Talk:U.S. Route 223/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I am placing the article on hold so that you can address these concerns. Racepacket (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * In lead, " although neither state has plans at this time to complete the freeway." might be better as "although neither state is actively working on completing the freeway." There are designated corridors, and other inactive plans in place.
 * word "plans" has more than one meaning
 * " System, a a system of highways important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility.[8][9][10]" - double "a"
 * ", this is mostly a rural four-lane freeway." - not clear whether you are referring to the proposed I-73 corridor or the existing routes.
 * "abandoned further study of I-73" probably should be "postponed further study of I-73" - because it did not foresee funding to construct it, not that it felt that the project was unnecessary.
 * Source uses phrases like "delayed", "postpones", "In the interim," and "many years before a project like I-73 would successfully compete for funding"
 * Check the dates on those sources. Check the record that doesn't reflect any Michigan or Ohio political will to resurrect the freeway since then. You're not going to find a news article now that comes out just to say "No one still wants this freeway" years after consideration of it was officially abandoned. What money Michigan did get from the feds was spend long ago for other things and the studies ended. Your recent sources have LaHood making speeches in the Carolinas to states that are actually building this. He isn't coming to Michigan or Ohio and stumping for it. Given the recent history of my home state, while I'm not in charge of these things, I can safely predict that in the short term at least, Governor Snyder isn't going to be pushing for building new roads we don't need with money we don't have. None of the coverage of his inaugural address refute my "prediction".  Imzadi  1979   →  17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is now a hatnote link in the history section to the main I-73 article. The additional details you propose adding here should be in that article, not this one. Your suggestions are delving into specifics of I-73 and it's demise in MI/OH and aren't really needed in this article to explain that there was a proposal, codified in a transportation bill, to make this road part of an Interstate, but the states have killed off further consideration. Should the concept ever be revitalized in the future, then this article can be updated for that fact. Until then, I-73 in MI is dead.  Imzadi  1979   →  17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please reword, "This routing basically marks the current alignment of BUS US 223.[20][21]"
 * "The northern terminus of BUS US 223 is at US 223 at an intersection northwest of downtown Adrian.[36]" - too many "at"s. How about: "The northern terminus of BUS US 223 is at an intersection with US 223 northwest of downtown Adrian.[36]"
 * "However, the definition was amended in 1995" -> "However, Congress amended the definition in 1995"
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Between 1923 and 1926, what number did Ohio assign to this route? Any evidence as to when the route in Ohio was signed prior to becoming U.S. Route 223? How about changing "Ohio signed its highways by July 1923.[13][14]" to "Historic maps indicated that Ohio signed SR-54 prior to July 1923.[13][14]" if that is what is indicated on the map.
 * The wording is fine, and accurate as is.  Imzadi  1979   →  17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Update: I've tweaked the sentence.  Imzadi   1979   →  17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any traffic density data available?
 * Discuss the current attempt to build a Congressional coalition of all I-73 states to fund I-73 in the 2011 transportation bill. Are there any upgrade plans that are independent of I-73 funding?
 * See above. There are no current plans to upgrade the road, as I-73 or US 223.  Imzadi  1979   →  17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood does not feel that I-73 is dead. Rather, LaHood wants all Congressmen along the route to work together to push funding. (http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/10/09/1742860/lahood-dot-is-an-ally-for-i-73.html, http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13251657/association-votes-to-add-interstate-75-to-the-group?redirected=true , and http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13291027/lahood-arrives-in-pee-dee-for-important-i-73-talks) You could expand the Future section to describe the current political debate over I-73 funding. I read the sources as saying it is inactive, not dead.
 * Replies:
 * If MDOT had plans to actually build I-73, their special project website for the study and public communications would still be around. It has been taken down, which meant I had to find their past press releases in the Wayback Machine to use them as source material here. (Contrast that to the site for M-6 that is still up 6 years after that freeway was opened.) There is no Congressional requirement to actually build this thing, so while the corridor might be designated, it is meaningless without any state action in Michigan or Ohio. Without the proper environmental review in progress, the highway is dead, not merely inactive.
