Talk:Tennessee State Route 357

GA review

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:Tennessee State Route 357/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 03:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Please respond to comments with {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc. Note that I may make some suggestions that are beyond the GA criteria – my aim is to make the article as good as possible – but I will only pass/fail based on the criteria. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Bneu2013: Good work on this article - it looks close to GA. Just a few clarifications, copyedits, and source fixes needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• There's some inconsistency regarding the location of the route. The lede only mentions the county, the route description says it's all in Kingsport but later says Blountville, and the infobox and junction list say one end is in Blountville. I would recommend county (and maybe city) in the lede, and both county and city in the route description. The cities in the infobox and junction list should agree with the prose.
  • This is an unusual situation. The route is several miles from what most people would consider the principal part of Kingsport, although the city annexed all the way out to SR 357 and the Airport back when nonconsensual annexation was legal in Tennessee. A similar situation exists for the interchange between I-81 and I-26/US 23. SR 357 is technically closer to Blountville, which is an unincorporated community, than the principal parts of Kingsport. So the airport has a Blountville address despite technically being with the city limits of Kingsport. I'm leaning towards referring to the route's location as Blountville, but maybe including mention of the Kingsport city limits. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Update - please let me know what you think of my changes. This is hard because the route is really located in a predominantly rural area and approximately equidistant between Kingsport and Blountville. You can see what I'm talking about by looking at a map. Most people are probably unaware of the fact that the Kingsport city limits stretch into almost an island/peninsula to encompass SR 357 and the airport, as I don't believe there are any signs signifying this. I don't want to include anything that incorrectly suggests the route is located in the principal populated area of Kingsport. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
      • This makes me so glad I mostly deal with southern New England, where every square inch is part of a municipality. The first paragraph of "route description" looks good; I think that's a good way of explaining the situation. I think we can omit any other mention of Blountville (and label it as Kingston) given that the road is neither close to Bountville nor within the CDP limits, but is inside the Kingston limits; having a Blountville mailing address isn't really relevant for a road. (Do any of the sources explicitly show that interchange as being in Blountville?) I've made the edit here, but I won't be offended if you want to modify it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

      @Pi.1415926535: - your changes in the infobox look good. Since we mention in the rd that it isn't in the principal park of Kingsport, I guess that will suffice. I don't know of any sources that state the road is in Blountville; all I know is the airport has a Bluntville address. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• Bold "Airport Parkway" in the lede.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Route description

• Mention length in this section.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• The infobox and this section go south-to-north, but the lede discusses it north-to-south (...a connector route from Interstate 81 (I-81) to the Tri-Cities Regional Airport...) I would recommend making this consistent.
  • This is because of terminology. Routes are usually referred to as "north-south" roads, but when describing the route, we usually describe them from south to north. This is partly because mileposts run south to north. Let me know what you think of this. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Not quite sure I follow, but it's not an issue worth holding up GA over. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
      • In layman's terms, people usually refer to routes as running north-south or east-west. For example "I-81" is a north-south Interstate." However, when describing the route in detail, we usually start from south to north, or west to east. I.e. "I-81 runs from its southern terminus in Dandridge, Tennessee, to the Canadian border in Upstate New York". This is probably because mileposts usually run north to south and west to east. Another roads editor could probably describe this convention better than me. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see. Since the route description goes south to north, perhaps the lede should as well? (I.e, ...serves as a connector route from the Tri-Cities Regional Airport to Interstate 81 (I-81)...)
          •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• a long distance is ambiguous - give an approximate distance or simply say it's outside the main populated area.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• Rather than saying Here the road continues east..., I would phrase it as something like East of the interchange, the unnumbered Airport Parkway continues as a two-lane highway to the main airport terminal and parking area.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• Mention the intersection with Harry Steadman Drive?
  •  Done - we don't normally mention local roads, but considering the length of SR 357 and the fact that this road serves a business park, I guess it'll work. Please let me know what you think of the change. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• Mention that Browder Road only continues about half a mile.
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

History

• Link Interstate Highway System
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• I-81 seems to run northwest of the airport, not northeast.
  • Fixed - this was something I'd meant to fix already. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• since the project was still in the planning phase: is "the project" the connector road or I-81?
  • Technically both. The road was planned to be (and ultimately was) constructed in conjunction with that section of I-81. Since this was a few years away at the time, the local governments were reluctant to appropriate funding at the time since many uncertainties remained. Let me know what you think I should do.

• • On a related note, this section of I-81 was completed around the same time as I-81. I've debated including this, but am leaning towards it. Let me know what you think. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    • I think you might have a typo in that question (I-81 completed the same time as I-81?) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Yes - that's a typo. That section of I-81 partially opened in December 1974, and fully opened in August 1975, two months after SR 357. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. I think it's worth including. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

           Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Source numbers refer to this version.

• Source 3 needs its scale corrected (I think it should be 1:158,400), and page number added (if applicable)
  •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Page number still needs added (or the template removed if the source isn't paginated). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• Source 35 is incomplete.
  • This is a Federal Register citation, which I don't really know how to cite correctly. Do you? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Looks like the correct version is {{Federal Register|70|72870}}. I would recommend using {{cite journal}} with the Federal Register template at the end - see the next-to-last citation of Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad#Abandonment for an example where I did so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Fixed - Bneu2013 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• Archived sources (22, 27, etc) generally don't need access dates, since the archived version is a permalink to a specific date.
  • I did add these directly, but InternetArchiveBot always includes the archive dates when rescuing sources. So I don't see any reason to cut these, especially since not all of the snapshots are exactly the same. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes, the archive date is essential. The access date (which is just when a human happened to look at the un-archived source) is what I recommend removing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

      I don't see any problem with including it as is, but I'll remove if you'd like. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• Source 8 doesn't quite support the sentence Others felt that Sullivan County should not be responsible... - it merely says the Bristol mayor thought Appalachian Highway funds might be available.
  • It doesn't explicitly say that someone suggested other cities or counties should provide funding, but it does indicate that someone thought Sullivan County shouldn't necessarily be required to fund the entire 50% match required by state law. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
    • You're right, I missed an entire relevant paragraph in the source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• Sources 10 (when combined with 12), 17, 21, and 32 verify the attached claims.

@Pi.1415926535: - I've responded to all your comments. Also, thanks for adding the photo. I'd searched for photos of this road, but I somehow missed the one. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: Replies above. Glad I could find that picture! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: okay, I think I've addressed everything else. Please let me know what you think about including the I-81 opening dates and the description of the route direction. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: Replies above. I'll let you make any final change(s) from those comments, and then it'll be ready to pass. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: - that should be everything. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Great work, passing now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.