Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 131/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 SandyGeorgia 15:20, 6 May 2011.

U.S. Route 131

 * Nominator(s):  Imzadi 1979  →   01:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a first for me... a highway article that spans two states, although I honestly prefer to discount the Indiana segment since it's 1/400 the length of the Michigan section. US 131 is a 266 mi highway that follows a major corridor in the state of Michigan. I welcome the feedback and reviews.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I have reviewed this article at both GAN and ACR and feel that is is referenced to several high-quality sources, well-written, broad in its coverage, and illustrated with interesting images. The only possible suggestion for improvement I can offer is for another image or two showing the actual road in detail to be added to the article.  Dough 48  72  01:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review Other than that, images appear unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some sandwiching of text between images on my screen - try to avoid that
 * File:Flag_of_Indiana.svg - source links are dead
 * I've viewed the article on varying widths on my laptop and my iPhone, and I can't make the text sandwhich. As for the flag, I've fixed the deadlink. Thank you for the review.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 8 has a dead link, otherwise DAB, EL, and ALT check out fine. –Fredddie™ 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that INDOT's server was temporarily down (maintenance?) but the site is up now.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all are fine now. –Fredddie™ 17:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support (critical) issues resolved. --Rschen7754 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note previous comments moved to the talk page.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally all seems well, subject to a couple of small points:-
 * A large number of the references are to maps. To assist verification, grid references or equivalent should be provided. This has been done in most cases, but not in all. Is it possible to add such information?
 * Ref 74 "Bauz"; others refer to "Bauza"

Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The maps that lack grid references do so because there are no grids provided on those maps; the MSHD didn't provide them until the mid 1930s. Several of the PDF maps lack them as well. Thanks for catching the typo.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)''

