From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHigh Five Interchange 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2012 Good article nomineeListed

Photo

I added a photo. Is the placement good, or is this an improper use of the map attribute? Foobaz· o< 02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The first photo shown is beautiful but doesn't show what is unique about the interchange. This interchange has an exceptional number of overpasses but the photo readers see first makes it look like any other interchange. We should move this image down and put up a new image that shows the impressive depth of the interchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aylissa-S ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Tunnel

Weren't there plans to tunnel I-635 underneath the High Five for about a quarter mile? I recall stumbling across some plans for such a thing at TxDOT back in 2000 or 2001. - Rolypolyman 06:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Dallas Hike and Bike Trail Was Built-In to the High Five

The Cottonwood Trail was built as a part of the High Five, it runs under 75 and 635. I am not Wiki savvy so I have no idea how to incorporate this into the article. Here is a data sheet from the city of Dallas http://www.dallasparks.org/Downloads/Trails/cottonwood.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 17:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Don't know if you're the one who added it, but I edited it a little bit to get more out of the source. Thanks for your contribution. =) — Onore Baka Sama( speak | stalk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Diagram

A diagram would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.243.188.172 ( talk) 01:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Description

The first paragraph of the lead section repeats too much of the first paragraph from the Description section. A Good Article's lead should summarize the rest of the article, not repeat it. Folklore1 ( talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Also, it seems that there's construction details missing from the history... -- Rs chen 7754 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply
I've unnominated it and I'm working on the article. Thanks for the comments. MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply
Not a problem. I don't think that we have an interchange article that is a GA yet, so the "standard" of what one looks like is still a bit fluid. But feel free to ask at WT:USRD if you have any questions or need input. -- Rs chen 7754 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:High Five Interchange/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titoxd ( talk · contribs) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I'll be reviewing the article. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    The prose needs some work. More specific comments:
    • The High Five Interchange is the first five-level stack interchange to be built in the US city of Dallas, Texas. — why "to be built"? Simply "built" would be accurate, and avoids excessive wordiness introduced by the infinitive clause. Also, "US city" is not necessary, as "Dallas, Texas" introduces enough spatial context. Additionally, the first paragraphs of the both the lead and route description section are almost identical; I'd recommend expanding the paragraph in the description section to avoid needless repetition.
    Done
    • I would eliminate "(LBJ)" from the lede and the first paragraph of the route description section, as you never actually use the LBJ abbreviation anywhere else in the article.
    Done
    • The High Five is the first five-level stack interchange to be built in that city.[3]— by using "that", you imply that there is another city that the reader needs to keep in context (e.g. "this city"). I'd simply say "built in the city".
    Done
    • It replaces the antiquated three-level, modified cloverleaf interchange built in the 1960s that caused a severe bottleneck by narrowing US 75 to two lanes at the junction of the two highways. — while grammatically correct, this sentence is very close to being a run-on. Split it into smaller sentences. Also, since you mentioned that US 75 was narrowed down to 2 lanes, it would be helpful to know how many lanes it was originally narrowed from. (A 3→2 lane bottleneck is not as bad as a 4→2 lane bottleneck…)
    Partly done - fix run-on sentence; no information on how many lanes US 75 had before being narrowed to two lanes, so I removed the number
    I personally would prefer to have at least the "down to 2 lanes" part as opposed to having just "fewer". Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Further, the disconnection of its two frontage roads made local access difficult.[4] — more details, please. Did the frontage roads bridge over one another, did one terminate on the other, or something else? "Disconnection" is too vague to the lay reader.
    ??? - its not explained further anywhere so I interpreted it to what I gathered it meant. Does that work?
    I guess it works for me. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    • The interchange is as high as a 12-story building.[1] It includes 37 bridges spread across five levels (the "High Five"), 710 support tiers, and 60 miles of additional highway. — these two sentences can be easily combined. ("…as a 12-story building,[1] and includes…") Also, why is the interchange so tall? Is it a natural result of the 5-level configuration, or is each level extra tall when compared to other similar interchanges?
    Partly done plus Explanation - It was so tall because that was the construction design - From Popular Mechanics: "As Mahmassani points out, building wider roads is just not feasible in most cities. The solution for Dallas? Go vertical. Certain points of the High Five are as tall as a 12-story building, and about 500,000 commuters pass through it daily. The project required 37 permanent bridges and six temporary bridges to be built. Additionally, 300,000 square feet of retaining wall and 74,000 square feet of drainage pipe run along the interchange. In 2006, the American Public Works Association selected the interchange as one of its "Public Works Projects of the Year."
    - since there are other five-level stack interchanges in cities, Popular Mechanics would not have selected this one emphasizing its height if equal height were a natural result of the 5-level structure, I concluded (perhaps wrongly).
    • along with the visually appealing colorful finishing (waterborne acrylic paint formulation specified by TxDOT[11]), — "visually appealing finish", plus I'm not entirely sure that we need to know that the paint is a special formula. Also, while I know what TxDOT means, do spell out the name of the agency the first time you use it, per WP:MTAA.
    Done
    • and was located one of most intensely developed commercial zones in Dallas. — "located in one"
    Done
    • A goal was to build in design flexibility in anticipation of future needs for improvement.[11] — what does that even mean? It sounds like bureaucratese, to be honest.
    Removed
    • Zachry Construction Corporation submitted the lowest bid and was awarded the $261 million contract by TxDOT — when was the contract awarded?
    Not done - don't know when it was awarded.
    • The construction contract contained elements unique to such contracts.[5] — I don't understand the plural in "contracts" here. Was there more than one?
    Tried to explain in text - construction contracts for transportation projects don't contain some of the elements contained in this one. Changed wording in text, hopefully clearer.
    I think I know what you meant, and I rephrased it in the article to make it clearer. Did my edit introduce inaccuracies? Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Construction began on January 2, 2002.[14] — this sentence seems out of place, as it is between two sentences describing stipulations in the contract. In particular, the last sentence of the section mentions this fact again.
    Removed
    • "lane rentals" by TxDOT for time they closed down traffic lanes, fees — use an em dash instead of a comma, or modify the sentence so that you don't have a dangling clause at the end of the sentence.
    Done
    • To save time and money, innovative constructions were used. — what are "innovative constructions"? You mean "innovative methods of construction" or something similar
    Done
    • cast-in-place segmental concrete was substituted in the plans. — is there an article you can link in here?
    No. I read all over Wikipedia and the articles are not very good and don't explain anything clearly. I think "cast-in-place" means pouring the concrete into forms where they will be located (like pouring a sidewalk). This was the original plan but the contractor changed to precast. It's not explained how it enhanced the construction cost or time line.
    • Is there a reason to have a blockquote in the article, as opposed to simply paraphrasing the amount of raw materials used?
    Done - (was just to avoid copyvio)
    • In 2006, the American Public Works Association named the High Five "Public Works Project of the Year".[3] — Add more details here. Why was the project named so?
    Can you suggest an appropriate paraphrase of why it was given the award?

