Talk:Shelby Bypass

Review new article
I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly this draft was approved. I was expecting it to take much longer and to have other road-centric editors review the article first. However, since I'm not the best at creating new articles, I highly encourage anyone to review the article now since it has been published. I would suggest maybe checking the grammar and formatting to see if it makes sense and if the references are properly sourced, placed, and cited. Thanks! -OrdinaryJosh (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There was a piece of feedback I read in an article review long ago. Basically, if you need more than two or three footnotes in a row, there's a problem. Citation overkill encapsulates the concepts nicely.
 * So when I see "[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]", or "[4][5][6]", I get suspicious. Some footnotes being included may be low-quality sources and should be deleted (thinking of the " NC Eminent Domain Law Firm" citation), or the content should be expanded to spread out the footnotes. (M-185 (Michigan highway) has a sentence listing four newspapers that covered a unique fact about that highway with the appropriate footnotes interjected in the middle of the sentence after each publication name instead of appearing at the end.) Another option would be to move redundant citations to a Further reading section or to collect them here on the talk page as the basis for additional editing in the future.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)