Talk:Interstate 235 (Oklahoma)

Interstate 235 (Oklahoma) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 13, 2025. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: Interstates / Oklahoma Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Types
	Interstate Highway System
	Locations
	Oklahoma
	Notes and alerts
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reconstruction

it seems odd to mention "Interstate 235 in Oklahoma officially finished a major reconstruction in September 2008, which changed the section of I-235 between N.W. 50th Street on the North end and N.W. 23rd on the South end. It added a third lane and an exit lane, changing the two-lane stretch into four lanes." as if it was the entire project, it is only a small part of the effort to widen it all the way to Edmond, which includes work done years ago on Broadway extension and the upcoming work at the interchange with i44 between the two segments mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.247.51 (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Broadway Extension isn't part of I-235; that work should be mentioned in U.S. Route 77 in Oklahoma instead. That said this article is in need of expansion; I'll see what I can do to find sources and work that into the article as I expand it. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 235 (Oklahoma)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 07:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alachuckthebuck (talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Prose is readable. (noting that for whatever reason, the short description doesn't show up in visual editor). I'm unsure "incomplete" is the right word to use when describing the exits.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Meets MOS lead, Layout, Watchwords, and list incorperation
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.	Refrences are properly formatted. Spot check found no error.
	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).	Citations all look good, and sources all make sense, and claims are adequately supported.
	2c. it contains no original research.	everything has references and the references are laid out properly.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	earwig came back clean
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).	goes over the important bits without diving into detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Passes NPOV with flying colors.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edits for a few days.
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.	content is properly licensed on Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	the video has captions, but could use Alt text.
	7. Overall assessment.

@TheDoctorWho: Courtesy ping All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alachuckthebuck: Thank you for reviewing this. I removed "incomplete" from the route description, since the exit list explains this aspect in further detail. I verified that the video already has alt text. (As a side note, just in case there's nothing else, I'd like to confirm that you completed a spotcheck of the sources so that this also qualifies for CUP points?)

Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all sources that weren't paywalled. I have newspapaers.com via TWL, so those got checked. This wouldn't be a good GAN if I didn't check sources! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 14:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.