This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Ontario Highway 71
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.
Nominator's comments: Highway 71 is an important highway in northwestern Ontario that connects Highway 11 and Highway 17. The highway was a substantial undertaking in the 1930s and as such has a rich history. I feel the article details the highway in a well written, well sourced and comprehensive manner, making it an ideal candidate to promote to A-Class.
I can probably review this article either tonight or tomorrow night. TCN7JM 02:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Well...five days later, here we are. Anyway, I do have a few comments.
For A-class, it would be really great if we could get a map.
In the Route description, you should mention which highway is on the other side of the bridge at Fort Frances and, for more detail, which state it crosses into.
The lead paragraph of the History section needs at least one source.
"The old routes were decommissioned on February 8, and the new route designated on March 10, 1954." Seeing as you mention 1953 in the previous sentence, and that February 8 doesn't have a year after it, this might be confused to mean February 8, 1953, although I'm pretty sure from reading it's supposed to be 1954.
When was the Sioux Narrows Bridge rebuilt as a steel structure? As it is part of the highway, this is important for the history.
Those periods shouldn't exist in the RJL for US Routes. As far as I know, only Arkansas does that.
That's about it for me. I myself copyedited one thing and fix a couple of typos and punctuation mistakes. This will be left on hold. TCN7JM 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Working on this. Unfortunately I have to trace about 200 km of Highway 17 and 100 km of Highway 11 to make the map, so it may take some time. I'm hoping other reviewers will continue to review in the absence of this and I will have it ready by the time the third review is complete with any luck.
Done
This is just a summary of the section to follow. As with an essay, the next paragraphs cover the information in detail with sourcing
I added "several weeks later" to clear that up
Yeah it is the major event in the history of the highway too.
Hopefully the current discussion will clear that up, as Ontario shares a land border with Minnesota, Michigan and New York; I like it without them, but most of all want consistency within road articles, rather than with state signage. I've used them because the article itself uses them in its title.
I can take the second review, though it may be a while. --Rschen7754 09:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Preliminary notes
Ref 16 has an error.
Map? (I know it was noted above...)
Route description
Not sure that repeating the length again when it was just in the lead is good, especially since it uses a different level of precision.
... suddenly?
the road continues south as U.S. Route 71 in Minnesota, to Chapple. - please use US 71 :P
travel concurrently north -> travel north concurrently?
History
What is a "premier"?
mid to late 1950s - check MOS to see if there are hyphens needed.
Should be a support once these issues are addressed. --Rschen7754 03:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Ref 16 fixed, and map is sooncoming (lots to do, but I understand it will likely be the final thing to have this ACR pass.
Removed redundant length, fixed wording. As for the U.S. vs US issue, has anything come of the discussion on standardizing this (I notice no further comments have been posted for about three weeks)? I would like to use US 71, but thus far I've used the term used by the article itself.
Premier linked to Premier of Ontario, the equivalent (IIRC) to the governor of a state. Hyphen issue raised at WT:MOS
Well, it doesn't need the Route, that's what I mean. --Rschen7754 22:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah! Fixed :) - Floydianτ¢ 00:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 00:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will do the third review. Dough4872 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments:
In the infobox, you should note the communities at the end of the ON 11 concurrency.
In the infobox, lead, and Route description, you should mention that ON 71 also connects to US 53 at the US border (you do in the Major intersections).
The second paragraph of the lead appears to be out of chronological order.
The sentence "The highway begins at the international bridge in Fort Frances; within the United States, the road continues south as US 71 in Minnesota, to Chapple" sounds confusing. It seems to imply that US 71 heads south to Chapple. Yet Chapple is 58 kilometers from the border crossing on ON 71. I would remove "to Chapple" as it does not seen relevant here and I would mention Chapple in the right part of the route description where ON 71 serves it.
"old Cloverleaf Trail", is old an adjective describing the trail or is it a part of the formal name? If the latter, it should be capitalized.
When was the Sioux Narrows Bridge rebuilt as a steel structure?
As discussed with ON 61, the entry for the southern terminus at the US border crossing should be fixed. The format used for ON 61 is a good idea. Dough4872 03:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
@Floydian and Dough4872: - Floydian, are you going to address these items? --AdmrBoltz 17:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Done
Done
It's supposed to be that way. I find that wording is the best way to cover the whacky history in a few sentences.
Done
Old is an adjective, as there is no recognition that the trail existed now, only in history books.
Added some info on this
Done... though I still feel what I had looks nicer.
Fortunately the URAA stuff appears resolved *knock on wood*. The '39 image wasn't renewed by it, but the '51 image was. TCH shield template fixed, obviously the licence of the uploader is invalid. - Floydianτ¢ 07:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Source 7: "and improved by 1885 into a wagon trail" - not seeing this in the source, or the bit about ON 602, or "As a lumber merchant, Mathieu promoted improved road access in the region."
Source 8: Missing "The Heenan Highway would become the first Canadian link to the Rainy River area; prior to its opening in the mid-1930s, the only way to drive to the area was via the United States." and "Nestor Falls was the northernmost point accessible by road from the Rainy River area. Heenan would become the Minister of Lands and Forests in Mitch Hepburn's cabinet."
Source 10: Good, but why not include the part about the jigsaw puzzle nature of it?
Spotcheck done, awaiting responses. --Rschen7754 20:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Added a ref to fix #7 and first part of #8 issue, was another article on the same site as #7
Added the 1923 map to ref the northernmost point. Added a link to another legislature sessional paper showing Heenan as the Minister of Lands and Forests (and Hepburn, presumably in a lapse, as the "Prime Minister of Ontario")
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.
Ridge Route
The article will remain a Featured Article. TCN7JM 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: Actually, I don't think the article should probably be demoted, per se. There's some opportunities here to bring this article up to modern expectations of a FA for USRD. I anticipate that with a little collaboration, this article can be improved and retained in its current status.
Nominated by:Imzadi 1979→ 15:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments by Dough4872
Comments by Dough4872
We should add {{infobox road}} to the article to show the termini and major intersections of the route before it was bypassed.
Citation needed for the sentence "A number of establishments were located in the forest, including the National Forest Inn, Kelly's Half Way Inn, Tumble Inn, and Sandberg's Summit Hotel."
This just sets up the next few paragraphs; don't think this is needed. --Rschen7754 03:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the reason for coordinates to be included in the prose. We do have a KML for the article.
The sentence "2 miles (3 km) north of the National Forest Inn is Serpentine Drive (34.639°N 118.719°W), where the road curves around the sides of hills as it climbs out of a low point in the route (about 3200 feet/1000 m above sea level)" should be reworded so it does not begin with a numeral.
Citation needed for "and CR N2 uses the old Ridge Route to reach State Route 138 near Quail Lake."
Fixed. --Rschen7754 09:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Construction section seems out of order. It talks about the road opening in 1915 then mentions the designation as US 99 in 1926 before jumping back to 1917 where it mentions the road being paved.
I don't think such a brief deviation is an issue; histories do that all the time, even on recent FAs. --Rschen7754 21:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the Bypasses and the fate of the bypassed road section needs citations.
A junction list should be added to the article, listing major junctions and possibly points of interest along the route.
I'm a bit skeptical about this - I'm personally not a huge fan of junction lists for roads that no longer exist. --Rschen7754 07:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I must disagree. If an accurate junction list can be made of major roads when it was open, then it should definitely be added. TCN7JM 07:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
But where would the mileages come from? Or the locations, for that matter, since city boundaries change? --Rschen7754 07:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Mileages are unneeded if none can be found, as I'd say that's nearly impossible for a road of this type, but is it not possible to write a note at the top of the junction list that says that the location are from the time the route was open? (Or just before it closed?) TCN7JM 07:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Done for major junctions. --Rschen7754 08:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The article heavily relies on the book from Scott. Are there any other sources that can be used?
I have some articles, as well as part of a Wikisource article; I hope to work on this soon. --Rschen7754 10:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now added some material. --Rschen7754 05:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There are page numbers that are needed for some of the newspaper articles.Dough4872 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Page numbers added. --Rschen7754 21:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with most of the above. It's all pretty minor stuff, even the addition of a junction list is a minor task. Just to note, after I opened this, I pinged the editor who nominated the article at FAC in 2007, and I received this reply. I would not expect any assistance from those quarters on this effort. Imzadi 1979→ 18:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Note: I still plan to work on this, perhaps later this summer. --Rschen7754 04:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick observation here... I was working on a personal project related to the lengths of roads with FAs... this article doesn't seem to give the length of the Ridge Route anywhere. Surely any article on a road should have some indication of its length. Imzadi 1979→ 18:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but the modern-day length of what is left of the road is all that is available, to my knowledge... --Rschen7754 07:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Found approximate figures. --Rschen7754 08:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
@Dough4872: Could you strike the ones that you think are good to go? Thanks. --Rschen7754 03:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Struck resolved issues. Dough4872 04:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Map_of_USA_Ridge_Route.svg does not match our current map standards. This should be replaced with a current standard map. (GFDL/CC-BY-2.0/CC-BY-SA-1.0, 2.0, 3.0)
File:Beale's Cut 1872.jpg (PD-US-1923) -- I am not so sure on this one. It was snapped in 1872, but their comment says that only unpublished works before 1923 are eligable for the 120+ year after death clause. This image may need to be removed.
[1] says the author passed away in 1977. Also according to that page, the majority of the images were unpublished, so unless we can find proof that it was published, it's probably not good. I'm pulling it from the article pending resolution. --Rschen7754 01:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
According to Rschen's link, there were about 1000 images in a private collection and someone started publishing about 250 of them from 1981 to 1996. The images that that the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society obtained in 1996 (of which this is one) were among the ~750 that were not published (note that the collection owner is not the author—the photo was taken before he was even born). It's possible that the photo was published before it became part of the collection. If that's true, then the pre-1923 rule is in effect. Otherwise, it wasn't published and the 120-year-after-creation rule applies. Thus, PD either way. —howcheng {chat} 05:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, got it. I'm okay with restoring this photo to the article, but I'll wait for Admrboltz to comment. --Rschen7754 05:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Ridge Route ca 1920 4.jpg (PD-Old (depreciated)) -- Image is from the 20s, however the creator is not credited, so we do not know when the creator died. The book was written in 1920, so if the book writer holds the copyright its eligible for PD-US-1923.
I looked at the PDF of the entire book, and see no credits anywhere. However, archive.org is hosting the entire book as not in copyright... --Rschen7754 09:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I personally think that should be Template:PD-CAGov as no copyright is asserted, including at [2] - does this sound okay? --Rschen7754 09:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I am good with that. Send it off to Commons and CSD it here. --AdmrBoltz 16:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Now done. --Rschen7754 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Are all the external links needed? Maybe just the first one, but I don't really see the others as being needed.
Removed one, but the others provide additional media. --Rschen7754 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
All done; still waiting for clarification on the image, but with it removed in the interim, it's not that consequential. --Rschen7754 03:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Overall, this is pretty up to par. However, I noticed a few issues:
"The road enters the Angeles National Forest about one mile (1.6 km) south of Templin Highway,[14] with the Forest Service road designation 8N04. A number of establishments were located in the forest, including the National Forest Inn, Kelly's Half Way Inn, Tumble Inn, and Sandberg's Summit Hotel."
The last part of this paragraph needs citations. In addition, it is very short, but it looks like it would merge seamlessly with the next paragraph.
Moved the cite, but the last sentence sets up the next few paragraphs and doesn't need a cite. Nevertheless, I've moved it to the next paragraph.
The paragraphs beginning "Kelly's Half Way Inn was roughly halfway..." and "The Tumble Inn..."
"It turned out that the county officially owned it but did not maintain it; Scott had since convinced the county and forest to exchange ownership with the Santa Anita Canyon Road, then a county road.[54]"
Awkward phrasing and tense (particularily the use of "had since")
Changed to has since. --Rschen7754 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Major intersections vs. Infobox
Why is SR 126 listed as the southern terminus but US 99 as the southernmost "junction" in the table? The KML leaves some mystery to this, but I'm assuming this has to do with the route US 99 took back in those days, which I-5 generally follows but not in the case of, for example, Grapevine Road at the northern terminus.
All done. --Rschen7754 03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep - everything looks up to par in my view. - Floydianτ¢ 03:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
Great Eastern Highway
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This article was promoted to A-Class. TCN7JM 08:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: Great Eastern Highway is the first section of the major road link between Perth and Adelaide, and part of Australia's National Highway system. The article on the 590-kilometre-long (370 mi) highway is quite substantial, has recently passed its GA nomination, and is the next article I would like to take to FAC. It is also the first High-importance AURD article to be nominated for A-class.
Nominated by:Evad37[talk] 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 04:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review this article. Dough4872 04:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments:
In the lead, why is "Great Eastern Highway" italicized?
Unitalicized. I don't remember exactly what I was thinking when I used italics, but after checking the MOS, there's no need for italics. - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"with the whole highway sealed by 1953", what does it mean for the highway to be "sealed"?
Linked sealed to chipseal - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"in Perth's east" sounds awkward, I would suggest changing this to "the eastern part of Perth".
