Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-35 (Michigan highway)


 * 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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

M-35 (Michigan highway)
Self-Nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel the subject is notable with an interesting history and the article is worthy Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose, quite a few basic issues with organization, prose and jargon need to be solved with a thorough copyeditor before this is ready for FA. Examples:
 * Some of the wording doesn't seem consistent with other road articles I've reviewed here that use the term "segment" where you use "portion". Is there a reason for one over the other?
 * Variety in prose? No one word is more correct than another in regards to a roadway, IMHO. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "One portion between Ontonagon and Baraga was retained as a discontinuous portion of M-35 and eventually redesignated as another state trunkline." I'm not sure what this means.. retained as a discontinuous portion?  Discontinuous from what?
 * Fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The northern end was moved out of the City of Negaunee into Negaunee Township to avoid mining activity near Palmer." The physically moved the end of the road? Or was this during the planning stage?  Clarity needed.
 * Yes, the roadway was moved. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "... running along a more direct alignment ..." Road jargon, no idea what this means.
 * "According to the 2008 MDOT State Highway Map, taking US 41 results in..." Before you say this, I think you need to discuss how US 41 is an alternate route.
 * Fixed both. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Basic grammar: "The description of the bridge used from the MDOT website says..."
 * Fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The headings where you discuss the route are disorganized and have no logical flow.. they jump all over the place. For example, in the Menominee to Gladstone heading, you start out by describing the southern terminus, move on to other things, and then in the third paragraph we're back at the southern terminus again. -- Laser brain   (talk)  23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also reorganized. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You fixed my examples, but have you made progress toward finding a copyeditor as I requested? -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but any suggested editors are otherwise occupied. Davemeistermoab did a cursory copy edit already. I'm willing to entertain suggestions, but the M-28 (Michigan highway) article has had an open LOCE request pending since it passed the ACR. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, LOCE is not really functioning these days. I understand and empathize, but it honestly needs to be done before close consideration is possible here.  If you're unable to locate an experienced copyeditor at this time, recommend withdrawing the nomination until the article can be made ready. -- Laser brain   (talk)  00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine who is an English teacher has agreed to copy edit the article in the next day or so. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy edit update: User:Finetooth has agreed to edit the article. Other requests were made as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy editing looks to be completed by Finetooth. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - quoting LB, but I'm not so oppose; the article is good but you can do best modifies (cfr. LB). -- Mojska  666  – Leave your message here 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sources look good. : Being on the road, I didn't check external links. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * some WP:DASHes seem unnatural. Make sure you are using the correct of the three types in all places.
 * All usages of dashes is in compliance with MOSDASH. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First para-I think general would be better than overall
 * Is the airport on the east or west of the highway?
 * I meant the Delta County Airport.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the information, but I think it might muddy up the prose slightly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the sentence is currently ungrammatical at present. The phrase "passing to the south and east..." modifies its nearest noun, which is Lake Shore Drive.  You better split the sentence in two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the "shortest state trunkline highway" fact could be more promininent if not mentioned in the lead
 * It is in the lead. "... it is the UP Hidden Coast Recreational Heritage Trail, which is a part of the Michigan Heritage Routes system. Along the southern section of M-35, the highway is the closest trunkline to the Lake Michigan shoreline." Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought talking about the "shortest" fact in the lead might be appropriate. It seems relatively notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to: " Along the southern section of M-35, the highway is the closest trunkline to the Lake Michigan shoreline. making it the shortest routing between Menominee and Escanaba." How's that sound? Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The M-91 designation was first created. . . when?
 * Both are original, 1919 creations. Added that. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd para- Spell out the date.
 * I typed it out as 1919-07-01 which will produce "1 July 1919", "July 1, 1919" or other various formats based on user date preferences in accordance with WP:MOSDATE.
 * I see Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) where it says "ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose", what section are you pointing to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was looking at Manual of Style (dates and numbers). At any rate, I reworked the dates since I see that if a user doesn't select a date preference for autoformatting (which I did LONG ago) they get they raw links. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * fix the precision of the board feet conversion. I doubt it is 1.00 cu. m. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 250 board feet to 3 significant figures is 0.590. I missed an extra 0 in that template. Thanks. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Most maps showed M-35 continuing north and looping to L'Anse." needs further explanation and possibly a citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's to explain? Also, there is a portion of the 1932 MSHD map as an image in the article showing the looping of M-35 up through Northern Marquette and Baraga counties. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does that upper west sliver of Lake Michigan have a name like UP Bay or something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K. I see it is Green Bay. I think this term should be used more prominently in the article and probably in the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the Bay of Green Bay (body of water named after the town, not the other way around) to the lead. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the first para in Route Description be in the WP:LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That paragraph is a mini-lead for the route description section. If I add anything more to the lead, I run the risk of the lead becoming too long. Plus, that's what the rest of the article is for. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should you link the cities again so close to their earlier links?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was requested at the A-Class Review to follow WP:MOSLINK and re-link in each section, lead, RD and history. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you use the North-South direction parameter in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The two termini are labeled in the infobox, same as the other USRD FAs. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Y-shaped a Fork in the road.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Under American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines,. . . So is the longer route going to lose federal funding or its designation or something?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * US Highways are no more likely to be federally funded than any other state highway. They're all just state highways that keep the same number and shield across county lines as part of a coordinated system. Also, US 41 has been routed that way since 1926. According to Chris Bessert's michiganhighways.org, US 41 was supposed to follow a different routing from Powers, MI directly to Marquette, MI that would remove it from Escanaba, which is why it takes the longer, inland routing. In fact MDOT owns CR 557 in Marquette County if they ever complete the 1920s plans after 80+ years. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Try Quote box--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The block quotes are part of the text. That template segregates the quotes to much and makes it look outside of the main article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some say it is unbecoming for refs to be non sequential such as [4][3][9].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A change in reference usage above that point renumbered them. It's fixed now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moderate support Pretty good article. A copyedit would never hurt, but for the most part it's good enough for my support. The ACR pretty much took care of all my concerns. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind my saying so, but "pretty good article" and "a copyedit would never hurt" are not the criteria for a featured article. Criterion 1a is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".  Are you saying you believe this article meets criterion 1a? -- Laser brain   (talk)  21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and I do, in fact, know what criterion 1a, as well as the other criterion, is. I am not a professional writing, and I do not have a prefect feel for what professional prose consists of. Therefore, it is my opinion that the article, while it could use a copyedit, is generally written well. If you feel my opinion on the article is in error, please feel free to let me know. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I've helped review this article on a couple of occasions (A class review, etc.) and have seen this article progress quite a bit.Dave (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Downright support - I've peer reviewed this article god knows how many times for the nominator, he the heck needs a FA sooner or later. But for real, I feel this meets all criterion, especially after the recent copyedit. Good job on the nominator's and copyeditor's parts. Mitch 32contribs 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. To clarify what Juliancolton was (I think) trying to say above – or perhaps to just throw in my own $0.02 – a copyedit would never hurt any article.  The banner that goes on top of an FA's talk page implies that there's still room for improvement, and featured ≠ perfect.  I'd already picked apart this article with a fine-toothed comb twice, and still managed to find one more thing to fix before I came here to give my formal support – and that's right after Finetooth finished his copyedit.  Does that mean it's not deserving of FA-status?  In my eyes, no, it means that it's 99% perfect, which seems to fit the definition of a featured article exactly. -- Kéiryn (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.