Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 496/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 Ian Rose 08:04, July 21, 2013 (UTC).

Interstate 496

 * Nominator(s):  Imzadi 1979  →   01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all of the criteria for promotion. I-496 is the Ransom E. Olds Freeway, named for the founder of Oldsmobile and the REO Motor Company. The freeway connects downtown Lansing to I-96 and I-69. It was built through a neighborhood that was home historically to the city's African-American population; the results of that construction actually helped to desegregate the city somewhat. The freeway's construction also resulted in the demolition of the historic Olds Mansion, Ransom's former home. I hope you enjoy the history behind this freeway as much as I did writing it.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed the article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria.  Dough 48  72  01:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I, too, reviewed this article while it was at ACR (which can be found here). This article seems to meet the FA criteria. T  C  N7 JM  01:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support/spotcheck I reviewed the article and did a source spotcheck at the above ACR and feel it meets the criteria. --Rschen7754 01:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A thorough Image check was done for all present images during ACR (thanks for that). GermanJoe (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments :
 * The lede states that "The city renamed it the Oldsmobile Freeway", but the body of the article, citing Barnett p.165 states it was "Oldsmobile Expressway." Which is correct?
 * Kinda both; all "Expressway" names in Michigan were converted to "Freeway" names by the state during the 1970s. It's a force of habit to "convert" them as I'm writing, but I switched this one back to correct the apparent inconsistency.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO Google Maps is a terrible source with numerous factual errors and I would avoid it like the plague. Can you not cite official MDOT documentation instead - we don't mind if sources are offline and verification is hard, as long it means we get things right.
 * All of the Google Maps citations are combined with the paper MDOT map; all of them. Also, if you click the link, it's the satellite imagery that's being used from Google Maps, not their cartography, to reference the details about the landscape. This is a standard editorial and citation technique I've used on most of my other FA-level articles on Michigan highways.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I'm more comfortable with that. Personally I think if it's something you can go out and physically see, it's de facto verifiable, but an online source does make it easier to do so. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   08:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that demolishing a portion of a significant African-American community did not pass without comment from the local news, and for a FAC quality article, we should strive to retrieve such a quote for completeness.
 * The entire section on that history is cited to the Lansing State Journal who did a human interest piece in 2009 on the story. There is also the 1965 LSJ article cited.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ironwood Daily Globe source states that 50 men worked on their days off for more than three months to complete the highway before year end. I think this is worth mentioning in the article.
 * Added.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * December 18, 1970 is cited multiple times in the article. I think one of these mentions is probably redundant, unless they're referring to completely separated schemes that finished on the same date by coincidence (which I don't think they are).
 * The date is mentioned four times: 1) the infobox, 2) the lead, 3) the history when stating when it opened, 4) the history when discussing the naming controversy. Of the four, the last one could be replaced with a more generic mention, but that's not really needed, IMHO.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The section starting "The freeway underwent a $42.4 million reconstruction" probably wants to sit in a separate paragraph, as it's a completely separate time frame to the rest of the construction history. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Line break added.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support based on resolution of above issues. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   05:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support after conducting my own examination of the article, and based on the thorough checking and modification that has been done in this nomination and the A-class review. The article more than meets the WP:WIAFA criteria from my perspective at this point. -  Floydian  τ ¢  07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - not sure why this has been listed so long... consensus seems fairly clear! But I'll throw my support in for a well-developed article with plenty of detail that offers a rich reading experience without crossing the threshold into fluffiness. I made a few minor tweaks to the history section to improve flow, but otherwise I have no concerns. Juliancolton (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been awaiting a source review (requested at WT:FAC) for a bit. If no-one gets round to it this w/e I'll probably do it myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Well written, detailed, and interesting article -- Nbound (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review by TCN7JM
Since this article is only awaiting a source review before promotion, I will conduct one in a few moments. T C  N7 JM  05:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I have found them to be well-formatted (though I did add a couple spaces for consistency), and there are no issues with reliability or anything else. Therefore, I remain in favor of the article being supported to FA status. T C  N7 JM  06:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.