Changed. Perhaps not the best wording, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In the lead and infobox you mention part of the Great Eastern Highway is Alternate National Route 94. You should mention it again in the second paragraph of the route description when you are discussing the allocation of the highway.
What is a "lopped ramp"? Is this supposed to be "looped ramp"?
Fixed typo - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In many places, you refer to it as "Great Eastern Highway". Shouldn't you refer to it as "the Great Eastern Highway"?
I don't think it's actually required, as its not part of the road name. And I've been told in previous reviews to be consistent with using or not using the direct article (the) when mentioning highways. Leaving it out for all roads and highways is less awkward than putting it in all for all of them. - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"three point five kilometres (2.2 mi) east" sounds awkward, it should be "3.5 kilometers (2.2 mi) east".
Changed. Seems {{convert/spell}} doesn't spell 3+1/2|km as "three and a half kilometres". -Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"lonely scrubland" does not sound right. I would get rid of the word lonely here.
Removed - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it just speculation that a convict road was built in the 1860s or is it a known fact?
Ref #17 ("Gt Eastern Highway's secret" video) says it was built in 1867, but Ref #16 ("Convicts' early roadworks unearthed") says "Thought to have been built by convicts in 1867, the road gives an insight into WA's convict history and early infrastructure" and Ref #19 (State Heritage Office "Convict road unearthed") says it was 145 years old, ie 1867, but later on says "Initial indications showed that the road was likely to have been constructed by convict labour in 1867". - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, seeing the use of italics in the history.
Removed as per #1 - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "In 1994, the federal government approved a $43.9 million project to upgrade substandard section between Northam and Southern Cross." has verb agreement issues.
Adjusted - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In the Bypasses section, I would remove the link to Australian dollar as it is of little value and is not used elsewhere in the article.
Removed - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why are the bridges over the Helena and Avon rivers included in the Major intersections? Generally only bridges with articles are included. Also the formatting for both bridge crossings is inconsistent. Dough4872 04:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
MOS:RJL lists "major water bodies" as items to include, so they are included based on the notability and significance of the rivers. I change the second one to also use {{Jctbridge}}. - Evad37[talk] 09:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - Concerns addressed. Dough4872 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Review / Image review by Admrboltz
Review by Admrboltz
References
Ref 18 (Gt Eastern Highway's secret (info)) doesn't seem to work for me.
Then it's probably region-locked to Australia, because it is working for me - Evad37[talk] 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Your map references should have scales indicated.
Added the scale for Ref 58 (Plan for the Metropolitan Region). The others don't specify a scale in numbers, they just have scale bars - presumably because with computer files, the scale varies based on your zoom level, or the paper size you print it out on. Same with Google maps, they don't have a fixed scale. - Evad37[talk] 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Its something Imzadi1979 (talk·contribs) and I have discussed on IRC lately. You can either do "Scale not given" for your maps that just have the bar or either measure your screen with the pdf at 100% resolution or print the legend at 100% resolution then work out the scale fraction from there. Google Maps does not need a scale defined. (@Imzadi1979: - Might be worth noting on the Google Maps/Bing Maps/Yahoo Maps template documentation that scale is not needed.) --AdmrBoltz 06:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Seeing I was mentioned here, I'll just briefly comment. Of the two citation styles (Chicago Manual of Style, MLA) I used in my college classes this past semester, neither gave specific citation formats for maps. However, when looking up formats, various university websites did give citation formats for maps in Chicago, APA and MLA, and in all cases I found, "Scale not given" or a scale was listed for fixed maps. For dynamic scaled maps, like Google, etc, nothing was indicated. (As for the Google/Bing/Yahoo templates, they can't be given a scale anyway.) Imzadi 1979→ 06:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Overlinking in your references (only the first instance of a newspaper needs to be linked, etc)
Fixed - Evad37[talk] 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You have CS1 errors - these are mostly the use of seperate Month and Year fields (should use a unified date field) or coauthors.
Fixed - Evad37[talk] 04:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Prose
"a river crossing into Perth's CBD (central business district)" - typically abbreviations are spelt-out first then put into () after > Perth's Central Business District (CBD).
Changed - Evad37[talk] 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Typically, but not always, speed limits are left out of USRD articles as its a bit trivial and borders on Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide.
WP:NOTEVERYTHING says "Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight". I think that including a brief mention, in general terms, of the main speed limit zones is useful encyclopaedic information, and approriately weighted to the size of the article. It allows readers to see which parts are low speed/medium speed/high speed – without listing every single sections speed limit and each change point. (Also, lots of stuff in road articles comes somewhat close to one or more of the WP:NOT examples – RJLs, traffic volumes, dual/single carriagway, etc – but are still included, with an appropriate level of detail) - Evad37[talk] 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. --AdmrBoltz 14:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
With units under 10 (e.g. 2.1 km, etc), you should be using {{convert/spell}} and not {{convert}}, which will spell out the units.
Dough asked for it the other way above, as spelling out numbers with decimal points is a bit awkward - Evad37[talk] 17:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, though {{convert/spell|2+1/10|km|mi}} works though... though its still awkward. I won't hold you to either way at this point. --AdmrBoltz 17:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
"where the highway encounters a steep[note 1]" - why is this a foot note and not just in the prose?
Integrated into prose. I originally put it in as a footnote because it is more of a technical detail, and I thought the prose flowed better that way. - Evad37[talk] 14:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I can take the third review. --Rschen7754 11:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Infobox
Opened 1860s - source?
Added a ref from the Convict-era road section - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Major settlements" wide label makes the second column too narrow on small screens. Is there anything that can be done about this?
I had a look at the difference between "Major settlements" and just "Major", and there's really not much in it. On Windows 7, regardless of window size, Firefox showed no difference, and Chrome and IE only had a 12 pixel difference in width. Everything that is currently going onto two lines would still be on two lines. - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
RJL
The table seems unusually crowded and dense. For example, do we need "Traffic light controlled intersection"? Also, is it possible to use abbreviations for "State Route"?
Removed "Traffic light controlled intersection" notes. There are no official or commonly used abbreviations, and Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing abbreviations, so we are stuck with the unabbreviated form. - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Check capitalization in the notes section - subsequent clauses should not be capitalized
Adjusted - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Is "T Junction" a proper noun?
Adjusted - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Usually we don't cite Google Maps in the table unless we're using that for the mileages. Not a deal-breaker, but it might help make the table header less cluttered.
Removed (but if verification of the column contents is requested later, I'll put it or another source back) - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
References
LATE CITY should be titlecased, at least, same with CITY FINAL. --Rschen7754 11:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Changed - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay - my time for HWY is about to decrease significantly, but I'll try and get this done...
though it is commonly described as travelling "up Greenmount" - by who?
The source (State Heritage Office "Greenmount Hill") doesn't specify, all it says is "Even today, the Great Eastern Highway, at present the main route to the Eastern States, is said to travel 'up Greenmount', even though the road runs north of the actual hill." - Evad37[talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikilinked - Evad37[talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
What is remnant vegetation?
Remnant is wikt:remnant, clarified that vegetation is native vegetation, linked to native plant. - Evad37[talk] 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
History
The use of "whilst" seems odd.
Removed per point below - Evad37[talk] 03:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That entire subsection seems a bit off; perhaps arranging the sentences in a different order might be helpful. I had to reread it a few times because the explanation came too far after the facts.
Rearranged/copyedited - Evad37[talk] 03:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
What is a forward works program? --Rschen7754 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Presumably scheduled future works. The news story uses the term without explaining it, and the only reference on Main Roads' website is in their annual reports' description of the executive team – "... His Directorate is responsible for contributing to the development, management and preparation of the budget and programming activities. This includes the annual budget and forward works program,..." - Evad37[talk] 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Review now completed. --Rschen7754 06:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 23:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
Source 5: Good on V and CP.
Source 7: Good on V and CP.
Source 8: Good on V and CP.
Source 11: Good on V and CP.
Source 19: Good on V and CP.
Source 20: Good on V and CP.
Source 26: Good on V and CP.
Source 27: Good on V and CP.
Source 32: Good on V and CP.
Source 33: Good on V and CP.
Source 41: Good on V and CP.
Source 44: Good on V and CP.
Source 47: Good on V and CP.
Source 53: Good on V and CP.
Source 55: Good on V and CP.
Source 62: scheduled/was to begin, because the article was written before the scheduled beginning.
Added a 2007 source that specifies January 2001 - Evad37[talk] 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Source 63: will AGF here as it's in the abstract.
Source 72: was to begin, because the article was written before the scheduled planning.
Adjusted wording - Evad37[talk] 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Source 73: "recent cost analysis had been undertaken" a bit too close to the source. Same with "is a federal government responsibility."
Adjusted wording - Evad37[talk] 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck done. --Rschen7754 02:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
The article was promoted to A-Class - Floydianτ¢ 04:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: Having just passed its Good Article Nomination, I believe that Legacy Parkway is ready for the next step.
Nominated by:AdmrBoltz 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 01:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review this article. Dough4872 01:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
Why is the title of the article "Legacy Parkway" and not "Utah State Route 67"? It is common USRD practice to use the route number over the road name. See Maryland Route 200 versus Intercounty Connector.
Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA the highway is most commonly referred to in media as Legacy Parkway and not as SR-67. The designation is signed, but it's really more of a tracking tool than the actual name of the highway. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In the lead, you have the route description and history mixed. You should try to do the route description first followed by a chronological history in the lead.
"The parkway begins at an incomplete interchange with I-215 in extreme northern Salt Lake County, allowing northbound motorists from the Interstate to transfer onto Legacy Parkway and vice-versa." the description of the partial movements at this interchange seem vague. I would expand upon this.
I don't see how that is vague at all. It perfectly explains the movement. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I would perhaps mention that southbound Legacy Parkway motorists can trasnfer to southbound I-215. The "vice versa" wording may confuse readers. Dough4872 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You should write more about the physical surroundings in the route description.
There really isn't much to say about whats around it. There is the 2,000 acre wetlands to the west and some train tracks for most of the eastern side. It was built in undeveloped land. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
"Should the parkway be extended further north, connections will be complicated due to the opening of the Farmington FrontRunner station just north of the parkway", wouldn't this sentence be more appropriate for the history?
The sentence "Original plans for the highway had included a six-lane freeway, compared to the four-lane controlled-access parkway that was built" may also better fit in the history.
The history seems to be skewed toward the lawsuit. Maybe you should add more details about the planning and construction of the route. Dough4872 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The lawsuits were what made the highway notable in Utah. Yeah, its saving a bit of commute time, but it's main claim to fame was its its controversy. I have broken up the paragraph about it in the history so there is just the one paragraph about it plus the sentence in the route description. --AdmrBoltz 01:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
There aren't any planning details from between the 1960s and 2001 that you can add? Any additional details about the groundbreaking (if there was a ceremony)? Dough4872 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
With the recent gutting of the Google News archives (killing all access to old Deseret News articles and the fact that The Salt Lake Tribune only syndicates certain stories into ProQuest, I have added what I can. --AdmrBoltz 03:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Article looks good. Dough4872 03:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have done a bit more digging on history and have added it in. I had not thought to search for the previous name of the highway. --AdmrBoltz 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Image review by Philroc
Y File:Utah SR 67.svg PD-MUTCD-UT
Y File:Legacy parkway.png Non-free with appropriate fair use rationale
Y File:Legacy Parkway map.png PD-self
The map is actually not OK since it doesn't have GIS sources, and its original creator has gone dark. I've requested a new map at the MTF. --AdmrBoltz 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
New map is done and cited. –Fredddie™ 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Y File:LegacyParkway3.jpg CC-BY 2.0
All images check out. Philroc (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
Review by Fredddie
I'll give it a look-see. –Fredddie™ 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Infobox and lead
Nothing sticks out to me in the infobox
Might want to mention in the lead that the wetlands are at the edge of the Great Salt Lake.
Adding onto that, I'm not sure if the railroad is the best descriptor of what lies east of the highway. It seems like the road is the westernmost thing in the area.
Well for about half the route the only thing to the east of the highway is the rail line and I-15. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to see in the lead why the Sierra Club was against the road. Excuse the paraphrase, but it kinda reads "There are no trucks or billboards because Sierra Club."
... well thats about it really. I will work on it though. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked some. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
See the KML note in the History subsection
Route description
The Utah route log says the county line is at 0.239. So it should be 1⁄4 mile (400 m) instead of 3⁄10.
"The parkway then turns northeasterly and back north again, intersecting with 500 South..." Can we change "intersecting" into a present tense verb? I get uneasy when I see a comma and the first word after it ends in -ing. (see the first Pennsylvania Turnpike ACR)
Is there an article for those screwy street names the Utah street name convention. If so, it might be good to link it at 500 South.
There isn't unfortunately. They also make perfect sense once you've lived here for more than a week ;) If this was entirely in Salt Lake County I could refer to the Salt Lake meridian but most of the route is in Davis County, and the numbering resets at county lines. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
"The parkway continues north before beginning a curve to the northeast in West Bountiful." I don't like this sentence because if you look at the route on a map, you could argue that the curve begins at the 500 South interchange. You could say "In West Bountiful, the parkway curves to the northeast as it follows the contour of the wetlands which lie on the western side of the road." or something like that.
Changed to your wording. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Which do you like better?
