Talk:Interstate 43/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

There are two disambiguation links and a dead link to be repaired.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The exit list isn't "complete" by today's standards and expectations as it lacks actual mileposts.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The captions could use some copyediting. One photo uses "I-43" an the other two pictures use "Interstate 43". Additionally, the map should have a caption under some readings of the GA criteria.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Lead
 * Inconsistent usage of abbreviations. The first time a new type of highway is mentioned, the full name should be spelled out in full, with the abbreviation in parenthesis afterwards. Then that abbreviation convention should be consistently used. Only the Interstate Highway abbreviation convention is listed that way.
 * The section starts with a summary of the RD and then includes a summary of the history section, but the sections are presented in the body in the opposite order. Is there a way to make this consistent? Either approach is fine, but the lead and the body of the article should follow the same basic presentation order.
 * There is a winding snake of a sentence that strings along all of the concurrencies. This can be cleaned up.


 * History
 * Inconsistent abbreviations here as well. Some are WIS #, some are STH # or STH-#. Some are US #, some are US-#. (Using both the WIS and STH conventions could fine if desired for variety, but both should be in the parentheses on the first usage.)
 * Things like "the Milwaukee to Green Bay segment" should be either "the Milwaukee-to-Green Bay segment" or "the Milwaukee – Green Bay segment". The word grouping of the two cities is acting as a compound adjective to describe the word "segment" and so they need to be hyphenated together, or joined by the dash.
 * "the Brown, Sheboygan, and Manitowoc County governments" the word county should be in lowercase. Common elements of a grouping (in this case county government) should not be capitalized. In this case, the world county should not be in the link either because that's separating it visually from government.
 * WisDOT needs to be spelled out on first usage. So does FHWA, which should be linked as well on first usage.
 * "October, 2004" no commas in dates unless the day of the month is given and the date is formatted in the American standard.


 * Route description
 * In the history section, we have CTH-X, but here we have CTH X. These need to be consistent throughout the article.
 * If the RD section stays second in section order, any highways or locations here should be delinked if they're linked in either the lead or history sections per WP:OVERLINK.
 * It's nice to see the AADT counts. I think it's a touch excessive to list them for every county. Most articles only list the highest and lowest traffic counts. Some articles add in additional mentions if the highway has freeway and at-grade highway segments for comparisons, or if the highway crosses state lines. (As an aside, AADT is a measurement, and any proper measurement needs a value and a unit label, not just a number. Somewhere in the article, the text should specific that the traffic counts given are measured by using AADT. There are other methods that will give different results.)
 * The prose RD doesn't need to list every interchange along the freeway, the exit list will do that.
 * "junction" is a noun, not a verb. Ditto "interchange" as it's being used in the article (My dictionary lists the verb defintions as "(of two or more people) exchange (things) with each other" or " put each of (two things) in the other's place" or " [ intrans. ] (of a thing) be able to be exchanged with another" none of which apply to roads intersecting.
 * "The freeway between the Mitchell and Marquette Interchanges carried less at that time - 97,000 " the hyphen (-) needs to be converted to either a spaced en dash ( – ) or an unspaced em dash (—) per MOS:DASH. Other instances need to be audited for correct usage and consistency.
 * "mixed urban residential/industrial areas" should be reworded to avoid the slash construction.
 * Comma usage needs to be audited as well. There are many strays in the text that need to be removed.
 * The lead has firmly established that the highway is only in one state. Unless a city is in another state, the links should be piped to remove "Wisconsin" from display.
 * To paraphrase, this article needs more details about the surroundings in places. The RD reads like a list of what highways intersect, merge into, or split from I-43 at various places. More attention could be focused on the terrain and conditions where the freeway runs and any major landmarks along the way. There's no mention of the freeway crossing the Milwaukee River, or running near the airport.


 * Exit list
 * The exit list should have actual mileposts given. WisDOT does not make these widely available unfortunately. I have the Southeast and Southwest regions' logs in Excel format and the Northeast Region on paper. I'll try to get the table updated at some point.
 * Additional updates are needed to comply with the latest guidance from MOS:RJL.


 * References
 * Footnotes 5, 16 and 18 are all using a self-published source. They will need to be replaced to retain Good Article status.
 * The remainder of the citations need to be consistently, and correctly, formatted.
 * There are a variety of date formats.
 * PDF (an abbreviation for Portable Document Format) should be in all caps
 * There is a bare url for footnote 30.
 * Maps should have section numbers added if the maps contain them.
 * All citations should have publication dates added where given in the source.


 * External links
 * These need to be formatted correctly.


 * Comments
 * Are there any plans for future construction or improvements to the freeway? If so, they should be listed.
 * The whole article could use a good top-to-bottom copy edit. The history section is two huge paragraphs and one small one.
 * The article doesn't make any mention of National Highway System status. That's easy because as an Interstate, it automatically is listed on the NHS, but it's not mentioned at all.
 * Given some of the sources present in the article, I would expect to see some construction costs mentioned, but there are none. It doesn't have to be excessive, but a sprinkling of some dollar amounts would be nice for perspective.

Given the number of issues, I can't leave this article listed as GA. The copy editing alone with some organizational issues would probably take longer than the standard hold period. Sadly, there are references issues that won't be easily resolved in a seven-day time period. I'm delisting the article. When these issues are resolved, it can be renominated.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)