 * Neither story address much, if anything, about Michigan. (Remember that the southern states are actually building this. Michigan and Ohio are not.) The first article says that he thinks the affected governors need to meet. The third only mentions the corridor's northern end in passing. Both articles are from South Carolina, not Michigan or Ohio. I-73 might be under construction and even signed in North Carolina, but it's dead in MI. As for your second article (that edit-conflicted my comments), I-75 is already built in Michigan. It was completed in 1973. Nothing in that story affects US 223 with respect to the dead I-73 in MI or OH.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The concept was to dual sign I-75 and then to make the route through Jackson (including US 223) part of the interstate system. I don't know yet what financial benefits will come to Michigan under the 2011 bill for its role in the I-73 project.  It seems to me that the article can alert the reader that there are still folks pushing to have I-73 included in the 2011 transportation bill. Racepacket (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I-75 runs several miles east of here, and doesn't connect to US 223. MDOT looked at three options for I-73 in MI. Option one was up US 23 into MI, follow US 223 to US 127 and US 127 north. Option two was the Ohio Turnpike west to US 127 and follow US 127 north. Option three was to follow US 23 and US 223 as far as Adrian and spur off on a new freeway over to US 127 and then follow that north. Those three options are discussed and cited. No where does it say dual-signing I-73 on I-75. In fact, I-94 between Chicago and Port Huron, MI was included in the legislation on the I-69 extension into Texas. It's a funding gimmick to use the funding for one project (I-73 or I-69) to fund upgrades on another highway (I-75 or I-94) but doesn't mean that signs will be installed. Now you seem to be forgetting one key issue. I-73 is being built and funded, but ONLY in the Carolinas and Virginia. Even if it's included in a 2011 transportation bill, that doesn't mean it will include funding for MI or OH, since they cancelled their studies almost a decade ago. Maybe once I-73 is mostly built and signed in the Carolinas and VA, and WV starts upgrading the corridor to full Interstate specs will OH and MI start to reconsider. Until then, I disagree with even including anymore on the highway in this article, since it isn't even guaranteed that US 223 will be used for it.  Imzadi  1979   →  18:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The double "a"... could have been removed by the reviewer, given that the reviewer has removed a stray space in the article. Instead more time was spent pointing out the extra letter than actually removing it without comment.
 * It was not clear to me whether it was an extra letter or the start of a word that was left incomplete.


 * Nothing changed to the highway number in 1923 in Ohio. Signs went up. That's all.
 * I don't understand. I thought that you said that federal routes were numbered in 1926, so what was the number in Ohio before it became U.S. 223?
 * From the article: "As early as 1912, the Ohio section of what is now US 223 was shown on maps as SR 54, however the road was not signed with the number at the time." and "Ohio signed its highways by July 1923."  Imzadi  1979   →  07:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If all Ohio highways had to be signed by July 1923, did it ever get signed? The article addresses Ohio highways in general and leaves open SR 54 in particular.
 * I honestly don't understand what's not clear. The 1912 map (the oldest ODOT provides) shows this highway as SR 54. The system was signed in by 1923 (not "had to be signed by July 1923" but rather it was signed by the time the July 1923 map was printed.) Can I say with absolute certainty that Ohio had the signs up on this specific highway by that date? Not without jumping into a time machine and traveling back to Toledo in 1923.  Imzadi  1979   →  08:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Traffic density is really not necessary for all highways at this level (GA). I've included it on articles about shorter highways from time to time to help pad out what would otherwise be a short RD section. Half of the time, it's not even something added before or requested during an A-Class Review.
 * That is what I thought until you asked that recent traffic density data be included in your GA review of VA-27.
 * This highway is also an order of magnitude longer.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How would it be more mandatory for a 2-mile highway which is mostly interchange ramps than for a 47-mile highway?
 * This highway is more than an order of magnitude longer in terms of length. The shorter the highway, the more details needed. The longer the highway, the less specific detail needed.  Imzadi  1979   →  08:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Other copy edit requests have been fulfilled.  Imzadi  1979   →  07:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this comes off harsh, but I'm very frustrated with the quality of some of these comments as they actually relate to this article. Please revise your review accordingly and strike the completed items.  Imzadi  1979   →  17:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replying to the most recent "thoughts":
 * About Ohio's pre-1926 number. The article already states, quite clearly, that it was numbered on state maps as early as 1912 as SR 54. The signs went up by the July 1923 map printing. Shall I have it engraved in Waterford or Wexford crystal?
 * Congress can say or do what it wants, but if ODOT/MDOT don't buy into the plan, it just will not happen. In our federal system of government, highways are a state function, and Congress can't force a state to spend the money to upgrade a highway. Ray LaHood can personally offered to build it with his own two hands, but if MDOT/ODOT don't do the environmental studies and engineering work, it just will not happen. As of right now, I-73 is a highway that's alive in the Carolinas and Virginia. The West Virginia segment isn't even being built as a freeway where it does not overlay another Interstate. I'm sorry, but most of this is information that should be in the Interstate 73 article until such time as this project is resurrected from the dead in these states and actually affects US 223.
 * I still think that the lead should be changed as we discussed above to avoid the word "plan." What do you think? Racepacket (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully disagree. There are no studies, nor any engineering done for a conversion of US 223 (or any other roadway in MI) into I-73. "Plans" would include studies/proposals to make the change or physical drawings on how to implement it. Since neither exist at this time, the word, as used in the lead, is accurate.  Imzadi  1979   →  06:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you agree that the goal is to communicate clearly with readers, even those who may have a different understanding of the word "plan" than you just described. Racepacket (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, I am closing this review and renominating it. Please, do not review articles I will nominate in the future.  Imzadi  1979   →  06:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)