"Past the intersection, the parkway parallels I-15 with Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority (FrontRunner) railroad tracks in between."
"Past the intersection, Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority (FrontRunner) railroad tracks run between the parkway and I-15 to the east."
Well clearly you didn't like my first sentence so I have changed it to your second sentence here. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I-15 is really close, you should measure how far away it is and mention it.
~300 feet (91 m). Mentioned. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
"The parkway, entering Farmington, gains one lane..." → "Upon entering Farmington, the parkway gains one lane..."
It'd be neat if there were an article for the Weave. Obviously, I'm not going to hold it against you. I'm just thinking out loud.
Well... it was officially named when the highway opened and quickly forgotten about my everyone locally. Nobody uses the name despite it being its official designation. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would mention the lawsuit in the RD; that's better suited for the history section. You could start off with "The road was designed to include extensive..." Basically start at the first comma of that first sentence.
Another pic for the article would be nice (maybe one that is not snowy), but you knew that already.
MOS:IMAGELOCATION says no to squishing text between pictures and infoboxes, thus right now as the article stands there really isn't room for a second picture without dumping it next to the junction list. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
History
The first paragraph has a few issues:
Highway projects cannot aspire to anything, they are inanimate.
I don't like ", with the parkway being only a portion in between." at all. Refer back the PATP ACR for the ", with" issue, but also you already mention that the road is a part of the whole Legacy Highway project.
Going back to the KML for a moment, you could roughly draw proposed corridors on there. I'd use a wide stroke (10 or 15px) with 50% transparency, just so we can visualize where the highway was proposed.
Smells rather heavily of original research and borderline synthesis. There were no maps that I found that showed proposed routes, just mentions in newspapers. Also, is this now something we have to do for all roads that don't follow their original plans? --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
What aspects of the EIS were allegedly not complete?
Added in. --AdmrBoltz 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Right now, I am leaning oppose, but I could be swayed. This isn't a bad article, but I think there are some nuances that need to be addressed.
The RD is written matter-of-factly, which isn't wrong, I think it lacks some color. We rag on Dough for asking to add scenery at every ACR, but he's right.
I added a bit to it, but I assume since you've looked at the map you've seen there isn't much there... --AdmrBoltz 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If the road was truly controversial, foreseeably, the history section could be doubled in length. I know we're required to write in summary style, but some details (the completeness of the EIS, for instance) are completely glossed over.
Hopefully, this wasn't too harsh, do I see the potential in this article and could see it going all the way. –Fredddie™ 05:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@Fredddie: I have responded to most of your points, mind taking a look again. --AdmrBoltz 13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I will get to it sometime today. I have been busy in the meatspace the last few days which resulted in me crashing at 7pm last night. –Fredddie™ 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support Talking about the EIS adds the depth I was looking for. I do have one more thing, but obviously it's not going to hold you up. Above, you mentioned that nobody calls it the Wasatch Weave. I'd like to see that mentioned in the article and backed up by a reference. → "This interchange is officially called the Wasatch Weave, but is almost never referred to as such." But if you can't, you can't, no big deal. –Fredddie™ 21:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is citing that. Since its not called that... its hard to cite that its not called that :P. Though I did want it to be named the Chuck Norris Highway... The only four hits in ProQuest for the Weave are from the day or the day after the intersection was named. --AdmrBoltz 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Figured. NBD. –Fredddie™ 21:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
I reviewed this article at GAN, so I'll do the spotcheck. I will start it after Fredddie's concerns are addressed. TCN7JM 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
@TCN7JM: Fredddie's review is done now. --AdmrBoltz 17:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I said yesterday on IRC I would try to get it done today, but I don't think you were around. I'll go ahead and do it in a couple hours. TCN7JM 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright. As usually I'll review a quarter of the references. I can't review 6.5 refs, so I'll round up to seven. They will be, as of this revision:
Source 1 – Fine There seems to have been a typo in the infobox (said the road opened on 9/18/2008 instead of 9/13/2008), but I fixed it and now everything's alright.
Source 5 – Fine
Source 6 – Fine
Source 10 – Fine
Source 18 – Maybe you should...use Source 1 instead of this source the first time it's used. This one mentions nothing about I-15; the other one does.
Source 25 – Fine
Source 26 – Fine
I'll start on this immediately. TCN7JM 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Support – I see that one issue was fixed. TCN7JM 01:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we'd better promote this one, because it has 3 Supports, an image review, and a spotcheck, both of which went well. Philroc (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
... no, it only has 2 supports, a support as part of an image review or spotcheck does not count. --Rschen7754 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
I will take the last review. --Rschen7754 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary checks
No issues.
Lead
near by -> nearby
speed and trucks - comma after
Route description
No issues.
History
5600 West, however that -> 5600 West; however, that
Same for the last sentence of that paragraph.
Comma after Legacy Nature Preserve
then-governor here, but then-Governor earlier... be consistent.
"complicated" seems too colloquial.
Should be a support once these issues are resolved. --Rschen7754 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice this earlier. Will do this tomorrow night. --AdmrBoltz 02:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Done with all but complicated. Suggestions on alternate phrasing? --AdmrBoltz 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I would go into more detail. --Rschen7754 00:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 01:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
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.
Ontario Highway 402
There is consensus to promote this article to A-Class. TCN7JM 21:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: In hopes of bridging the line of Featured articles between Michigan and New York, I present Highway 402 for review! It's been a couple years since this went through GAN, so it may need tweaking. If you spot a full paragraph that seems wonky, just point out which one and I'll do a rewrite of it. Overall, however, it is high quality, comprehensive, and well sourced.
Nominated by:Floydianτ¢ 21:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review this article. Dough4872 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
Why is I-94 listed before I-69 in the infobox and exit list? Typically with concurrent routes of the same type we list the lower number first.
The phrase "Motorists crossing into Michigan at the western end have direct access to Detroit via I-94 and Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul via I-69" needs a citation. Also, if you keep this phrasing, you need to elaborate how one gets to Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul as I-69 does not make it to either of those cities. I would simply reword this to "Motorists crossing into Michigan at the western end have direct access to I-69 and I-94".
"With the exception of the Front Street interchange in Sarnia, the freeway features Parclos throughout its length", what kind of interchange is Front Street?
The sentence "After interchanging with Forest Line, the freeway is crossed over by London Line, momentarily diverging from its straight alignment while dipping south of Warwick (where London Line meets Egremont Road and continues east of Warwick north of the highway)." reads awkward. I would also ditch the parentheses and incorporate into the sentence.
"When it was opened at some point between 1946 and 1949, it featured at-grade crossings with Front Street, Indian Road and Modeland Road (the Highway 40 Sarnia bypass).", do we have a more exact date for this?
Same concerns with the formatting of the border crossing in the exit list, should look like it does in Ontario Highway 61 and Ontario Highway 71. Dough4872 04:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed
I've just changed it to say I-69/I-94 into Port Huron, Michigan. Do you still feel this needs a source since the RD sources the same info?
Added. Diamond/Parclo B-2 hybrid
switched it around a bit, how does it look now?
I don't have an exact date, but I found another source that gives a better impression.
"...providing a quicker route over the busier Ambassador Bridge crossing in Windsor, which also has 13 traffic lights leading to the bridge.[3]" "Also" makes it read like both 401 and 402 have traffic lights, except you said 402 is non-stop.
I don't like using interchange as a verb. I read it as "trading places" not "cars exiting the highway".
@Haljackey: could you crop your Highway 4 photo so the horizon is level?
History
I'm not going to force it, but I think a mini-lead would look better than starting the section with a 3rd-level header.
You use alignment/re-aligned three times in quick succession.
Overall
Only a few things to look over and I fixed some minor stuff myself. –Fredddie™ 05:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Lead
Added, although you may need to purge your cache to get it to appear.
I suppose not, fixed.
Changed it to "the only town", since all other places near the freeway are little villages / unincorporated communities.
RD
Originally it said "suffers from 13...", which I felt was an appropriate way to describe the pros/cons of one route over the other... but I've tried another wording that should work.
I've always agreed with that, to be quite honest. Fixed the few instances.
Fixed it for him.
History
Added a minilead. As it encompasses all the sourced facts contained within the subsequent sections, I've left it without refs as I normally have done in such situations.
Now, I get why the original crappy shields were pd-i, but the new ones seem a bit more involved. That crown is pretty intricate for pd-i... Maybe these should be re-tagged (as a batch) as {{PD-Self}} or something similar. --AdmrBoltz 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
When I uploaded them the first reaction by many was to delete them and restore the old junction shields... The original shield with a crown was introduced in 1930 and the modern design of the crown in 1955, so these can all be tagged as {{PD-Canada-Crown}} now that the issue around the URAA has been dealt with. I've retagged this shield for now, will have to do a batch of the others sometime. - Floydianτ¢ 22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Works for me, and retagged all other ONT markers. --AdmrBoltz 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Source image is CC-BY-SA-3.0, GFDL (Self). This work should be licensed the same with PD-Retouched for the crop. Also needs {{extracted from}} and orig needs extracted. --AdmrBoltz 18:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I did this all correctly. There was no PD-Retouched template, so I just wrote that the retouching is released under the same licence. Not sure what is needed on the original, so I linked the retouched as a "other version". - Floydianτ¢ 22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. --AdmrBoltz 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No, but I'm stuck at 1024x768 at the moment. I imagine a very wide monitor might get issues with the photo nudging the junction list to the right and the article not looking as tidy as it could.
Done
Added
Glad you found it difficult to find issues, that means the ACR process works well methinks :) Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - Looks good. I am at 1280 x 1024 and don't have issues. You're probably safe to remove the clear. --AdmrBoltz 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
Source 3: 13 isn't in the source.
Source 4: currently -> as of X. Also, "a new route known as the Windsor–Essex Parkway" now disagrees with source 4, where a new name is given.
Source 5: Good on V and CP.
Source 20: does not back up the entire paragraph for the second citation.
Source 21: dead link.
Source 34: Good on V and CP, but "that of a man who succumbed to hypothermia on a nearby county road" is not an independent clause.
Source 35: Good on V and CP.
The results of the spotcheck are a bit disappointing, in particular source 3 and 20. Please go through the entire article and make sure that all statements are backed up by sources, and post here when you have done so.
In addition, I am happening to notice stuff that should have been pointed out by other reviewers, and am uncomfortable with signing off on a spotcheck when there could be other issues. Thus, in order to uphold our high standards at ACR, I will be conducting a fourth review of the article, and will be procedurally Opposing this article until I have done this additional review, and when the above issues have been fixed, including the additional source checking. --Rschen7754 07:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I will also note that I am not trying to discourage those who reviewed this article, but to advise all our regular ACR reviewers to take a bit more care with their reviews. --Rschen7754 07:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Fixed the two big ones. I had used the wrong ref for one and copied the other from the Highway 401 article without checking. The dead link has been updated to the new links and other changes made. As I said, this article was promoted to GA a while ago and I expected some issues to arise. - Floydianτ¢ 00:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you believe that there are other instances of this, apart from the sources that I checked? --Rschen7754 06:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking over it, there was one case of a fact not in an article and one case of a google maps link referencing a 1964 date. I've fixed these, and upon scanning the full article, I believe it is now properly referenced. - Floydianτ¢ 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll mark the spotcheck complete, and begin my review soon. --Rschen7754 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
Images
Captions should not have a period if they are not a complete sentence, and should if they are.
Map needs a caption.
RJL
No periods in the notes
References
No ALLCAPS in the references
Lead
Controlled access should be linked earlier than it is
The freeway originally did not exit Sarnia -> something is missing
RD
is under construction as of August 2011 -> three years ago...
History
It forced drivers off -> too vague
Should be good for a support after this. --Rschen7754 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing the ALLCAPS ref was the "PRESS RELEASE", which I've fixed. Captions should be good now, RJL notes fixed, CAH better linked. The sentence you pointed out is correct: the freeway was originally within the Sarnia city limits. I could make it "...did not exit the Sarnia city limits" if that would help? Construction on the 401 extension began in 2011 and will continue until 2020, but I made that sentence read better nonetheless. I hope I've managed to clarify the last point as well now. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 21:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 21:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
U.S. Route 31 in Michigan
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.
Consensus has been established by this review to promote this article to A-Class. VC 02:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: This is the third-longest highway in the state of Michigan (after I-75 and US 23), so it's part of my long-term goal to get all of the top 10 to FAC. Note, I do plan to add some additional photos, and weather permitting, I'll be in the Traverse City area later this week.
Nominated by:Imzadi 1979→ 21:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 01:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Image review by Dough4872
Since I reviewed the article at GAN, I will do the image review. Dough4872 01:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@Dough4872: it's been nearly 3 weeks, are you still planning to do this? Imzadi 1979→ 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I was waiting to see if you were going to add more images to the article. I can go ahead with the image review now if you would like. Dough4872 01:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Image review:
File:US 31.svg - PD-author, should be relicensed as PD-MUTCD
File:U.S. Route 31 in Michigan map.png - CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. Map needs source for GIS data. Also the map is missing Canada and seems to imply there is a large ocean to the northeast of Michigan.
