Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 196/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC).

Interstate 196

 * Nominator(s):  Imzadi 1979  →   20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I-196, a highway designation so well loved it was built twice in Michigan. This is the last signed member of the I-96 family to come to FAC, and I look forward to reviews of the article. (Earlier this year, the article was given an A-Class Review that included a spotcheck and an image reivew; no images or source changes have been made since.)  Imzadi 1979  →   20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I did an image review and found no issues. --Rschen7754 20:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed the prose at the ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria.  Dough 48  72  00:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed the prose and conducted a spotcheck at the ACR in June, so I can confidently say this article merits promotion to FA-Class. T  C  N7 JM  12:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support, with just a few really minor things not worth not supporting over. Well, it seems like every time I have an FAC up, I see a Michigan highway article, and for some reason I can't help but be drawn to them! They're usually so good.... and this is no exception :) That being said, I got a few little comments. All in all pretty good! Just these minor comments and I'll be happy to support. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "I-196 is known as the Gerald R. Ford Freeway, or simply the Ford Freeway, in Kent, Ottawa, and Allegan counties" - so it's not so back heavy, I'd put "in Kent, Ottawa, and Allegan counties, I-196 is known as..."
 * Done.
 * Random question, but since I-96 is a bit of an abbreviation, shouldn't its first usage be spelled out in full as "Interstate 96" in the lede? Ditto I-94. You do it it I-196, anyway. —Imzadi1979
 * I only spell out the first highway of each type, and then I abbreviate all others of that type thereafter. Since "Interstate 196 (I-196)" appears in the very first sentence, I normally would not spell out I-96 and I-94, even on their first mentions. —Imzadi1979
 * Works for me. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The current freeway numbered I-196 is actually the second in the state to bear the number." - I'd cut "actually". Not the most formal, sounds conversational.
 * Done. —Imzadi1979
 * "Michigan officials requested a change in 1963 which reversed the two numbers and the subsequent segments of freeway opened northward to Holland and from Grand Rapids westward under the current number. " - add a comma, please
 * Done. —Imzadi1979
 * Is there a reason the interstate wasn't numbered something even, as it does connect two interstates?
 * I would assume it's because what is now I-196 started out as part of I-96 before the 1963 renumbering. Since the original I-196 was a spur, the odd first digit was appropriate. Additionally, if they switched what is now I-196 to start with an even digit, we'd have numbering issues since I-296, I-496 and I-696 are all in use in a geographic sequence in the state.
 * "In 2011, the department's traffic surveys showed that on average, 77,500 vehicles used the highway daily between Lane Avenue and US 131 in Grand Rapids and 12,778 vehicles did so each day north of the split with US 31 near Holland, the highest and lowest counts along the highway, respectively." - either add a comma, or semicolon, but it's a just a hair too long, IMO.
 * I split it into two sentences. —Imzadi1979
 * "At the interchange" in Route Description - just for fun, what sort of interchange is it?
 * Added the type and a wikilink to trumpet interchange. —Imzadi1979
 * "turns further inland" - since it has to do with length and stuff, I think it should be "farther", but it's a little ambiguous since it's not an exact measurement.
 * Done, but yeah, this might need to be changed back. I'll look it over again tomorrow and double check some of my writing resources to see which word should be used in this case. —Imzadi1979
 * "crosses over M-43 without and interchange" - should that be "an"? Or is there a word missing
 * That should be an "an" not an "and". Fat fingers and all. ;) —Imzadi1979
 * "about two miles (3.2 km)" - first, if it's "about", then the second unit should be rounded. Second, if the first unit is spelled out, so should the second.
 * I disagree here. Both numbers are rounded since if I really wanted, I could insert a measurement with precision to the thousandth of a mile. In this case, I don't see the harm in leaving this as is, which is the default behavior of convert/spell. —Imzadi1979
 * Eh, but the 3.2 km isn't rounded. Mostly, per WP:MOSNUM, units under 10 should be rounded. Not a huge deal though, just mildly inconsistent.
 * "the freeway runs along the river passing Millennium Park" - comma after river?
 * Done. —Imzadi1979
 * "A little over a mile and a quarter (2.0 km)" - why not say exact distance here?
 * I can't win on this point. If I give a more exact distance in the prose, I get complaints that it reads tediously. When I round it off in the prose like this, it's not exact enough. :) —Imzadi1979
 * Well, you could just say 1.2 or 1.3 mi, since you have the 2 km there. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Before the Grand Rapids–Benton Harbor segment was completed, the Michigan State Highway Department (MSHD), predecessor to the modern MDOT" - add comma to the end
 * Done. —Imzadi1979
 * I have attended to all of the above, except where noted.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm happy to support, and as for the km rounding or not, it's not an issue for me. I'd love clarification/standardization in the future, but it's pretty minor. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose after source spot-check.
