to emphasize this, I'm all for it. I had also considered something like "Did you know that Interstate 155 crosses the Mississippi River on the Caruthersville Bridge, the only bridge connecting Missouri and Tennessee?" Bneu2013 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
A bit more casual but how about "that Interstate 155 is the only way to get directly from Missouri to Tennessee without a boat?" I T B F 📢 14:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Overall:  Review as follows: article is new and lengthy enough, uses reliable sources from national and local newspaper as well as verifiable documents and reports, article is plagiarism free (as mentioned above, it is the external sources who copied Wikipedia), hook is cited and interesting, QPQ has been done. All good! Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)