Talk:Interstate 85 in North Carolina

Began the talk page. Any and all comments and questions are welcomed. --Bdj95 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. Only those regarding the page are. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NC state highway shields

NC state highway shields are all square, no matter the number, so routes with 3 digits are still 20px... just so you know for future reference. --Triadian 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Exit 68

The northbound and southbound parts are separate. Northbound, it's linked to NC 152, while southboumd, it's linked to US 29 via an unsigned connector. I added this, but it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.209 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several locations along I-85 like that, it's not unique. Northbound/Southbound ramps are typically noted if they are incomplete in some way like no return ramp and such. Since both sides of I-85 are signed the same, its not worth mentioning. If others want to weigh in on this, I'm willing to listen and consider otherwise. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no direct return to I-85 from the NC 152 northbound exit. Northbound motorists exiting at Exit 68 onto NC 152 desiring to re-enter northbound I-85 must utilize the unsigned connector, and vice-versa for southbound motorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.92 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interstate 85 in North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203052023/http://www.ncdot.org/public/50thanniv/ncinterstates/download/factsI85.pdf to http://www.ncdot.org/public/50thanniv/ncinterstates/download/factsI85.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 85 in North Carolina. 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/20111025123251/http://charlotte.news14.com/content/sports/auto_racing/648280/mecklenburg-county-commissioners-approve--jeff-gordon-expressway- to http://charlotte.news14.com/content/sports/auto_racing/648280/mecklenburg-county-commissioners-approve--jeff-gordon-expressway-
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sunherald.com/2012/05/24/3970042/ready-for-the-jeff-gordon-expressway.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601193224/http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/03/2983541/new-interchange-planned-for-bottlenecked.html to http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/03/2983541/new-interchange-planned-for-bottlenecked.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715233955/http://www.salisburypost.com/News/040910-bridge-wilcox-bridge-at-river-closed to http://www.salisburypost.com/News/040910-bridge-wilcox-bridge-at-river-closed

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) 18:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Gallery split

Is anybody making any effort to split the commons category by county, and/or by city? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article?

Do you all think that this article is ready to become a good article? At first, it didn't seem like a good article, but then I realized that the route description was way too short. So I went ahead and rewrote it by hand, and added inline citations to the paragraphs that didn't have them before. After that, I nominated it, because the entire article is fully detailed, all citations are inline, and it doesn't go into unnecessary detail. Let me know if you guys have any questions. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 85 in North Carolina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I will take on this review. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try and add any comments that I have if possible. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: Unfortunately, if 2c isn't fixed shortly (like in two days), I am going to have to fail this nomination per WP:GAFAIL. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 23:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna Hmmm, I'm looking at 2c, and I'm wondering which sections are uncited. Can you tell me which sections need to be improved? Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

For example, the whole subsection 'Durham to Virginia' and 'Related routes' are unreferenced. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 23:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's not a lot of info on I-85 from Durham to Virginia (very little sources online). I can definitely fix the "Related routes" section, and probably fix the "Durham to Virginia" section as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna  Done. I've added sources in the "Related routes" section. I will try and find some for the "Durham to Virginia" section. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna Alright. I hunted around the web for any reliable sources, and found a lot to help finish the "Durham to Virginia" section by citing the unsourced claims.  Done. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Some more sections which are unrefernced:

• 2nd paragraph of the section South Carolina to Charlotte
• Last sentence of the first paragraph of Charlotte to Greensboro.
• Last sentence of Durham to Virginia.

Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna  Done. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna Let me know if you're still there to finish up the review. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Done.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Looks fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Present.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Massive amounts of uncited text. Whole subsections and sections are uncited. Fixed. More comments below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig didn't find anything.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Okay.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Looks fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All checked.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Probably fail if 2c isn't fixed shortly. Pass.

Prose

• 'Traffic from US 321 south prior to 2017' to 'Traffic from US 321 south before 2017', optional, but probably more flowing
• 'A couple miles later, I-85 has an exit' to 'A couple of miles later, I-85 has an exit'
• 'Here, I-85 turns more northward and enters' not sure why more is used here.
• Capitalize mall in 'Concord Mills mall' and wikilink the whole phrase.
• 'They do not enter Kannapolis, but have several exits signed for it.' remove the comma. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 14:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Keresluna  Done. Here are the responses to each one.

  1. 'Traffic from US 321 south prior to 2017' to 'Traffic from US 321 south before 2017' is fine. I changed that.

  2. 'A couple miles later, I-85 has an exit' to 'A couple of miles later, I-85 has an exit'. Did that as well.

  3. For 'Here, I-85 turns more northward and enters', I-85 is mostly going in a northeast direction, and even occasionally in an east direction, but I made the change anyway since it's not much of a big deal.

  4. 'They do not enter Kannapolis, but have several exits signed for it.' Done with that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oop, and I wikilinked "mall" as well. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• 'Because the previous exit is a northbound-only exit,' to 'Because the previous exit is northbound-only,', optional, but would be nice.
• 'cross above the southbound lanes and return to normal direction.' to 'cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.'
• 'continues to go through wooded forest with no development along' to 'continues to go through a wooded forest with no development along'
• 'provided for 90-percent federal funding of highways that would become' not sure why there is a hyphen.
• Remove all the way in 'Interstate eight lanes all the way to where I-40 turned'. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

   Done NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability

Random ref checks:

4: Checks out.

27: Checks out.

39: Checks out. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

4: This one is an official NCDOT map for Cleveland County. The Interstate is a little hard to see on the map of the county, but NCDOT maps are usually reliable sources.

