Talk:M-152 (Michigan highway)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * " In a traffic survey by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in 2009, the average annual daily traffic (AADT), which is a computation of the average traffic levels for a segment of roadway on any given day of the year. This was calculated at 3,318 vehicles over the entire length of M-152." I agree that this should be two sentences, but the way that you broke it up is not grammatical.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * "The route has never extended past the Berrien County line onto Napier Avenue nor has it extended to M-140." nobody has suggested that it did. You can't cite a map for a sentence like this, in its current form.
 * How about "Although M-152 was constructed so that it continues to the west past the Berrien County line as Napier Avenue and extends to the east to M-140, those segments are not a part of the officially designated route?"
 * Ok, here's the deal. That roadway wasn't constructed to be M-152. Rather, like most highways in the early days, M-152 was created from existing county roads that were transferred to the state's control. The informed opinion is that either the state has never asked for Napier Avenue in Berrien County to be transferred to state control, or the county has never agreed to a transfer. Because the road existed before the creation of M-152 (I can clearly see Napier Avenue on my copy of a map from 1930, for instance) your suggested wording won't work either. In any event, it's hard to prove a negative, but I have a personal archive of over 90 years of MSHD/MDOT maps scanned from the Library of Michigan's archives, and the highway designation has never extended farther west than the county line, even though there is a roadway that does.  Imzadi  1979   →  21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. Perhaps you should explain that in the article rather than take out the sentence entirely. Something like, "M-152 was designated on a part of a longer, preexisting road, and the two end-points of the designation have not changed over time." Racepacket (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is essentially what was stated there before! If you want the sentence back, reinsert it. I'm happy with what is there now and what was there before as both are correct.  Imzadi  1979   →  01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * It is very easy to miss any historically significant items. If you have researched the route, I will trust you that it is complete.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Good catch on that, sometimes when I type/write my brain runs faster than my fingers and words get dropped. Both concerns should be addressed.  Imzadi  1979   →  11:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)