The sources have now been added at Commons. --Rschen7754 21:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Mitchell's Satyr butterfly.jpg - CC-BY-3.0, OTRS permission confirmed. I would add a little more context in the caption as to how this pertains to US 31. Dough4872 04:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Tweaks applied to the captions, and of course the bot run still needs to be done for the US Highway shields, but that's been updated too. @Algorerhythms: the GIS sources needs to be added to the map. Imzadi 1979→ 05:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I will support the images with one reservation. The map needs to be fixed before the article goes to FAC. Dough4872 03:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Admrboltz
Resolved issues from Admrboltz
A more complete review will come over the following days but below are some of the first issues that pop out.
One site just went dead, and it looks like the State of Michigan has a temporary server issue with the other. I commented out the one link for now. Imzadi 1979→ 04:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
"northward for less than 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km)" – would be better if it was spelled, 1⁄2 by itself doesn't look right
I disagree and have left this unchanged. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"At the trumpet interchange" – should that be this
Wishy-washy on this one, but changed anyway. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"A-2, the Blue Star Highway" – the link is to Blue Star Memorial Highway, is it common to leave out the word Memorial?
The road's name lacks it. The memorial name contains it, but that is called just "Blue Star Highway" on the street signs and maps. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"assumes the Gerald R. Ford Freeway name" – might just be my personal preference, but I think "assumes the name Gerald R. Ford Freeway" sounds better
Unchanged. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"Business Loop I-196 (BL I-196)" – the BL acronym should be at the earlier mention of Business Loop I-94
Shifted. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"continues along passing Bass Lake" – "along passing" is a bit confusing as a phrase, is passing an extra word, or is this meant to be "along, passing"?
Missing comma added. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"Ludington Pumped Storage Power Plant, a facility that uses a reservoir..." – "a facility" is superfluous, you could just say "...Plant, which uses..."
Changed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"Northwest of that town, the highway crosses the Big Sable River before entering Manistee County. North of the county line," – Could you change the phrasing so that there aren't two sentences in a row that start with directions... perhaps "Beyond the county line,"
Changed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"They pass Wuerfel Park" – the rest of the paragraph refers to US 31/M-37 in the singular ("it", "the highway"), it would be better to be consistent
Changed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"Grand Traverse Commons, the former Traverse City State Hospital before US 31/M-37" – missing a comma after Hospital
Missing comma added. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"a series of concrete markers eight miles (13 km) tall" – something's wrong there, I don't think the concrete markers actually reached into the stratosphere
Template error fixed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"By the end of 1936, the last section of US 31 in the state is paved" – was
Changed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"US 31 and a US 31A between Saugatuck and Holland are flip-flopped" – are → were; Can you use a less colloquial term than "filp-flopped" (switched is a possibility)
Changed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"the US 31A" – why include "the", other designations in the article don't
It's referencing a specific one as there were more than one US 31A designation in use at the time.
"The Michigan State Highway Department (MSHD), predecessor to the modern MDOT" – first usage of MDOT should be unabbreviated, with the abbreviation in brackets
MDOT's name is present in the lead now, so no change here. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"flip-flopping the I-96 and I-196" – per above
Changed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"$97 million" – needs a non-breaking space ( )
The rest looks good - Evad37[talk] 04:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the important issues have been resolved (ones which are just different personal preference don't matter), so Support - Evad37[talk] 06:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
Review by Rschen7754
I will pick up the third review. --Rschen7754 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary checks
Everything looks good.
Lead
From there north, -> North of there (reads a bit easier)
"groups" seems a bit vague. --Rschen7754 01:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Route description
They trade places again - could be a bit more clear
A-2 has a duplicate link 2 paragraphs away from the first one (also run the script...)
runs as four-lane expressway - as a four-lane expressway
linear state park? linear-shaped?
That is what the state calls the three of them. Imzadi 1979→ 04:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
"The highway" starting two consecutive sections in the second paragraph of NW Michigan.
In this area, the highway passes through an area ...
southeast of Charlevoix - missing a period
"the highway" used a lot in the rest of the paragraph. --Rschen7754 01:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Memorial
"various groups" again...
"pet project" seems like editorializing.
That's what it was though... 04:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
no comma after Ontario
I do wonder if the Historic bridges section should be somehow combined with this section. --Rschen7754 02:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Other items fixed as appropriate. Imzadi 1979→ 04:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Future
it was listed an endangered species - as?
Until the freeway is complete, US 31 follows - I don't think the preposition and the verb go very well together.
Currently - as of (several times in the section) --Rschen7754 08:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
History
Do we know much about when the Mackinac Trail was built?
through down... town?
At that time... at this time... could be more clear
This concludes the review. --Rschen7754 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The Mackinac Trail was an Indian trail, and all of those Indian trails predated European settlement in the region, so I can't tell you when it was built/created/etc.
Other items copy edited. Imzadi 1979→ 20:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Support issues fixed. --Rschen7754 20:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
As promised earlier, I will do this spotcheck. I will try to do it by the end of this weekend. TCN7JM 17:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I will be checking:
Source 10 – Good
Source 11 – I got confused at first...with where Petoskey was. The information itself is correct, but Petoskey isn't marked on the map, and I, having only visited Michigan a few times, had no clue where it was located. Is this an issue?
Source 12 – Good
Source 13 – Good, but Apple screenshot hurts my brain. Please switch to Windows immediately.
Source 14 – Good
Source 15 – Good
Source 16 – Good
Source 17 – Good
Source 18 – Cannot find, will discuss on IRC when you arrive.
Source 19 – Is in same document as Source 18; cannot find.
Source 20 – Good
Source 71 – Good
Source 73 – Slight error...the source mentions a 9.5-mile stretch, not 9.1-mile.
Source 74 – Good
Source 76 – Good
Source 77 – Good
Source 80 – Good
Source 82 – Good
Source 83 – Good
Source 86 – Good
The source numbers are as of this revision. TCN7JM 18:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@TCN7JM: you have mail for the first batch (footnotes 10–20). I will compile the others here in a little bit. Imzadi 1979→ 00:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
And second batch taken care of as well. Imzadi 1979→ 01:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Unfortunately, I will be mainly unavailable until next Monday, so I'm afraid this will have to wait almost another week. I will get this done, though; I promised I would. TCN7JM 01:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding footnotes 18 and 19. On page 27, there is the photo of the opening of the last segment of I-96 which splits the paragraph in two.
In the spring of 1973, Gov. William G. Milliken issued an executive order reorganizing the state highway department giving it jurisdiction over all state transportation programs. He directed the highway commission and the department to develop and deliver a unified, coordinated program for total transportation for the people of Michigan.
Symbolic of this sweeping change, Milliken signed legislation Aug. 23, 1973, adding "and Transportation" to the department's traditional designation of highways only
As for footnote 19, that is split on pages 30 and 31. The bottom of 31 has the photo of M-28 along Lake Superior. Above that is another photo of airplanes which is below the start of the cited passage, the second paragraph of which is located on the lower corner of page 31:
The year-by-year need for extra dollars for roads and transportation was met in 1978 with a legislative act informally known as "Transpack."It was an abbreviated nametag for a collection of highway laws and a constitutional amendment that put the department solidly in the business of moving people as well as vehicles.
The gasoline tax was raised from nine to 11 cents a gallon, the diesel fuel levy from seven to nine cents. The weight tax went up by 30 percent, truck fees by 35 percent. The distribution formula of the newly named Michigan Transportation Fund was rewritten to give the Michigan Department of Transportation, also a new title, 46 percent of gas and weight tax revenues.
I hope that helps.
I fixed the typo related to fn 73, and I don't think it should be an issue regarding fn 11. Imzadi 1979→ 22:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
They both look fine to me. I support this article's promotion. TCN7JM 01:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
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.
Queen Elizabeth Way
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.
Nominator's comments: April Fools! This one is the big bad boy of the ACRs for this year. However, as the most recent major rewrite under my belt and newest 400-series GA, it should be pretty well up to scratch. Anyways, this is up there with the Pennsylvania Turnpike in terms of historical significance and should be an enjoyable read. Cheers.
I will review this article. Dough4872 00:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
Why do you use "Fort Erie end" and "Toronto end" as opposed to a direction in a infobox? If the QEW is signed with directional banners, you should use them.
I do not get how QEW fits in the browse between Highway 427 and Highway 400.
In the lead, where did the QEW originally end in Toronto?
"interchanges provide access to and from the freeway at Central Avenue, Concession Road and Thompson Road, Gilmore Road and Bowen Road.", is Concession Road and Thompson Road supposed to be one interchange. If so, I would use a slash instead of and to indicate these two roads are one interchange.
The sentences "Throughout Lincoln, the QEW travels along the Lake Ontario shoreline through the Niagara Fruit Belt. Numerous wineries line the south side of the freeway." should be combined.
"Over the next two years, the numerous bridges and cloverleafs along the new highway were constructed" maybe use "cloverleaf interchanges" here.
The sentence "Service roads were installed and 13 intersections eliminated, and the accident rate was reduced by 50%" reads awkward.
"The collection of tolls continued until December 28, 1973.", was this when toll collection stopped on both bridges or on just one of them? You should be more clear here.
The sentence "Construction was carried out over two years, and the twinned structure was opened on October 11, 1985,[23] and christened as the James N. Allan Skyway, in honour of James Allan, Minister of Highways during construction of the original skyway." should be split at the comma after 1985.
Again, you should indicate where the original Toronto terminus of the QEW was before it was truncated to Highway 427.
In the exit list, I again notice you use cities instead of directions. Dough4872 00:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
As a preliminary comment, the QEW is not signed as an east/west or north/south highway as other provincial routes are. Rather, it is unique in that heading towards Toronto from Buffalo, it is consistently signed as "QEW" with a "Toronto" banner below; from Toronto towards Buffalo, it is signed as "QEW Hamilton", "QEW Niagara" and "QEW Fort Erie". It is the only highway in Ontario that uses cities as opposed to cardinal directions. - Floydianτ¢ 06:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You should perhaps mention in the article that the QEW uses cities rather than directions to give orientation of the route. Dough4872 01:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Addressed above.
The browse lists the 400-series highways in this case. QEW is basically the Ace, high and low. Highway 400 has it listed as the "previous" route.
Added
Fixed
Done
Done
Fixed
Clarified. Tolls were removed from both on the same day.
Done
Done
See #1
I'm adding a bit now regarding the directions to the lede of the RD. Just need to look up a ref. Thank you for the review! This one is quite a handful. - Floydianτ¢ 01:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - Looks good! Dough4872 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Note I am withdrawing this candidate to take it to FAC. ACR is in a bit of a lull at the moment and I figure this article is a little more top notch than its counterparts. - Floydianτ¢ 23:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
List of Interstate Highways in Michigan
This nomination has been stale for a while now. Since there is no opposition, and FLC does not require a source spotcheck, I will invoke WP:IAR on the normal ACR procedure and promote our first A-Class list, with a suggestion to revisit our source spotcheck requirement for lists. -happy5214 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: In discussions earlier about this year's project goals, I had offered to be a guinea pig for the FLC goal. In order to do that, I present to you the first list that I think is ready to be evaluated for AL-Class and promotion to FL. It is also a keystone to a future GT on Michigan's highway system.
Nominated by:Imzadi 1979→ 01:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: –Fredddie™ 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Followup comment: I will be adding a map to the infobox and polishing the citations in the coming days. Imzadi 1979→ 10:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
Comments by Fredddie
I will look it over in the coming days. –Fredddie™ 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Some preliminary questions and comments:
First of all, I am reviewing this as if USRD's featured lists don't exist. Didn't we begin this push to create featured lists because the ones we have are not that good. Anyway, since MILHIST has A-Class lists, I will be taking cues from that project.
Do you think the second and third paragraphs of the lead be better split out as a history section and then re-summarized for the lead? I'm leaning that way, but I'd like your opinion and that of anyone else who plans on chiming in.
I think each section could use an introductory paragraph. Since we're talking about the system in Michigan as a whole, I think we have a good opportunity to explain why routes were built where they were with respect to the system.
More to come... –Fredddie™ 22:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I started with List of Interstate Highways in Texas as a starting template. Granted, that list was promoted several years ago, and undoubtedly FLC expectations have heightened over the years just as FAC expectations have.
One thing that concerns me is too much redundancy between the history of the state's highway system in Michigan State Trunkline Highway System and the lead here. By my way of thinking, this list's tables would be in that other article if it weren't for space considerations; in other words, this is the subarticle. There's probably some room to expand on the content, but I would hope that doesn't result in writing a "History of the Interstate Highways in Michigan" that has tables below it. Imzadi 1979→ 02:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair points. I think this list (and all FL-wannabes) should answer a few questions for the casual reader:
What is an Interstate Highway?
Where are the IHs in Michigan?
Why were they built there?
When were they built?
How are Interstates funded? (construction and maintenance)
I'm not asking for verbatim copy/pastes from the SHS article or even detailed analysis of the construction of each highway, but I think some explanation without relying on going to the individual articles is needed. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
All of which should be addressed now with the expanded prose sections. Imzadi 1979→ 03:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. After the prose additions, I feel better about this list going forward. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review once Fredddie is done. Dough4872 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
You should probably mention the total mileage of the Interstate Highway System in Michigan in the lead.