27: This is also an NCDOT map for Granville County, but shows the bridges instead.

39: Hendrick Motorsports is a reliable source, I think, and they have several news articles, so I think it counts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• 'Another section of I-85 opened to traffic on September 9, 1958, when an 11.3-mile (18.2 km) stretch in Mecklenburg County was opened.' is uncited. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Keresluna  Done. There was a source in the NCDOT meeting archive that showed it, so I used that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your quick replies, I will now pass this article. Cheers! Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! :) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that I-85 switches directions from milemarker 96 to 102 in Davidson County?

• Source:

• Reviewed:
• Comment: You're gonna have to zoom at least 75% into the map image to see the red line, which is I-85.

Improved to Good Article status by NoobThreePointOh (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

• It's not immediately obvious what you're talking about, and you should make it clear where this "Davidson County" place is for people who won't realize it's in North Carolina, USA. So ...

ALT1: ... that for six miles (9.6 km) in Davidson County, North Carolina, traffic on I-85 drives on the left?

I also wonder if you were able to find any explanation for this in your research. I think it's been noted elsewhere as the only significant place in the US with LHT. And maybe we should put that in the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suppose that works. I'm just a little unsure about what hook exactly to choose. Yeah, I'll probably place it in the intro. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Let me review this. its new, long enough, QPQ not required, but I don't see the fact that it drives on the left anywhere in the article. I used 'Ctrl+F' for left and can only find one mention, and that is not even about the direction. JuniperChill (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, its there located just above Interstate_85_in_North_Carolina#Greensboro_to_Durham,its just worded slightly differently so I am giving it the go ahead. JuniperChill (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Unpromoted. Pulled per Special:Diff/1232390332. Note this is the second time this hook has been pulled, so sending it back to unapproved to get a good hard look. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: @BlueMoonset: @JuniperChill: For everyone here, this article had to be unpromoted from DYK due to the sourcing coming from Google Maps. After having found a much better source from NCDOT, which this article has a map, I'd like to get approval to see if it now meets the requirements for DYK. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  (drive by comment) I don't think "drives on the left" is an accurate description of what happens here. Especially with the link, this seems to indicate that left-hand traffic rules apply (instead, all that happens is that the two directions cross over each other). If we had true left hand traffic, each direction should have its shoulder and most exits on the left hand side. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, and honestly as per my previous comment IMHO we need an explicit source saying it drives on the left rather than just inferring that from a map when nobody else has noted it. As such, the switch from Google maps to a NCDOT map doesn't really address this central concern. The map still only sources that they two roads cross over each other twice, not that it's a "drive on the left" area. Somewhere like the United States Virgin Islands, on the other hand, it's clearly sourced that they drive on the left.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I guess I've given up on the DYK nomination then. All that effort I put in for nothing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  The reliability of GM is disputed, according to WP:RSP WP:GOOGLEMAPS. Its neither stated as reliable nor unreliable even after several discussions. But anyway It clearly shows that the I85 switches sides like a diverging diamond interchange without traffic lights. Since I am new to Wikipedia and DYK, I may as well leave it to another person to review/promote this hook. JuniperChill (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, Daniel Case, NoobThreePointOh, and JuniperChill: FWIW there is an article here - [1] which discusses this in detail. I suppose it's questionable whether the "North Carolina Rabbit Hole" is a reliable source, but the guy does seem to have done his research and interviewed the road's designer and suchlike, so interested on opinions on that?  — Amakuru (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Great find! I really like this concept of two rest stops in the middle that can be accessed by (normal) right exits. The author seems to be slightly more "independent journalist" than "blogger" but it isn't completely obvious why he passes our RS guidelines. If we trust his statement that there are almost no sources on this but do not trust his statement about the rest area, we won't be able to continue. —Kusma (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I started working my way through the article. To be honest, I have no idea how this passed GA; the sourcing is just abyssimal. For example, I'm looking at the first paragraph of "South Carolina to Charlotte". This entire paragraph is cited to map of Cleveland County which doesn't begin to say most of things the paragraph says. "from Cherokee County", as far as I can tell from the map, it's York County. "Most of the Interstate for its first few miles is generally rural in nature and remains four lanes." No clue how the map supports any of that. "which quietly merges onto I-85". Quietly? The map says quietly? "Interstate meets US 74 at a unique weave interchange" Unique? The maps says it's unique? "Both routes also enter Kings Mountain." Looking at the Google map, that does appear to be an accurate statement, but the cited NC DOT map certainly doesn't show it. But, to get to the matter at hand; the (supposedly) left-hand drive sections of I-85 The entire paragraph that contains this statement is cited to https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Documents/thumbs/Davidson.pdf, which doesn't even come close to supporing almost anything in that paragraph. "The landscape becomes more rural"??? "I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians"??? This really should have it's GA revoked as a defective review, but I just don't have the energy to file it. RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• I found the energy: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 85 in North Carolina/1 RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References

GA Reassessment

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from Special:Permalink/1232539652:

• I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
• The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
• I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".

I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A few more sourcing problems:

• Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39] I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
• Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43] the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.

Reading the thread noted by Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16] and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53] both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use reliable published sources to establish verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

PS, you mentioned that you don't have a newspapers.com subscription. Free access to newspapers.com is available via WP:TWL. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. Just got back from a short errand. Where is it on the Library? I can't seem to find it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, I found it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure you still have to have a subscription to view PDFs of pages and clip articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia Library does let me access the articles for free. You're right about the clipping part, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)