Talk:M-209 (Michigan highway)/GA1

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

Reviewer: -- P C  B   23:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article, although short, is well-written and referenced. However, the route description may be slightly off topic. I understand that the article is short because the route itself is extremely short.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is very engaging and is very well-written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are enough references for the article's length. All are reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I don't know whether it is standard to have road articles cover surrounding areas, but the route description is pretty off-topic. The national lakeshore has needs no summary here. The route is supposed to be a description of the route, not of adjacent places. Perhaps the scenery along the route, instead of the park as a whole, could be described.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think I require a second opinion before I pass or fail the article. The article is very well written, however, I don't quite think the route description is relevant enough.
 * Saw this on the GAN page, so I'll add my thoughts. Route descriptions should have information on relevant surrounding points of interest, especially when the route itself is too short to sustain any substantial text (NY 308 is an example of this). In this case, I think there might be just a bit too much of that, but it's really a matter of personal opinion. Otherwise, looking through the history section, one thing I find myself wondering is, what highway succeeded M-209 as the shortest in the state? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with both comments. I realize that RD's should have information on surrounding stuff, it's just that this article's route description is solely describing the stuff around it and not the road itself. -- P C  B   00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I think it is pertinent to explain surroundings of the highway in the Route description, I think there are two problems with how it is done in this article: the explanation of the surroundings applies too much to a wide area around M-209 and that explanation overwhelms the information about the topic of the article, M-209. The first paragraph is mostly about the restored Glen Haven village.  The paragraph describes various buildings in the park that are or should be explained in the Glen Haven article.  Only two sentences are about M-209 or its relationship to those buildings.  The second and third paragraphs describe the national seashore as a whole.  The third paragraph includes detailed information that is already provided in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore article.  The second paragraph can remain as context.  My suggestions are to remove the third paragraph and merge the second paragraph with the first; mention the surrounding vegetation and patches of sand; explain the southern terminus, where it is M-109 west that has the stop sign at the intersection; explain and the northern terminus, which I cannot figure out.  Did M-209 include only the north-south road segment or the east-west segment paralleling the lake as well? Viridiscalculus (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw this on the GAN page, so I'll add my thoughts. Route descriptions should have information on relevant surrounding points of interest, especially when the route itself is too short to sustain any substantial text (NY 308 is an example of this). In this case, I think there might be just a bit too much of that, but it's really a matter of personal opinion. Otherwise, looking through the history section, one thing I find myself wondering is, what highway succeeded M-209 as the shortest in the state? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with both comments. I realize that RD's should have information on surrounding stuff, it's just that this article's route description is solely describing the stuff around it and not the road itself. -- P C  B   00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While I think it is pertinent to explain surroundings of the highway in the Route description, I think there are two problems with how it is done in this article: the explanation of the surroundings applies too much to a wide area around M-209 and that explanation overwhelms the information about the topic of the article, M-209. The first paragraph is mostly about the restored Glen Haven village.  The paragraph describes various buildings in the park that are or should be explained in the Glen Haven article.  Only two sentences are about M-209 or its relationship to those buildings.  The second and third paragraphs describe the national seashore as a whole.  The third paragraph includes detailed information that is already provided in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore article.  The second paragraph can remain as context.  My suggestions are to remove the third paragraph and merge the second paragraph with the first; mention the surrounding vegetation and patches of sand; explain the southern terminus, where it is M-109 west that has the stop sign at the intersection; explain and the northern terminus, which I cannot figure out.  Did M-209 include only the north-south road segment or the east-west segment paralleling the lake as well? Viridiscalculus (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Some comments and a little background about this article. The content on Glen Haven and the national lakeshore was added to meet the minimum length requirements of the DYK nomination. Another thing to remember is that with longer highways, the RD section will cover the communities and landmarks along the route. With a highway this short, that scales to covering the individual buildings involved. I've added in JC's suggestion of what highway took the "shortest in Michigan" crown from M-209 after the transfer.

Now, I've tried to summarize the RD up a little bit, but honestly, I don't think there's much more to remove without removing context from the article. I've hopefully clarified the termini locations as well. Any further comments?  Imzadi  1979   →   03:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's ready to go. -- P C  B   22:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)