In the Description section, you should maybe add a sentence briefly describing the standards of the Interstate highway (Granted, you have a link to the standards article, but a brief mention here would help too.)
Maybe you should clarify the Mackinac Bridge is the only part of the Interstate Highway System in Michigan not maintained by MDOT.
In the description, maybe you should mention the numbering scheme and how it applies to the Interstates in Michigan, giving examples.
Which section of I-75 was the first to get signage and when was it built?
Maybe you should mention why MDOT cancelled studies on I-73.
In the tables, I noticed inconsistency with mentioning the names of the Interstates. You appear to mention all the names of I-75 but leave out the current names of I-96. You should be consistent in either including all of the names or none of them. Also, is it really necessary to mention the names of the Interstates? I can see if one name applies to the entire length, but it gets unwieldy for highways such as I-75.
Why aren't the names of I-94 cited?
Why do I-496 and I-696 have completion dates in the table but none of the other 3di or the 2di don't? I would again be consistent here in including or all or none or would mention the significance of including the completion dates for these two Interstates.
I noticed the proposed interstates don't have highways at the termini listed. Is this because the exact termini were unknown? But if they were known to terminate at a route I would include the route they were proposed to terminate at.
There are some uncited statements in the notes of the business routes table.
I noticed for some of the business routes you mention the city of town it serves in the table. Shouldn't you do this for all of them for consistency? I would do it based on the fact business loops or spurs are typically identified with a specific community. Dough4872 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Replies
Added.
Added, but I reserve the right to remove it later; I want to sleep on it to see if I like the way it flows there.
Added.
No, that's what Interstate Highway System is for. Since there are currently only four mainlines, at two of each north–south and east–west, it would be hard to give examples without duplicating the table. As for the 3dIs, it could take too much to explain why I-196 has an odd first digit even though it is not a true spur.
Added.
Added.
Added. The trouble is that the 2dIs have been carved up into separate named segments, some of which (like the Fisher vs. the Chrysler on I-75) have distinct physical boundaries.
Already done, per Evad's comments below before I read yours.
Let me think over how to deal with this... At one time, before the templates were developed, I think there was a "completion" column, but it should be easy enough to add the others' years where they differ from the "formed". (I-296 was first designated when it was completed, so it's formation and completion dates are the same.)
Given their proposed nature, I didn't think we needed to be so specific, especially since the locations are already rounded off because exact corridors were never really established.
Those were all taken care of already before I saw that you saved your comments.
I indicated them in the notes only when the termini are outside of the specific cities. The BL I-69 for Lansing, for instance, starts in Delta Township in Eaton County, run through Lansing and East Lansing in Ingham County before terminating in Bath Township in Clinton County.
For now, pending any addition of a completion column, I've added all of the completion dates to the notes where they aren't the same as the formation date. (Some 3dIs were built and opened in one segment.) Imzadi 1979→ 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - I feel that this list is thorough, well-formatted, and sets a good example for what future USRD lists should look like. Hopefully, consideration can be made for adding a completion column listing the completion dates of the Interstates. Dough4872 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Review by Evad37
Comment by Evad37 – resolved
Not a full review, just a point that I think needs some discussion: Should all the notes in the note columns have at least 1 reference at the end of the note? Isn't a note without any references as much of a verifiability issue as a sentence or two at the end of a paragraph without any references? For example, where's the source(s) for I-94 having "one section named the Detroit Industrial Freeway, another named Edsel Ford Freeway"? Or that BL I-75 "Follows Woodward Avenue through downtown Pontiac", or that BS I-375 is "Unsigned along Jefferson Avenue"? - Evad37[talk] 03:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are two ways to look at this. All of the various locations, street names and most of the freeway names are all listed in MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application, which is the citation for all of the lengths. We typically do not require redundant citations for notes on highway junction/exit lists if the information can be found in the source for the mileposts, so I'm not sure why the same principle wouldn't hold true here. (As for the BS I-375 notes, see note c below the article where that information is cited.) Imzadi 1979→ 03:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Evad37: I'm not opposed to making changes. In many ways, this ACR is a test case, and whatever we do here will be validated or not when this goes to FLC after this review closes. There hasn't been a FLC out of the various highway projects in several years, and we're testing new templates and the standards for lists USRD set up. I know that the AL-Class assessment will be provisional for a while, but the biggest test will probably be this first list. Also, in the past, FL-related comments have indicated to me that they prefer to have a references column on the far right that hold all of the footnotes for everything in a row., something the templates don't do yet, which would simplify when a single footnote handles information from multiple cells. Imzadi 1979→ 02:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I get what you were saying earlier earlier about the top footnote in the length column referencing the info that's not specifically cited, but I don't think it looks good for some notes to have a ref at the end and others not having one, or only having one in the middle of the note - it just makes it look like its unfinished. I think that's the main difference between these lists and RJLs, which would typically only have a ref at the top of the table – but I can't really think of a good way around having "redundant citations". I'm not sure if this would actually be a problem at FLC or not, but the previous reference discussions [3][4] may have to be revisited. - Evad37[talk] 02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(BTW, anyone else reading this is welcome to comment in this subsection... I don't know if I'm the only one with these concerns...? - Evad37[talk] 02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
I see that all the notes now have refs, so I am marking this as resolved - Evad37[talk] 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Review by Evad37
More comments and questions to turn this into a full review:
Lead
Feels like there should be a comma before "while the highways in Michigan..."
"50 to 70 miles per hour (80 to 113 km/h) (depending on type of terrain)" – suggest rephrasing or altering punctuation two avoid a double set of brackets
abbreviations of organisations is not consistent – all four have full name and abbreviation in the lead, but in this paragraph there's MDOT, FHWA abbreviated, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Mackinac Bridge Authority in full
"(A fourth, the privately owned Ambassador Bridge connects I-75 and I-96 in Detroit to Canada.)" – are the brackets needed? Would seem to read just as well without.
History
"Seizing the opportunity brought by a 1957 state law" – which law? (if specified by source)
Tables
There doesn't seem much point in the Removed column being sortable in the Primary Interstates table
There should be a in "Highway 402"
Should there be a color key for the dark grey background color at the end of the tables (like {{Jctbtm}} does for RJLs)?
Images
Have you considered using <gallery mode=packed>, which centres the gallery and wastes less space around each image (more info/options at Help:Gallery tag) - Evad37[talk] 05:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@Evad37: all of the above are done that I can do by myself. I just double checked, but the 1957 state law has no title listed in the source. A quick check of the relevant statute that codifies the modern state trunkline highway system (McNitt Act, Public Act 51 of 1951) does show that it was amended in 1957 by PA 262, but that's getting into minor details. {{Routelist bottom}} is being updated to insert the key, which is something I've nagged about on IRC in the past. Since {{routelist top}} would have to be modified to switch sorting on and off for that one column, I'm not sure that is something that needs to be done, unless it comes up as an issue in the FLC. As for the gallery, I'm not sure I like that option, so I'm leaving it for now and will revisit during the FLC if necessary. Imzadi 1979→ 06:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@Evad37: sorry if you get pinged twice, but I wasn't sure if the first one would go through. In any case, {{routelist bottom}} now has the capability to display the appropriate color keys. Imzadi 1979→ 07:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Support, looking good. I don't think it would be difficult to add parameters to {{routelist top}} to turn off sorting, but we'll see what happens at FLC. - Evad37[talk] 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And I only got one ping, probably because the system didn't detect a new signature with the first edit - Evad37[talk] 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
Not promoted as stale over 6 months. --Rschen7754 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominated by:Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 22:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by Scott5114
This would be an excellent companion piece for the Kansas Turnpike article, should you want to take it to FA. I have some photos of the I-470 portion of the turnpike I've been meaning to upload, so I can contribute those this evening.
As to the review:
Lead needs some expansion/restructuring. A good rule of thumb is one paragraph for each major section. You might want to leave the AADT information out of the lead as it is more of a technical detail.
It might be interesting, if you can find the sources for it, to include a Design section comparing and contrasting the design of the free section of I-470 with that of the turnpike portion. For the latter you could probably crib sources from the turnpike article.
After an abbreviation is introduced, don't use the spelled-out version; in the lead, "U.S. Route 75" appears after the "US 75" abbreviation was noted. (This also happens with "I-470" versus "Interstate 470".) Likewise, both "US 75" and "US-75" are used; select one and stick with it (probably "US-75" since that is used by {{jct}}). ["US 75" still appears in the History section.]
From there, the highway heads generally northeast through southeastern Topeka until I-470 reaches its eastern terminus with I-70. It's easy to get lost in this sentence because of all of the directions. Try breaking it into two sentences.
It may be worthwhile to emphasize that the half-diamond interchanges are missing movements, since "half-diamond interchange" could be interpreted as an interchange type by a non-technical reader.
...making I-470 into a toll road. Well, it makes the eastern half into a toll road. Consider rephrasing.
The maintenance information in the final paragraph of the route description needs some work. We have lots of background on who KDOT is and what it does, but KTA is not mentioned at all. As it's worded here, the article is actually incorrect, since the Kansas Turnpike is a freeway. Remove the background information on KDOT and what AADT is (that information can be gleaned from the relevant articles if the reader needs it) and add information about KTA.
Two sentences in this paragraph begin with As part of.... It would read better to restructure one of them to avoid repetition.
Since completion of the freeway, the route has not been changed. It retains its original routing. These sentences are redundant. They say the same thing.
Consider using RJL colors for consistency with other Kansas road articles.
All in all not a bad little article. Shouldn't be hard to spruce up. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've taken care of several of these; if you could go back through and mark which ones are done to your satisfaction that would help me know what else I need to do. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 16:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've fixed the three things other than creating a design section. I don't know that there are plentiful enough sources for a design section, as sources for the non-turnpike portion of I-470 are quite scarce. I could maybe add a sentence or two to the route description, but a section would be unwarranted given the amount of sources available. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 06:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, I'm not going to require a Design section; it would just be a nice-to-have if you are headed to FA. (Try contemporary Topeka newspaper articles?) I'm satisfied with the article as it is now, however. Support. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by TCN7JM
I'd like to review this article, but I didn't want to do it first. I'll review it after Scott's concerns are fixed, and if needed I can probably do either the image check or the spotcheck later on. TCN7JM 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I guess it's my turn.
Abbreviating all three Interstates in the lead after writing them out in full seems a bit redundant. After abbreviating (I-470), usually the rest of the Interstates can be used in either one form or the other, having both is unnecessary.
There's got to be a better way to word the sentence in the lead about I-470 becoming a part of the Kansas Turnpike so as to remove the redundancy in using "I-470" twice without using ambiguous pronouns, but it may require rewriting the whole sentence.
"...fall under the purview of the Kansas Turnpike Authority, who is responsible..." – This is incorrect, but I'm not sure which way it needs to be fixed. If KTA is being referred to as multiple people, "who are" should be used. However, if it's being referred to as one authority, "which is" should be used instead.
These are all of the concerns I have, and I am still open to doing the image review later. TCN7JM 18:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
My concerns seem to have been addressed. I will support this article's promotion to A-Class. Nice work. TCN7JM 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
I can review this article afterwards. --Rschen7754 20:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Switching to spotcheck per comments below. --Rschen7754 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Review by Viridiscalculus
I will lay a claim to review number four (if we still do four reviews). VC 06:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We only do three now... I can switch to a spotcheck if you want, since I will probably be running a database check for this one and that lines up fairly well. --Rschen7754 06:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That would be good. I have some comments written down already, but I will wait until Scott5114 and TCN7JM are done before I post them. VC 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I have substantial concerns that need to be addressed before I will support this article being promoted.
Infobox
Unlink the second mention of Topeka after East end.
Done. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
For consistency, abbreviate both transportation agencies.
Both spelled out instead, but now they're consistent. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Add an established date.
Added as the date the highway was dedicated and opened to traffic. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 01:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Route description
The names of the roads at each of the non-numbered-highway interchanges are not mentioned.
To be consistent, I suggest you remove mention of exit numbers from the first paragraph. You need to use exit numbers consistently, either at every interchange or no interchange.
Fixed? Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 01:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no mentions of number of lanes anywhere in the article.
Mention the configuration of every interchange. For most, it will just be "this is a diamond interchange" or "this is a trumpet interchange."
Elaborate on the complex interchanges. For instance, instead of just saying "US-75 splits away from I-470 at a complex interchange with Burlingame Road", explain how the interchange is complex. Mention the flyover ramps.
History
The History is broad but not comprehensive. It begs a lot of questions that need to be answered before this will be viable at FAC.
Several of the interchanges have changed since the highway opened. There needs to be more details on the western I-70 interchange, the eastern I-70 interchange, the US 75 flyover ramps, and possibly the Kansas Turnpike/Topeka Boulevard interchange.
When was US 75 placed on I-470 west of the Turnpike?
There is no mention of the former service area within the eastern I-70 interchange.
Was I-335 planned as a Topeka Interstate in the 1950s? According to the Kansas Turnpike article, I-335 was assigned merely to allow a higher speed limit along what had been an unnumbered segment of the Turnpike.
The quotes around the memorial highway designation are not necessary. This applies to the Lead, too.
