Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 94 in Michigan/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2017.

Interstate 94 in Michigan

 * Nominator(s):  Imzadi 1979  →   14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the last of Michigan's primary Interstate Highways to be nominated here, and the next one in the series to bring the GT up to FT level. There's some notable national firsts involved here, and it should be a good read.  Imzadi 1979  →   14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR and determined all the images are properly licensed and the captions are fine.  Dough   4872   22:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per review at WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 94 in Michigan. Source review was also done. --Rschen7754 02:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and comments . Happy to support, but a couple of minor oncerns, both in the lead.
 * To me at least, the 1987 a plane crash sits oddly where it is, perhaps better at the end after the road details?
 * Various segments have been dedicated to various people and places.&mdash; surely one of the variouses could be replaced?
 * Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for catching that duplicate word. As for the other, I added a little more summary of the post-completion history; hopefully that places it in the historical context a little better. Let me know if you have a different idea there, and thank you for the review.  Imzadi 1979  →  19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All Ok now, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comments by Nick-D

The "Since completion" section isn't of FA standard at present given that it consists of a series of single sentence paragraphs. It also seems to be incomplete. For instance: Watch out also for imprecise wording and purple prose in the "Memorial highway names" section, such as:
 * "The interchange with the Southfield Freeway (M-39) was closed entirely in 1985 to replace the original exit design, which included on-ramps that sharply merged into the left lanes of I-94." - what did the replacement consist of?
 * This was recently added by on January 3; unless he can supply additional details similar to what we have on the US 24 interchange, I'm going to remove it as insignificant to the history of I-94.  Imzadi 1979   →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a little more info. If you can find any more by entering various search terms into "site:newspapers.com", then give me the links and I'll see if I can add any other refs found this way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "On August 16, 1987, Northwest Airlines Flight 255 crashed after attempting to take off from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, killing all but one passenger upon exploding at an overpass at Middlebelt Road" - the photo shows what looks to be very extensive debris across the highway, as well as it being the scene of a tragedy which would require a formal investigation. How long was the road closed for, and was a memorial or similar installed?
 * Memorial yes. The photo is of Middlebelt Road, not I-94, which is carried by the pair of overpasses in that photo. A search of various newspaper databases does show that I-94 was closed at least until the next day, however the Detroit Free Press article with that information is locked behind a pricy subscription level at newspapers.com. More to come on this search soon.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And found the answer: I-94 reopened on August 18, 1987.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The new wording here could still be improved: "According to the crash report from the National Transportation Safety Board, that overpass above Middlebelt Road was not damaged in the crash." - why specify that this is from the crash report (is it a problematic or disputed source), and repeating "overpass above Middlebelt Road" in two sentences could be avoided. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.  Imzadi 1979  →  14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In July 1997, the second span of the Blue Water Bridge opened between Port Huron and Point Edward, Ontario" - when did construction start?
 * Added some details here.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "The lane configuration changes have confused drivers in the area" - current tense seems inappropriate for something which occured over three years ago: presumably this confusion is no longer an issue.
 * Updated.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "and cost $76 million (equivalent to $80.6 million in 2015" - there's no need to adjust figures for inflation over only two years
 * It's a matter of future proofing though, and consistency. This way no one has to remember to add the inflation adjustments in whatever arbitrary year we would otherwise decide they would need to be inserted. It also means we have all dollar values listed with values for the same year, and in a few weeks, they'll all be listed in 2016 values when the next round of inflation numbers are released.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a 2017 FAC though, and it looks odd. I'd suggest adding this in ten years or so when it becomes meaningful/useful to readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet we're supposed to be consistent,, and now someone tells me to be inconsistent. In this case, all dollar values that aren't from 2015 or later have inflationary equivalents present. All of them. In short, if there's a dollar value, I always include the adjusted value just so that no one has to remember at some arbitrary date to go back to add them, and no one can complain that they can't make a comparison. As I noted, the values will be updating to 2016 inflation values in just a few weeks, furthering the gap between the year between original value and adjusted value more, temporally and monetarily.  Imzadi 1979  →  14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Journalists and historians don't adjust currency values across such short periods or so recently except in cases of hyper inflation, and neither should we. This is not FA quality prose, it's not at all useful for readers, and there's no reason to stick with odd looking material for any reason. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though it is only a few years, it is still a $4 million difference (about 5%) and is still significant IMO. Also concerned about being consistent. --Rschen7754 08:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Some initial support surfaced" - from whom, and how did this "surface"? (can you say something "groups such as ... suggested naming it..." to avoid this construction?)
 * Barnett does not specify which groups, so sadly I can't quite use your suggestion.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "The plants at Willow Run produced B-24 Liberator bombers by Ford Motor Company " - "for Ford Motor Company" perhaps?