 * Ref 5, plagiarism:
 * Article text: "roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility"
 * Source text: "roadways important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility"
 * It's not plagiarism because it's cited and it's of a irreduceable simplicity. Additionally, it can't be a copyright violation because it is a public domain source (coming from the Federal Highway Administration, a subdivision of the U.S. Department of Transportation). This was discussed extensively in a different article's ACR (see Royalbroil's collapsed section), and per policy, this is fine. Per the current guideline at WP:Close paraphrasing:"Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism, and when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy, which forbids Wikipedia contributors from copying material directly from other sources. Public domain material must likewise be attributed to avoid plagiarism. If the source material bears a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, copying or closely paraphrasing it is not a copyright violation so long as the source is attributed somewhere in the article, usually at the end." This is a single sentence fragment coming from a public-domain source where the core words ("important", "economy", "defense", "mobility") can't be changed significantly without altering the intended meaning; in the case of attempting to call this an opinion, this is an operational definition from the government agency that administers the program. I stand by this sentence, the phrasing, and the citation in this and several other articles rated as FAs.  Imzadi 1979   →   19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this doesn't pass muster for FA quality sourcing. You will need to locate some prose sources supporting the history you've constructed and anything claims that can't be clearly proven from looking at maps. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs 8b/9a, OK.
 * Ref 10, fails verification. The map does not depict enough detail to support the claims made. Establishing that the highway crosses any of the railways shown on the map is difficult since no highways are shown on the map, and there is nothing about Amtrak on the map.
 * You're viewing an updated version of the map. The January 2011 edition, as Official Rail 130897 7.pdf seen here does note Amtrak.
 * Thanks for updating the link. The new link is fine. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * After beginning to review the citations in the History section, it struck me that almost the entire article is sourced to maps. That's OK when describing the routes and geography, but how can you contruct a written history of something using only maps? For example, you write "In the first tentative Interstate numbering plans, the freeways in Michigan now numbered I-96 and I-196 were supposed to be part of the I-94 corridor, and the freeway between Muskegon and Grand Rapids was to be I-94N." and this is sourced to a map from 1957. The map supports what designations existed in 1957, but it can't support the claim that this was the "first tentative numbering plan". Next, you write "Later, the initial approvals by the federal government routed I-96 from Benton Harbor north to Grand Rapids and then east to Detroit, and I-196 was the spur route from Grand Rapids to Muskegon." again sourced to a map. The map shows the new routes, but where is the source for "initial approvals by the federal government", etc?
 * this is not the first FA to use this technique, which was vetted at WT:No original research/Archive 39. As such, the citations to historical maps to denote the historical changes to the subject highway have been regarded as an appropriate use of secondary sources. (MSHD/MDOT/etc maps may be first-party sources, but maps are secondary sources; the primary sources in this case would be the aerial photography, surveyors' notes or GIS data used to construct the maps in question. See the previous discussion and WP:Party and person)
 * If there are specific concerns that can be rectified, fine, but the general sourcing is acceptable and therefore this is mostly an unactionable oppose.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I don't have a problem with writing "the road goes here" and citing a map that shows the road going there. But, you didn't address the two examples I provided. The maps do not support statements such as "the first tentative Interstate numbering plans" and "initial approvals by the federal government". The only thing a map from 1957 can support is what existed at the time that map was created. You can't claim it was the first numbering plan unless you have a source stating that the 1957 map was the first numbering plan. Likewise, you can't claim that the federal goverment approved something that explains the difference between two maps, because the maps don't contain that information. These may not be the only two—they are just the first two I noticed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm finishing a pair of edits about those two comments which should appear now. Tom Lewis' book Divided Highways: Building the Interstate Highway, Transforming American Life will bear out that the 1957 plans were the first tentative numbering schemes approved because they didn't decide on a numbering scheme until then. It, combined with the explanatory note just added, will show that the 1957 plans were just the initial plans and that Michigan was waiting on final approval through 1959. The next map of the highway system and its numbering scheme is from c. 1963, which shows what was ultimately approved in 1959.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot to mention, but the rail lines are shown on the paper MDOT highway map (online version available here), but they are not named on it. It is necessary to consult the railroad map to pull out the names.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my opposition after further review, and your improvements to the sourcing of the History section. Thanks for your quick responses. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.