Exit list
"Exit 182 is a part of the Kansas Turnpike and uses its mileposts, as do all other Interstates signed on the turnpike." Instead of refering to Exit 182, say that the exit numbers on the Kansas Turnpike portion of I-470 follow the Turnpike's mileposts.
I suggest including the I-70 exit number of the western terminus in the notes for that row. Also, expand KC or rewrite the statement about exit 1A. You may wish to split the interchange into two rows.
For the interchanges that are pairs of half-diamonds, you should indicate a mileage for each half of the diamond. You can place both in the mile column.
For Exit 6, the mileage should be to two decimal places.
For the last exit, "182 & 183" looks strange. I suggest only including 182 because there is no exit 183 from I-470. You should indicate in the notes that it is Kansas Turnpike Exit 183 coming from the east.
In fact, you might want to split the eastern terminus entry because there is almost a mile between Exit 182 and where I-470 merges into I-70.
The Notes field for the last exit is not WP:MOS compliant. Splitting the eastern terminus entry would solve the problem that you use a jct template that produces shields that pop up within prose and abbreviations that should be expanded.
The West end of toll road row in the table is not necessary. That should be mentioned in the notes for the I-335 interchange.
Instead of linking to the KDOT historical maps page, link to the individual maps.
Do you have authors for the newspaper articles?
This may not be necessary, but you may wish to update the mileage source or any other references that are not using the most up-to-date editions.
General
Use the link checker tool to avoid overlinking in the prose. Just from scanning the article, I see there are two links to I-70 in the Route description.
Would it be possible to get some photos of I-470? Scott5114 mentioned he took some a while back. No more than one or two are necessary because this is a short article.
I typically do a second run-through after most or all of the issues have been addressed, so I may have more comments later. VC 23:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
@Philroc: Please let the reviewer strike items out, and please let the nominator decide whether to fix an issue. It may be that the reviewer decides that something was not fixed to his satisfaction, or that the nominator decides that making that fix would be counterproductive. Either way, that's not something for you to decide. --Rschen7754 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Due to inactivity, this review has been suspended. The nominator has 5 6 months from this posting to reactivate the nomination and address the issues before this review is automatically failed. --Rschen7754 04:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Ontario Highway 405
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.
Nominator's comments: Out of all the freeways in Ontario, Highway 405 likely has the simplest history, and as such is the shortest of the 400-series articles. Coincidentally, it was also my first road GA. A perfect candidate for the shortened month of February!
Nominated by:Floydianτ¢ 07:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 01:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review this article. Dough4872 01:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
In the lead, maybe you should mention that I-190 continues into New York.
Is it really important to mention the speed limit in the lead?
"The additional lane provided along this section is for the queueing of trucks", should specify this is the eastbound lane.
"It then passes over the Niagara Parkway and begins to cross the Lewiston–Queenston Bridge" sounds awkward. I would change "begins to cross" to "heads onto".
Again, should mention I-190 continues into New York in the Route description.
Also, you should mention the body of water at the U.S. border in the lead and Route description.
You have inconsistent date formatting in the History.
Does the former interchange need to be included in the exit list? Usually, I wouldn't bother to include them.
As with several other Ontario articles (such as ON 61, ON 71 and ON 402) that connect to highways at the U.S. border, I have a concern with the alignment of the I-190 shield in the exit list. This should be fixed the same way it was in those articles. Dough4872 05:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Added
That's usually the only spot it tends to get a mention, I've removed it though.
Done
Done
Yuck! DMY formatting. All fixed :D
I include former interchanges from 50 years ago if I can, it's a good place to mention those details in longer articles (ie 401) especially. If the info's there why not after all?
Yeah I tried to get some commentary on that at MOS:ICONS but got no response. You're killing me, but fixed.
Thanks for the review! - Floydianτ¢ 02:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Support - Good work! Dough4872 02:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd use {{commons category-inline}} at the top of your ELs as to not stack the KML and commons cat boxes, but thats more of a personal preference. --AdmrBoltz 13:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Added sources and image location to the two images. I personally like them stacked, but I've fixed Attached KML so that it is the same width as the commons box, which looks much better. - Floydianτ¢
Images check out. --AdmrBoltz 19:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
Preliminary checks
The formatting for ref 11 seems off - shouldn't NYT be what is in italics?
Lead
In the US, we generally say Interstate 190 (I-190) the first time, and then I-190 everywhere else.
Why italics?
Last sentence not cited, and the information is not found elsewhere.
Route description
The primary purpose... notable.... seems a bit like editorializing.
This completes the review. --Rschen7754 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
First issue fixed... had NYT as the publisher instead of work. Fixed the I-190 issue. Changed italics to boldface as it should be. Added OPP info to RD with a citation. Finally, I've reworded those two sentences to make it less essay-like. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 01:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 01:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Review by Evad37
Review by Evad37
(pronounced "four-oh-five") – reference?
It then crosses the Niagara River, where it crosses – avoid using crosses twice in the same sentence
... is not subject to alternative, federal, administration, ... – sentence would flow better as "... is not subject to federal administration, ..."
named the General Brock Parkway – why the italics?
Toll rates – external should not normally be placed in the body of an article per WP:EL
Please be consistent with using either a dash (-) or endash (–) for Lewiston–Queenston Bridge
Infobox – caption for image?
All fixed, except the first issue. I'm not sure where I can find a text-based source for this... it's completely standard everyday practice to pronounce the 400-series highways with the "oh" instead of as a three digit number, but only in speech. Any thoughts? - Floydianτ¢ 00:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe tv or radio news reports or stories? Not sure what the CBC or other Canadian broadcasters are like with putting stuff online, but you might find something. Otherwise, is the pronunciation actually necessary? It's not mentioned in the FA article Ontario Highway 402. - Evad37[talk] 02:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Meh... it'd be too difficult to find. There is one I found for the "four-oh-one", but that's all it mentioned :/ Oh well. I just removed it until such time as one can be found. - Floydianτ¢ 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Glad this one is finally right on the money without mistakes. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 23:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, and the spotcheck is now complete. --Rschen7754 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
Interstate 69 in Michigan
The article was promoted. –Fredddie™ 23:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: Might as well nominate this since Ontario Highway 402 is here at ACR, and if both are promoted, Michigan's network of FA-/A-Class articles will be connected to Ontario's. This would also be the third of four 2dIs for Michigan to be promoted.
Nominated by:Imzadi 1979→ 03:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review this article. Dough4872 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
"Interstate 69 (I-69) is a part of the Interstate Highway System that runs from Indianapolis, Indiana, to the US–Canadian border at Port Huron, Michigan." this is not entirely true as I-69 has several disjoint segments between Texas and Indiana.
I tried to tweak that, but with the discontinuities and the mess with the suffixed routes in Texas, the specifics will have to be left to the parent article. Imzadi 1979→ 05:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should mention I-69 is concurrent with I-94 at its eastern terminus in the lead.
I do not think it is really important to mention that the distribution center is a Walmart distribution center. Typically, we do not mention specific business names in a route description.
I just deleted the whole sentence. Imzadi 1979→ 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
"and through an interchange with M-96 west of downtown Marshall." sounds awkward.
Revised. Imzadi 1979→ 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Is the sentence about the Indian trails and the map really necessary given the fact I-69 follows none of them?
Yes, to establish that I-69 doesn't have a predecessor from that era. If not, there may be questions about this since the other 2dIs in MI follow Indian trails. Imzadi 1979→ 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
"The first span of the Blue Water Bridges", I know the Blue Water Bridge is a twin-span bridge but is it officially called Blue Water Bridges? If not, "Bridges" should be singular here.
Tweaked. Imzadi 1979→ 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
"In 1980, a Flint-area politician wanted to dedicate a highway after the United Auto Workers (UAW).", what was the name of this politician? Dough4872 03:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The book does not list his name, which is why it wasn't included originally. Imzadi 1979→ 05:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Great job! Dough4872 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
YFile:David Dunbar Buick.jpg - Self -- GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 - I doubt this. This is a scan of something and not user-created.
Considering that he has passed away, fair use? --Rschen7754 03:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes - but there still is the question of the sourcing of the image, which isn't clear. Its clearly a scan from some sort of book, but which book? Imz is looking for an actual PD image IIRC. --AdmrBoltz 03:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
We've found the 1891 book that's the likely original source of the portrait, although it wasn't cropped into an oval. I replaced it and updated the attribution, so it's PD-US-1923 now. Imzadi 1979→ 04:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of "running" as a verb for describing highways. I'd suggest "travelling concurrently" in this case. YMMV in each of the cases that I mention it below.
Again in the second case, and remove the link to concurrency.
I think I shifted this around forever ago... Imzadi 1979→ 05:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Route description
Nitpicky, but "crosses into Calhoun County and over the St. Joseph River." - if the county line is the river, then you should swap the order of these.
Intersecting M-60?
"North of I-94, I-69 has one more interchange before crossing into Eaton County" - You mention the road at other interchanges, but not this one.
"Near Olivet, I-69 begins to turn in a northeasterly direction. As it continues in that direction, it runs to the north side of Olivet." - Reads somewhat awkward, and again with the run bit.
" I-69 follows the path of a line of the Canadian National Railway" - I'm assuming you mean parallels it?
"I-69, the railroad and the Swartz Creek all run together" - sounds like a marathon :) There's another "run" shortly after this too.
"It jogs to the north around Lake Nepessing on the southwest of Lapeer." Reads weird/grammatically incorrect.
"follow part of the Black River in the area." - "in the area" seems redundant here.
All tweaked. Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Cutting it down to just a few runs makes it read much better in my eyes. - Floydianτ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
History
I believe left aligned photos are supposed to be placed above level 3 headers to align better.
My mistake then. Guess it's changed or I've got it wrong entirely. - Floydianτ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"The first major overland transportation corridors in the future state of Michigan were the Indian trails.[9] None of these followed the path of the modern I-69 however." - Just curious why you put this here, it seems irrelevant to I-69 in this case.
Because if I didn't, people will ask for more back history from before the 20th century. In this case, it's somewhat northworthy to have a 2dI that isn't a former Indian trail. Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. - Floydianτ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"By 1936, the highway was extended all the way into Flint to end at M-21." - M-78 or M-104?
The second paragraph of the Predecessor highways section gets confusing when you introduce M-78 into the picture. It may be prudent to mention as you go along which segments of these would line up with I-69, since Pittsburg, for example, isn't mentioned in the RD.
Pittsburg isn't along modern I-69, and I tried to clarify this. Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a lot better now, especially the latter half of the paragraph. However, a map from the pre-interstate era showing these predecessor routes would go a long way. I'll let you decide how to handle it though and give a pass on it. - Floydianτ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of Interstate Highway era, you mention that BUS I-69 was designated in 1984, congress extended the designation for a final time in 1987 to Port Huron, but the final segment of the route wasn't completed until October 1992. This is rather confusing.
I think I cleared that up. Let me know if more needs to be done. Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"...the Michigan Legislature designated that I-69... would be named..." - declared would be more appropriate than designated in this case.
"The following October" - is that October 2001 (that October) or October 2002 (the following), as I would come to read it?
Reworded, but it's 2001 (PA 142 of 2001 as mentioned in the next sentence). Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Why would it ever be a mistake to head to Canada? ;)
Well, if you didn't have your passport and bridge fare handy... Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Exit list
Looks good
Business loops
May want to use a better source than Gmaps for validating that the loops followed those predecessors, as I can only see evidence of the ones in Coldwater and Charlotte being US 27
Chicago/APA/MLA based style guides don't require a scale on dynamic maps like this one, just maps with fixed scales, like a paper or PDF map. Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it may be better organized to group your refs so that maps can be given their own section? I've thought of doing this on a few articles with over 40-50 refs.
I'd need more information on what you mean, but I think it would be less confusing to leave all sources with numbered footnotes. Imzadi 1979→ 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the refs section in QEW for an example of what I did. - Floydianτ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll add my history review in the next day or two. - Floydianτ¢ 04:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Or seven. Since you haven't replied yet, I've just inserted the history review above. - Floydianτ¢ 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
At this point it's looking to be a support. Just wanted to get your thoughts on the map and the reference reorganization. - Floydianτ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, not fond of separating the references that way. For shortened refs, I've just mixed them in with the other footnotes, which is what we did with U.S. Route 41 in Michigan several years ago when I started that article. It passed FAC that way in 2009 so there's ample precedent to mixed shortened and unshortened refs together in a single list. As for the map, I just need a few minutes to get it made and it will be added, done similar to the one on the U.S. Route 23 in Michigan article. Imzadi 1979→ 05:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. - Floydianτ¢ 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Support - Looks great! The pending map should really help clear up the back history for those unfamiliar with Michigan geography. - Floydianτ¢ 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Review by Evad37
Review by Evad37
Lead
A north–south freeway from the Indiana–Michigan border to Lansing, it changes direction to east–west and continues to Port Huron before terminating in the middle of the twin-span Blue Water Bridge while running concurrently with I-94 at the border – long sentence, suggest splitting into two
Not done since I don't think it's the same as the example at the cited link. Rather, it's an expansion of the type of average mentioned, not hiding a second concept behind the link. Imzadi 1979→ 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
But the effect is similar: the context of the average is lost in print versions and if a reader doesn't click/hover over the link – are "non-experts" supposed to guess that its a daily average (rather than weekly, monthly, etc), and are "experts" meant to guess that its AADT and not some other measure like average weekday traffic? - Evad37[talk] 02:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@Evad37:Interstate 196 was promoted to FA status using the exact same construction, which is also present in Interstate 96, Interstate 75 in Michigan, and other FAs promoted in the last year. The I-75 example has the link piped to "average each day", but I see no need to alter the text any more than that. Imzadi 1979→ 02:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be better with "each day", as that provides some context without having to follow the link - Evad37[talk] 03:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I-69 carries the Lake Huron Circle Tour in the Port Huron area and the I-69 Recreational Heritage Route – why is only the second mentioned in the infobox?