    (This is the reason given by the American Public Works Association) As tall as a 12-story building, the massive concrete structure is relieving a bottleneck that has strangled city traffic for years. The Interchange consists of just under 60 lane miles of new roadway (comparable to the width of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex), stretching 3.4 miles east and west and 2.4 miles north and south (equivalent to about 100 New York City blocks). At the intersection of Interstate 635 (LBJ Freeway) and U.S. 75 (North Central Expressway), the interchange is designed to improve traffic flow, driving conditions and safety for more than 500,000 commuters each day. It was completed 13 months ahead of its original 60-month construction schedule and replaces an outdated three-level modified partial cloverleaf interchange built in the 1960s. Through four years of construction, the project required more than 2.2 million cubic yards of earthwork, 350,000 cubic yards of concrete produced onsite, 300,000 square feet of retaining walls and 74,000 linear feet of drainage pipe. The effort also included construction of 37 permanent bridges and six temporary bridges, encompassing 2.3 million square feet of bridge deck.

    I will interpret these reasons this and you can tell me what you think. Suggestions accepted!

MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    You may want to rename some of the sections to match Wikipedia:USRD/STDS#Article layout.
    Reply - can you give me some suggestions? I read the linked section but I don't understand what applies to this article.
    In particular, rename the "construction" section to "history". "Route description" would apply if this were a road, but since it is not really a route as much as it is just a route segment, "description" works here.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Is source 15 reliable? Also, the formatting of citations is sub-par. That is not part of WP:WIAGA, but is something that needs to be addressed for the article to be assessed A-Class or higher, IMO.
    Reply - Removed source 15 - wasn't necessary anyway. Regarding formatting of citations, I used the cite templates. What should I do to improve the formating?
    • All citations need publication dates and authorship information, if available.
    • Citation 3 needs author and publisher information.
    • Citation 7 is essentially part the online companion to a textbook, so it would better to cite this one using {{ cite book}}
    • Citation 11 should link and capitalize Sherwin-Williams. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
    Done
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    See the comments in the prose section for areas where expansion or clarification are desirable.
    Done
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The caption for the second image needs to be expanded. Say that it is an aerial view, mention which road goes over what, or anything, but the current caption is mostly useless.
    Sort of done - The text says US 75 is on the bottom and I-635 is on the third level (though what the third level is isn't very clear from image.) Should I write a long caption giving the five levels and their contents, as is in the text?
    Nah, the current one works. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The article still needs some work to meet GA status, but there are no major flaws that would take major work to fix. Thus, I'm putting the article on hold. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for reviewing the article. I will work on the article tomorrow. MathewTownsend ( talk) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I have tried to take care of your concerns? Is this satisfactory, and are there other concerns? MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