 * Done.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "the honor was included in a budget bill passed in 1997" - which legislature passed this bill?
 * The Michigan Legislature, as named in the first sentence of the paragraph.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "the Legislature thought it only fitting to name the section of highway for the unit" - like other institutions, legislatures can't think for themselves. This was the reason the change was made though, so you could say something like the coincidence(?) in the numbers being the reason the change was made and passed. Also, which legislature is being referred to here?
 * Wording revised. The body in question is the Michigan Legislature, which also named earlier in the specific paragraph. There's only the one in the state, and our federal-level analog is named the United States Congress, and the county-level bodies are "county commissions", meaning the term without the state name is not ambiguous.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, does the Exit list section need to be referenced? Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The exit list is referenced to the mapping source used to derive the mileposts. That's been sufficient for the dozens of other FAs on highways. Thanks for the review, .  Imzadi 1979  →   07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * will you be coming back to this review at all?  Imzadi 1979  →   21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just notices my typo,so restating the ping.  Imzadi 1979  →  17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sections look good. I've left a couple of minor suggestions for further improvements above for your consideration. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly grammatical comments from Pepper (this is my first time commenting on a FAC, so I'd also appreciate feedback on whether the suggestions I make are helpful or not)  " Pepper "  @ 04:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a weird hyphen dash going on in #Early conversions to freeways, perhaps concentrate it to "for a more direct Detroit–Chicago freeway routing"?
 * "The completion of I-69 in the 1980s, and the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, increased traffic at the Blue Water Bridge." - Are the commas necessary here?
 * "an international task force determined that traffic on the existing structure exceeded capacity in 1992" - Did they determine it in 1992 or did it exceed capacity in 1992 (or both)?
 * "allowing for dedicated lanes for local traffic and for bridge traffic" - change to "allowing for dedicated local traffic and bridge traffic lanes" to be more concise and avoid for for for.
 * "The name honors the US Army's 94th Infantry Division which was activated" - comma necessary before which (should I be making simple changes like this myself or is it better form to provide the suggestion to the FAC nominator?)
 * "In this year Michigan became the first state to complete a border-to-border toll-free Interstate within their state, running for 205 miles (330 km) from Detroit toward New Buffalo, the longest toll-free freeway in the country at the time." - comma after year, and it would probably be good to reword this as it currently sounds like New Buffalo is the longest toll-free freeway.
 * "East of Benton Harbor, I-94 meets the Napier Avenue interchange where US 31 merges onto the freeway" - comma before where
 * "Continuing eastward I-94 traverses rural land on the north side of Marshall" - comma after eastward
 * "it runs generally due east" - oxymoron
 * "across the state from Benton Harbor–St. Joseph area east to the Ann Arbor area" - add "the" before Benton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper (talk • contribs)
 * To reply to the above,, you certainly can make minor fixes to the article while reviewing it. Another practice that helps nominators is to keep your comments in the same order as the article text or reference section names. You started with comments on the History section, and then went to the Memorial names before jumping back to the History and at the end jumped to the Route description and then back to the History... let's just say that it took me a few moments to find where we were going. That said, everything above has been changed except your second point where the commas are needed since both reasons contributed to the traffic increase. I'm also unsure about your comment about an oxymoron in the text, so I have left that alone for the moment.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Will definitely be more orderly in the future! The changes look good to me. The oxymoron is the incompatibility between due east, which implies exactly east, and generally east, which implies not exactly east. It's a similar construction to "I'm almost completely sure" - I don't think it's an issue if you are against modifying the sentence as it reads fine and I understood it to mean running in a very easterly direction without being completely straight. Overall I'm happy to support this well put together article.  " Pepper "  @ 21:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Hi and welcome to FAC. If I could just ask one favour for future reference, please add a signature after your comments as well as your opening statement. It just makes it easier to keep track of everything for the nominator and the coordinators. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly will do in the future, thanks.  " Pepper "  @ 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – I alphabetized the categories at the bottom of the article. It looks fantastic to me! Carbrera (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Just a couple of queries. Can we confirm that the sources and images are the same as they were when the reviews were completed? And I'd just like to check that you are happy now, as you were concerned that a section was not at FA standard. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is up to standard now Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This diff shows all of the edits made to the article since the end of the ACR. The images have remained unchanged since then. As for sources, I copies the respective reference lists now and then and pasted them into the tool at https://text-compare.com to compare the changes made to the rendered citations since the ACR. Other than a few minor capitalization fixes, the net changes are as follows. Note 5 had its dates updated (corresponding to an update in the text), notes, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 85 were added, and note 81 was shifted up in the sequence (but because of other additions, remained note 81).  Imzadi 1979  →   01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm going to promote this now, but this needs to be checked for duplinks. I'm not sure if there is some system I am missing, but we have a LOT of duplicate links. However, it's not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.