Added that to the infobox, which was overlooked. Imzadi 1979→ 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
the business loop ends at the cloverleaf interchange that marks the first of I-69's two junctions with I-94 in the state northwest of Marshall – would something like "the business loop ends at a cloverleaf interchange northwest of Marshall, the first of I-69's two junctions with I-94 in the state" read better? I would assume that "northwest of Marshall" is more relevant to the specific interchange than to the two I-94 junction.
Southwest of Capac, there is a temporary welcome center at the rest area along the westbound lanes. Do you have a ref for it being temporary? And what are the plans for the future?
Citation added, the full plans are in the history section. Imzadi 1979→ 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
On the eastern bank, I-69/I-94 – photo caption says "I-94/I-69", and later in the history section there is also "I-94/I-69". Can you make them consistent?
Source 29: Do you mean 1947? Also, the print is too small on both the original (which was found through archive.org as the FHWA site is down) and what is on Commons.
Source 30: Good on V and CP.
Source 34: Good on V and CP.
Source 39: Good on V and CP.
Source 47: Good on V and CP.
Source 66: Good on V and CP.
Source 68: Good on V and CP.
Source 76: will AGF on the lanes part as the free part of the article cuts off. But what about the completed in 2012 part? That can't be in a 2011 article...
Source 78: Good on V and CP. --Rschen7754 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
For whatever reason (which could have been a blonde moment on my part), the wrong map citation was pasted into the article for fn 29. As for fn 76, there's a new FN 77 present to resolve that glitch. Imzadi 1979→ 23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
California State Route 76
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.
Nominator's comments: This is a highway in the North County of San Diego, as part of my goal to get all San Diego County road articles as high as possible. Note: I have not done my usual pre-ACR tweaks (inflation, nbsp, map, OCLC) yet, but will do so over the weekend.
Nominated by:Rschen7754 20:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review this article. Dough4872 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
Why is the length in the infobox and the lead different?
Fixed, seems someone got confused by the postmiles. --Rschen7754 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem to overuse parentheses in the route description, particularly in the second paragraph. I would suggest rewording these sentences to not use parentheses.
A lot of the sentences in the third paragraph of the route description read as [SR 76, the route, it, etc.] does [blah] before [blahing] [blah]. I would vary the wording here.
The sentence "City of Oceanside plans for a road east through the San Luis Rey Valley to Fallbrook date from June 1889, and would include a bridge over the San Luis Rey River." begins awkward, I would reword.
" then-governor George Deukmejian", shoudln't governor be capitalized?
Adjusted. --Rschen7754 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
"Later that year, the California State Assembly renamed the first four miles (6.4 km) after Tony Zeppetella, an Oceanside police officer killed in the line of duty.", why is this included in the East of Oceanside section of the history when it is actually in Oceanside? Dough4872 04:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Adjusted. --Rschen7754 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
All done. --Rschen7754 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Nice article. Dough4872 03:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
If the legal definition and the maintaining body don't recognize the segment west of I-5, you should explain why the article includes mention of it.
Well, the distance is about a quarter of a mile... --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
But do any official sources actual indicate that little chunk of road is part of CA 76? - Floydianτ¢ 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
No (see the GA review), but some maps do. --Rschen7754 23:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"SR 76 then meets the northern segment of CR S13, known as South Mission Road, heading north into Fallbrook;" maybe insert a while before "heading north"?
"Caltrans engineer Jacob Dekema announced in April 1969 that the construction on SR 76 and SR 78 to the south on the portions between I-5 and US 395 would be delayed until the construction on I-5 and US 395 was underway, or at least until 1976." - I'm assuming this should be "to the south of the portions...", but either way it reads rather oddly.
"but SR 76 is not included in the system." - the jump to the present here is strange; may be better worded as "but SR 76 has not become part of the system.", or similar.
"Following this..." - Shouldn't begin a paragraph referencing the previous one like this. Each paragraph should stand alone as a complete thought/concept explained. The first two sentences of this paragraph should possibly be merged into the previous paragraph.
Widening and realignment - "Caltrans tentatively approved the first 2.5 miles (4.0 km) of the SR 76 widening project in May" - which portion was this 2.5 mile section between?
"The rerouting of SR 76 away from Mission Avenue resulted in a decrease in business for establishments located on Mission Avenue." - Find a way to remove one instance of "Mission Avenue" here
East of Oceanside - There are a few instances of the tense shifting mid-sentence in this section:
"The city of Oceanside proposed plans for grade-separated interchanges with College Boulevard and Melrose Drive in 2004, should the expressway through Oceanside need to be converted to a freeway."
"The purpose of this improvement was to reduce accidents on a stretch of road that now carries over 12,000 motorists per day, many headed for either the Pala Indian casino or a new gravel quarry that had recently opened." - was, now, headed, had.
The westbound lanes between Melrose Drive and Mission Road opened to traffic in October, with the eastbound lanes scheduled to be open by November. - in this particular case it is almost outdated information. When did they end up opening?
Updated, and added slightly newer information. --Rschen7754 22:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"in March 2009, two lanes of a new 1.3 miles (2.1 km) realigned segment of SR 76" - The convert her should be using |adj=mid|-long. Also, realigned seems redundant here.
There was no page number, but it was in the Building section, so that is what I put. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There's supposed to be a section parameter in the citation templates, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work right... oh well :/ - Floydianτ¢ 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Refs 72 and 78 need the location added as with other instances of the Evening Tribune
One response added above regarding that small quarter-mile segment. - Floydianτ¢ 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Support - all issues resolved for me. - Floydianτ¢ 00:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Since the nominator is not currently active on Wikipedia and it's been over 30 days since the last edit, I am suspending this nomination. If the nomination is not resumed by November 1, 2014, it may be failed in accordance with ACR rules. –Fredddie™ 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look. –Fredddie™ 22:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Lead
"It is a frequently used east–west route in the North County region of San Diego County that begins in Oceanside near Interstate 5 (I-5) and continues east. The highway serves as a major route through North County, connecting Oceanside with Bonsall while providing access to Fallbrook."
Could this be reworded so North County and Oceanside aren't both repeated.
As it begins to enter rural Oceanside, ... → As it leaves Oceanside, ...?
No, should be rural Oceanside... a stretch of a few miles. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the comma-separated lists of intersected roads. I had to read the second half of "As it begins to enter rural Oceanside, SR 76 intersects with CR S14, Guajome Lake Road near Guajome County Park, and Melrose Drive.[4]" a couple times and cross reference the junction list to realize that CR S14 was not Guajome Lake Road.
"It then has two overpasses over Mission Avenue and El Camino Real..." I don't like two here because it reads like two overpasses for each crossroad, which was really confusing when it crosses Mission Avenue again.
When you say "this portion of CR S13's routing is not signed on maps." are you saying that there's an implied overlap that's not signed or one of the halves are not signed? I don't think the implied overlap is worth mentioning.
Dropped it, because it's bordering on OR. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the sentence about Mr. Zeppetella would be better in the first paragraph.
It's considered standard in California road articles to have all the designations at the end of the RD. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
History
A history section that long should have a mini-lead.
Overall, this is a fine work. I do recommend going over the prose again, or have the GoCE do it, before taking this to FAC just to catch anything we may have missed. –Fredddie™ 01:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
All done, and I always go over the prose before FAC. --Rschen7754 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. Looks fine by me. –Fredddie™ 01:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Floydian
Not many online sources here that aren't simple highway inventories or legal acts. However, I've checked all the sources I can.
- 32 / 33 - checks out.
- 94 - Checks out
- 101 - All checks out
- 109 - Not seeing anything about the project finishing by the end of 2012. The second use of this ref is good though.
I can email you more sources, if you want... I will take a look at 109 later tonight. --Rschen7754 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed - unfortunately I don't have the source, so I adjusted the wording and used a different source. --Rschen7754 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I suppose it would make this more thorough, though I don't expect to find many offsets. Could you send me refs 38, 66 and 84? - Floydianτ¢ 02:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Ref 66 checks out perfect. All the info you provide in the article is also in refs 38 and 84. However, both of those appear to mention other projects that you don't mention, ie the plan to convert the section from Mission Road to U.S. 395 to expressway. I'm assuming these were just conjectures at the time and never came to fruition under those plans, or that you mention it elsewhere in the history. Either way, I'm satisfied on verifiability. - Floydianτ¢ 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, that project isn't even complete yet. :/ But yes, all significant projects are mentioned in the article. --Rschen7754 01:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck complete - one minor minor issue, but otherwise clean as a whistle. So, after over 8 months, promote this bad boy already! - Floydianτ¢ 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
The article was promoted. SounderBruce 00:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: It's March Madness! I know I said I didn't want three reviews here at the same time again... but, there are still 10 noms to go! This is at least a better example of recent writing than 402. The highway has a more varied history and plenty of controversy to go with it! Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 19:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
I will review this article. Dough4872 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
The sentences "It exits the small city to the east. Shortly after exiting Brantford, the highway curves northeast." should be combined.
Instead of "former Highway 2" or " former Highway 8", maybe you should mention the current name/number so today's readers can understand what the road is. A notation can be left to indicate this is the former highway at the first instance it is mentioned.
"Scenic views of Hamilton, its harbour, and a waterfall are located along this steep descent.", maybe you can add the name of the waterfall as the linked article has a list of all the waterfalls in Hamilton.
"This section features a reduced speed limit." maybe mention what the speed limit is reduced from to.
The sentence "Access to Highway 410, continues northward to Brampton." is awkward and incomplete.
"The plan showed the expressway's eastern terminus as the Highway 401 and Highway 427 interchange.", I would change "as" to "at".
I would combine the sentences "The final section to be opened took the longest to complete, involving construction of two bridges over the Credit River valley. It opened on December 2, 1982. "
"On March 24, 1987, Chris Ward, MPP for Wentworth North officially announced that construction of the missing link between Brantford and Ancaster would begin in 1989.[48] Construction did not actually begin until the summer of 1990.", was there a reason the construction began a year late? Dough4872 00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Done
Even today, 16 to 17 years after the mass downloads, the majority of county roads that were major highways back then are still referred to by the old name. In many cases they're named "Highway X" on signs and numbered/maintained under the county/local road networks! Botched to say the least. The problem comes that Highway 2 tracks through several counties alongside Highway 403, going by different names or numbers (if any number). It's much easier to understand by referencing the old highway number in prose in this case. For Highway 8, it's just local named streets now inside Hamilton. The junction list provides both designations.
Done
Can do, but not sure how to source it other than G.Maps SV
Fixed... not sure when/how that happened but it was fine at one point :P
Done, also swapped "showed" with "featured"
Done with a semicolon
Government... Actually I'm not sure. I think the budget in the spring of '89 fell in non-confidence and triggered an election that fall, delaying the funding or scheduling or something. The latter source doesn't mention anything about delays, just that it was tendered last summer.
Support - Great work! Dough4872 03:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
Comments by Fredddie
I'll take a look at this now. –Fredddie™ 04:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Infobox and lead
For the 1997 date, do you think the it would be better to say "Opened December 1, 1963<br>Completed August 15, 1997?
Cleaned up some duplicate links
The majority of Highway 403 is surrounded by suburban land use, except west of Brantford and between Brantford and Hamilton, ... Could you reword that so Brantford isn't repeated?
In the last sentence, you might want to mention 401 again.
Route description
I think with the subheaders, it would be better to say "X to Y".
Clarification needed: "a now-channelized river from which the freeway may take its name.[7]" (my emphasis) Are you not sure that the freeway gets its name from the river?
Thank you for using the verb form of interchange correctly.
The history section is excellent. The only thing I'd like to see is an adequate summary in the lead.
Junction list looks good.
Overall, this is very good work. I was really impressed by the history section. –Fredddie™ 04:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, I'm glad you enjoyed the read :) I've fixed up most of the points, although I still need to write a History summary. Regarding the Chedoke Creek, it's unclear (even to historians) where the name Chedoke came from. It's presumed to be from "seven oaks" that stood on the escarpment over the creek ravine. The creek got its name from that location, but it's unclear if the highway was named after the area, or the creek. - Floydianτ¢ 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been waiting for a notice that the history summary has been written. –Fredddie™ 23:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay (had to psych myself up to the task); a summary has been added, partially by relocating the summary that was the first paragraph of the "Bridging the gaps" subsection. - Floydianτ¢ 21:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll give you a Canada Day present (by my calendar it still is) and support. –Fredddie™ 00:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
Preliminary stuff
Map needs a caption.
Perhaps a color should be used for the concurrency in the RJL?
Image captions: if it is a complete sentence, it should have a period. If not, it should not.