1st sentence

the 1st sentence gave a wrong impression saying it is 'the 1st built ever'... . i have changed it to a proper language. it is the '1st of dallas', and should be stated such. if anyone disagrees, please discuss here before consensus is made. HasperHunter ( talk) 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The word "of" is awkward here... this isn't an interchange of Dallas, it's an interchange in Dallas. The language before was the right preposition, and it didn't state "first ever", it stated "first built in Dallas". Sorry, the proposed change is grammatically and semantically incorrect. Imzadi 1979  → 16:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The way the 1st sentence reads today is "The High Five Interchange is one of the first five-level stack interchanges built in Dallas, Texas." As far as I know, it is the only five-level interchange in Dallas. I thought the meaning of the first sentence was to say it was one of the first five-level interchanges built anywhere and it happens to be in Dallas, TX. If that is the case, I would propose: "The High Five Interchange is one of the first five-level stack interchanges." (then proceed with the 2nd sentence) "Built in Dallas, Texas, it is Located at the junction of the Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway (Interstate 635, I-635) and the Central Expressway (US Highway 75, US 75), it replaces an antiquated partial cloverleaf interchange constructed in the 1960s." Jameywiki ( talk) 17:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Inaccuracy introduced

Someone has incorrectly added that this interchange was named after the celebratory gesture. My attempts to correct this inaccuracy were reverted, so I've added a failed verification tag. MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks to those who reverted the inaccuracy! MathewTownsend ( talk) 20:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on High Five Interchange. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Traffic volume today

What is the current traffic volume? The stat given of 500,000 vehicles a day for the old interchange over 10 years ago is already pretty astounding. It must have been quite a large and complex interchange itself. Surely traffic is significantly higher now. For instance, a similarly sized interchange that was just completed in Miami-Dade Florida is quoted as 430,000 now, about or "over" 400,000 previously. Congestion was and is high through the interchange still, but that is a lot due to congestion on the to major expressways it junctions, despite also having up to 14 lanes, costing twice as much, having 45 bridges, and being four or five levels. B137 ( talk) 05:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Total lane amount and ambiguity

So the 635 has 14 regular highway lanes (10 "normal" and 4 express lanes), which is a lot but not extraordinary for a large suburban metro.But then the 75 and 635 have six lane frontage roads, all four directions (NSWE) having three through lanes. So counting the frontage lanes, since they are integral to Texas highway design, the 635 is a 20-lane freeway. That's record pushing for the US at least. LA is littered with freeways, but they are not quite that wide, up to 14 or 16 lanes, but all freeway no frontage counted. NYC and older metros have worse congestion and stats that would call for 20 lanes plus, but they are more urban and would have to use a vertically raised tarmac over the existing ones, which is often alluded to but never really done. South Florida/Miami area, the "forgotten metro" in terms of recognition of size and growth, is also pushing the boundaries of all their highways, with several up to 12 lanes and a max of 14 if counted dubiously, but with new express lane and Turnpike widening currently underway, could see a push to 16 or more. DFW and Houston have awful traffic and long commutes. They are worse than Miami as far as being physically larger, more spread out and suburban metros, but are actually no bigger in terms of population (all three are about six million). That may be a bit surprising, almost anybody would say DFW and Houston are "much larger" than Miami. Can't think of any other place that would have more than a 12-lane highway. B137 ( talk) 00:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC) reply

^ Miami is in fact currently 'double decking' one of it's highways as a rebuild of the historic Midtown Interchange on the north side of Downtown Miami, where I-95 meets the Dolphin Expressway and the MacArthur Causeway and soon to be Signature Bridge (Miami) over land spanning the highway over US1. B137 ( talk) 05:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Five Interchange. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Five Interchange. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:High_Five_Interchange&oldid=1206764336"