Route description
"It travels along the back lot lines of the second concession" - not following this.
"some distance" - a bit too vague.
collector lanes - should be linked earlier than the history section...
History
The first sentence seems like it has some words missing.
other freeways for over 20 years - period missing.
has always been important to Ontario -> always been considered important?
I'm not sure about the use of italics - is this allowed?
As Toronto's anti-expressway movement gained momentum, plans ... whose plans?
alongside the hydro corridor from Burlington to Etobicoke Creek was protected ... what do you mean by this?
late-1985 - should not be a hyphen
three discontinuous sections; - should be a colon
driveway-lined - too ambiguous
was site - seems like something is missing from this
Should be a comma after "In particular"
First paragraph of Recent construction - using However twice very close to each other
High-occupancy vehicle - should not be capitalized
links will be completed - trying to predict the future here. --Rschen7754 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've numbered your points for ease of reply, I hope you don't mind.
Preliminary stuff
Done
I personally don't like using the concurrency termini colour (:P). I find it imparts nothing useful, since the existence of a concurrency is a minor detail compared to the route that it is concurrent with. In short, I feel a note accomplishes it better, and using the colours here would be inconsistent with other Ontario highways.
I think they're all correct now.
RD
Concessions were rectangles of properties dished out by the government in ye olde days. A concession had roads built on the north and south sides, and property lots faced those roads, divided down the centre of the concession. The back of those lots, down the centre of the concession, is where the highway was built, to avoid splitting farms. Not sure how to reword as such.
Made it slightly (but not really) less vague
Done
History
Not sure where exactly... looks fine to me.
Fixed
Fixed
I tend to use them to highlight terms or names, but I've removed them
Fixed
A right-of-way parallel to a hydro (power-transmission line) corridor was protected from being blobbed into cookie-cutter subdivisions.
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
Reworded
Added
Changed the second instance
Fixed
Well... the planning docs have both the widening and the ramps in the same project... but reworded nonetheless to be not as absolute
Thank you for the review. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 05:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 06:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Highway 401 interchange with 403-410 in 1987.jpg - it says CC-BY-SA 3.0. But due to the history of the nominator, and the low-res picture, and the aerial nature, that makes me think that this is a copyvio. I dug around on kingshighways.ca and couldn't find it though.
Regarding the aerial 1987 photo (I'm hoping you meant the uploader GoldDragon and not the nominator myself hehe), it looks like it was taken on approach or takeoff from Pearson Airport, so it's not too far fetched that he took it himself and scanned the photo (which would explain the small res and sunburnt colours). I have never seen this photo elsewhere on the internet, so I'm not sure. Added sources to the map (will also reupload it shortly with fixed colours and an inset of Canada) and fixed the licence / linked the escarpment pic. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 17:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Done sounds good then. --Rschen7754 16:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
Source 8: good on CP and V.
Source 28: good on CP and V.
Source 55: good on V, but the wording is too close ("due to a sudden increase in volume", for one). Seems to have been inserted by the same editor mentioned above... you may wish to check all his edits to the page to be safe.
I think I added this info originally, then he put the source in and changed the wording to be, AGF, verifiable. It's actually coincidental, but I've removed that sudden increase in volume bit and reworded it the best I can... hopefully it's better now. - Floydianτ¢ 00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Source 57: was scheduled to be added? since the article was written before the installation...
Source 59: not seeing the dates in the article, though I would assume that it is included in the one just below it on the page.
Hmmm... missed a ref for the December 13 date. Added it. - Floydianτ¢ 00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Source 60: not seeing it.
Took out the bit on the high mast lighting, minor detail. The bit on the median is there. - Floydianτ¢ 00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Source 62: good on CP and V. --Rschen7754 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
All good and ready for close. --Rschen7754 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
Interstate 275 (Michigan)
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.
In the second paragraph of the route description, you mention Eureka Road and I-94 both provide access to the airport then backtrack to describe the section between those two interchanges then continue on skipping mention of where you pass I-94. I would reword this portion of the route description to keep it in chronological geographical south-to-north order or at least mention where it passes I-94 after mentioning the part of the route between the two interchanges.
Actually, I'm not changing this since it's not a significant backtrack. Imzadi 1979→ 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked slightly though per IRC conversation. Imzadi 1979→ 02:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In the route description, you mention I-275 "crosses" a number of highways it interchanges with. You should use better wording to indicate that they are interchanges as crosses does not necessarily imply an interchange.
The verb "interchanges" would be wrong, since that implies a swap of locations/routings. The current wording is fine, and by being a freeway we already imply that all junctions are interchanges and that all other crossings are grade-separated unless specifically noted. Imzadi 1979→ 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Is the history of Michigan Avenue and Ford Road really relevant to the route description of I-275?
How is the I-275 bike path 44 miles while the highway is 35 miles?
The trail does not follow the freeway exactly in a few places. Also, you get extra length going around the ramps at the interchanges. Imzadi 1979→ 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The history seems to be missing information on planning, you skip from the Yellow Book in the 1950s to when the freeway started being built in the 1970s.
The MSHD was building the 2dIs first and the 3dIs second in most cases, so there really is nothing to report about I-275 for the 1960s. Imzadi 1979→ 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The history also seems to be missing information about groundbreaking or beginning dates of construction of the segments of the highway.
That information is there. It was under construction in 1974, additional sections were started after that and it was all finished in 1977. Imzadi 1979→ 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are the inflation costs as of 2012? Shouldn't they be as of the current year?
As noted someone in a previous ACR, these adjusted numbers rely on government statistics that are released about 15–18 months after the year ends. Since we're almost halfway through 2014, that means 2012 is the most recent year. If you want 2014 numbers, wait until 2016. Imzadi 1979→ 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "The original plans for I-96 in the Yellow Book routed that highway along a different routing into downtown Detroit, along a path adjacent to Grand River Avenue." uses "along" twice.
Support - Concerns addressed. Dough4872 02:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
I will review this article shortly. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I will work on a new map that shows Canada.
Do you think it's worth it to replace all the hyphens with &8209;, the non-breaking hyphen? It could be how I have the page set up for reviewing, but I'm getting a lot of I-<br>275.
What do you think of adding the bike trail to the KML?
Something I can't figure out is why there is a length discrepancy between MDOT and FHWA.
This is a pretty good representation of why I typically don't review articles from Michigan. After you write a couple-twenty FAs, you have all the kinks worked out. –Fredddie™ 16:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I dunno. I'm not opposed, but the last time such a thing was done on an article, someone else reverted it just before the FAC closed. *shrugs*
Also, not opposed there. What should it be colored? Sadly, the WMA doesn't respect the color coding though, so the two lines will show as overlapping blue from the pop-up map.
Simply, FHWA doesn't consider I-275 to overlap I-96, yet MDOT does, and the various cartographers follow MDOT. Imzadi 1979→ 06:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
<voice style=toddler>But why?</voice> Surely there's an article from some time period where MDOT stated that signing I-275 over I-96 was a better navigational aid than not signing it. The only reason I push this is because it's a more interesting answer than looking at maps and saying what you see, which is how the article is now. –Fredddie™ 05:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is also the fact that I-275 was supposed to run further north, and I-96 ran along what is now M-5 until it was rerouted to follow I-275 and the modern routing of the Jeffries. After digging through Newspaperarchive.com and Newspapers.com, all I can find is that I-96/I-275 opens to traffic before I-275 north of the overlap was canceled, even though some planning studies had already started to call that extension M-275. Within months after that first cancelation, the highway was given some new life before being fully reinstated within the next two years. It wasn't until the mid-1980s that it was finally cancelled for good. It seems like MDOT keeps the number in place due to inertia. Imzadi 1979→ 08:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Lower Branch ... Middle Branch – are these meant to be proper names? River Rouge (Michigan) uses the common noun forms 'lower branch' and 'middle branch', but I don't know which way is correct.
The interchange with the Jeffries Freeway on the border between Plymouth Township and Livonia is where the FHWA considers I-275 to end. – This gave me a bit of a "huh?" moment when I first read it (as the lead states that The FHWA considers I-275 to end at the junction with I-96 and M-14). I think it might read better, especially to someone not familiar to the area, if this (as the first sentence of the paragraph) was consistent with the lead, ie leave mentioning Jeffries Freeway to the next sentence.
At the time the freeway ... remained on state transportation priority lists through the mid-1980s. – is it necessary to have this much history in the route description section?
Bike trail
About half the section is whitespace on my screen, any chance of playing around with the formatting and/or infobox content?
History
Detroit City Council - link?
stated the project – should this be 'stated that the project ?
more at-grade intersections than a full freeway doesn't sound right, as it implies that a full freeway may have some at-grade intersections
Exit list – no issues that I can see
Otherwise looking good - Evad37[talk] 01:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Finally getting some time to work on this. The changes for the lead and history have been applied, although it might be an American-ism to use "area" as an adjective to mean "X in the area", as in "area schoolchildren attend Foobar Elementary School". As for the RD comments, I would say that the River Rouge article is wrong as my maps label it as a proper name.
As for the bit of history in the RD, it ties directly into the "useless concurrency" and part of the why I-275 overlaps I-96. You'll note that a reviewer above has asked for an answer "why" on the overlap, and this is the spot in the article where it fits best to touch on that. I've trimmed it a bit, and once I receive a few MDOT memos, I can actually write a short piece in the History section citing two memos where the department considered, and then rejected, removing the duplicate designation during the 1980s, but it is still RD material to note the intergovernmental conflict over where I-275 ends. Imzadi 1979→ 11:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Support, looks good - Evad37[talk] 02:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
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.
Michigan Heritage Route
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.
Nominator's comments: This list has recently been updated with some generous assistance from MDOT. They are still looking for the source materials necessary to expand the last few entries into full dates, but I don't think that should hold us up from reviewing the list at this time.
Nominated by:Imzadi 1979→ 23:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 00:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
Review by Dough4872
Comments:
Do you think we can get a map of the heritage routes for the infobox, possibly color-coding them by type?
Do you think you can add a section to the list discussing the history of the heritage routes program?
In the description section of the list, I would add some details as to what makes each heritage route either "historic", "recreational", or "scenic". For example, what makes the Chief Noonday Trail Recreational Heritage Route "recreational"?
For the three proposed heritage routes, do you know what type they will be?
Overall, the basic structure of the list is fine as it lists all the basic facts and statistics that would be associated with any road. The preceding four points are just suggestions on how this list can be further improved to provide a model for lists of scenic byways. Dough4872 00:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Replies:
The KML is up, and I've e-mailed a copy to my trusty cartographically enabled friend for a map. Hopefully one will be available soon.
I will look into this point a little later and follow up afterwards.
I'll see what I can do without breaching original research restrictions, but I think the various management plans MDOT sent me may have some details.
No, I don't. MDOT only shows two on their map without indicating what type they might be assigned. The third is based on news article, and those articles also fail to mention which type it might be assigned if approved. Imzadi 1979→ 04:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dough4872: the map was added and I've added a history section as well as some notes on on features that pertain to the historic, recreational or scenic qualities of the routes. Imzadi 1979→ 11:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Support - With my suggested changes made, I believe this list serves as a model for how scenic byway lists should look across the country. Dough4872 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
Preliminary stuff
Images: (not an image review) the captions need a bit of work, there are some with complete sentences with no period, and some missing words on a few.
See also: "that run along county roads that are not eligible to be Michigan Heritage Routes" - awkward
Some dead links.
Program
thereby, providing economic benefits by stimulating tourism - fragment after a semicolon.
this report details the any new additions in the previous year - extra "the"
First - need comma after
Content
Northern Monroe city limists
Otherwise should be a support. --Rschen7754 20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: all done, although to resurrect the dead link, I had to use a screen capture generated by a third-party archiving site to which we can't directly link at this time. The screen capture is sitting on Commons. Imzadi 1979→ 05:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 13:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The three individual heritage route markers are not PD under federal law. They are creations of a department of the State of Michigan, so there is no automatic dedication into the public domain like with works of the federal government. Rather, we have an OTRS ticket that says all of Michigan's highway signs are public domain, so that's the license we have to use: the one that says they released the signs into the PD by MDOT. Imzadi 1979→ 00:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, the barn photo has a license, {{attribution}}, which is located in the permission section of the information box. Imzadi 1979→ 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Doing a bit of research, it is technically a valid enough license for Commons not to delete the file, though it could be at risk of being deprecated in the future. But the check is Done. --Rschen7754 17:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
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.
Done --Rschen7754 23:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Utah SR 67.svg PD-MUTCD-UT
Support Talking about the EIS adds the depth I was looking for. I do have one more thing, but obviously it's not going to hold you up. Above, you mentioned that nobody calls it the Wasatch Weave. I'd like to see that mentioned in the article and backed up by a reference. → "This interchange is officially called the Wasatch Weave, but is almost never referred to as such." But if you can't, you can't, no big deal. –Fredddie™ 21:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Support –Fredddie™ 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I got confused at first...with where Petoskey was. The information itself is correct, but Petoskey isn't marked on the map, and I, having only visited Michigan a few times, had no clue where it was located. Is this an issue?
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_map.svg){kind=link}
File:California 76.svg PD-MUTCD-CA
–Fredddie™ 16:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