Resolved comment: As far as I can tell, the lead does not summarize any information from Memorial designations or Historic bridges. WP:LEAD states that "in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." A common rule of thumb is that every major section in the body should be represented by at least one sentence in the lead; in this case I would not be opposed to having both sections summarized by a single sentence since Historic bridges is so short. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some extra material has been added to the lead. Please let me know if anything addition should be added, or if anything should be changed in my addition.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "The oldest[, the Mackinaw Trail,] originated from an Indian trail in the area while some other names honored politicians." should have the name of the trail inserted either at the bracketed location or somewhere else. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Any other suggestions? If not, thank you for the comments.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Most comments moved to talk per this - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "... the Shoe Tree. A local landmark since shortly after the turn of the 21st century the origins of the artwork are unknown, but the owners of the property call it "the best landmark in Northern Michigan"." What gives it historical value?  Do you have any references other than a brief mention in the Traverse City Record-Eagle?
 * I am a former resident of the area, and while my personal observations can't be used as a source, that tree is well known and much discussed by members of the community. There are aboute 2,500 hits on Google for that specific shoe tree, most of which don't satisfy WP:RS. It is mentioned in a travel book, Weird Michigan: Your Travel Guide to Michigan's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets and even a short film. It was covered by WLUC-TV, a station based in the Central Upper Peninsula, in a video that's no longer available on their website. There is also an article about it from the Petoskey News-Review on a site that also aggregates articles from the Gaylord Herald Times and the Charlevoix Courier.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as it meets your wikiproject's standards for inclusion, I have no objection, but the text is problematic. I think it was in the source that I read that motorists stop from time to time to throw their shoes into the tree; you're giving the impression that the end result is "artwork".  And we shouldn't be borrowing the term "landmark" from the owners of the property. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Larry Brown ... pleaded no contest on a sexual assault charge, which prompted MDOT to remove his name from the rest area when notified of his conviction." Per the logic of WP:BLP1E, I'd prefer to leave this out.  Is he known for anything other than sexual assault and lasting long enough at MDOT to get his name on a rest area? - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My logic in including that is to add something more than the dry statistics and boring "X road segment at Y location was realigned in Z year" changes to the road. Here we have a human story about a mundane aspect of a pedestrian topic. The fact remains that the only press source that I've ever found that details the numbers or types of rest areas, let alone how the names are assigned is an article about Mr. Brown. The title of that article directly references this situation, and I think leaving that title in the reference list without addressing the subject matter just invites questions.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reply below. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; Here's the diff of my work. I can support per FAC disclaimer if you have a chance to respond to my questions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and the copy edits. Please let me know if I've answered your questions.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per FAC disclaimer. I see your dilemma, and I can support on prose only, but I'm hoping other reviewers will weigh in on the potential WP:BLP issue here. I see nothing to indicate this guy is a public figure or notable. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose by karanacs. Let me start by saying that the sourcing fro this article is MUCH better than many road articles I've reviewed. You've obviously done a lot of work seeking out non-map sources.  My concern is that there is still a large part of the history section sourced to maps, which led the section to read sometimes like a list of changes. It left me with a lot of questions about why something happened, or the impact of the change.
 * Sadly, unlike a younger highway (Capitol Loop), this one's history isn't covered in readily archived press sources. I've spent days at several libraries looking through microfilm for additional sources and they just don't exist for the early history, and I haven't found replacement sources for the other freeway segment openings.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Update: I found a single mention in MDOT's book on the history of the department and the state highway system that explains that the state department was shifting emphasis by the end of the 1930s "to expand and upgrade the trunkline system to make it safer and smoother for burgeoning traffic volumes."  Imzadi 1979   →   22:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably ought to wikilink Mackinaw Trail in history - I see that it's linked later, but that seemed odd.
 * Done.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused...are those plank roads the precursors to US 131, or is it just a history of state-maintained roads? Were these plank roads on the Mackinaw Trail or parallel to it?
 * Both. There are a few specific plank roads mentioned that are precursors to parts of US 131, but the 202 number is statewide.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Were all of the 202 chartered turnpikes ever in operation...sometimes a charter is granted and nothing happens.
 * Sources say that many were not in operation, but no source specifies how many were and how many weren't.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How far in miles did US 131 first extend? I don't know how far it is to Acme from the state line.
 * I can add a rough estimate, but nothing very precise. The problem is that the Fife Lake – Acme section on the federal map doesn't follow any roads that existed then or now. In fact, the Michigan maps of the time show US 131 stopping at Fife Lake for that very reason.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this means "The highway's northern section was not designated in the field "
 * See the reply immediately above.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the impact of the 1931 Public Act....what does that mean, exactly?
 * Should be clarified now, but the City of Grand Rapids had an annoying habit of just moving the routing of state highways through the city arbitrarily whenever they felt like it until the act was passed. Several maps prior to 1931 all show different routings on the Grand Rapids inset.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I question whether a map is an appropriate reference for "the first state-maintained highway along the path of US 131". Yes, the map will tell you that it was A state-maintained highway, but can it really tell you it was the first?
 * There first state highways in Michigan were signed in 1919. I added an explanatory footnote that contains a citation to  Imzadi 1979   →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did Michigan want to extend the designation to Indiana? did that have any effect on building of roads, or was it just adding the designation to existing roads?  What's the point of doing that - and why was it important to connect with US 31?
 * Ok, re-reading it, gives a tourism related benefit in fine print in the article. No other reasons or effects were given in the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't we already know that the IHSD people were "receptive" since we're already told the designation was extended?
 * They only extended the designation the 2/3 of a mile into the state, but Michigan asked Indiana to go all the way to Indianapolis, something that has never been done, even though they were "receptive to the idea" of such a longer extension.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Check your refs, please, to make sure newspapers are always italicized.
 * Found one (oops!) and fixed it.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a possibility of getting a map for the Grand Rapid paragraph (1962s)? I am not familiar with Grand Rapids at all, and the listing of lots of names of streets doesn't help me at all.  I can't picture in my head at all what this is supposed to look like.
 * MSHD copyrighted their map after 1958. I can post a scanned copy of the 1957 Grand Rapids inset, otherwise I will have to rely on another project member to put together a map for me.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it's been two weeks without a reply, I went ahead and posted the most recent (October 1, 1957) inset map from the MSHD that I can use and added that to the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this can be appropriately sourced to a map: "Freeway construction continued through the 1960s"
 * Well, considering that every annual edition of the map shows increasing mileage of freeways opened each year compared to the previous year, yes, I think that statement can be sourced. It's more of a general statement in that paragraph though.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The following year, a business loop in Kalamazoo was created." - was it really built in a year, or did it get finished and added to the map in a year? The map cannot be a source for finished in a year assertions.
 * In 1963, the business loop is not even shown on the map. In 1964, it is a dashed set of lines on the map. In 1965, it is shown complete and open to traffic.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any information about why the people of Petoskey didn't want the freeway? Any local newspapers from that time?
 * I added an explanatory footnote about why the area opposed any freeway near Petoskey.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did the I-296 signs get removed? That seems like a big thing, especially since the designation is still there.
 * There are no news articles about the sign removal. My educated opinion is that MDOT wanted to eliminate the possibility of motorist confusion for people driving along US 131 suddenly finding themselves on I-296 when nothing about the freeway changed beyond a sign. Without a reliable source though, I can not confirm that opinion.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For S-curve replacement, it says there were construction delays, but then that everything opened up early. What kinds of extraordinary measures were in place to make that work?
 * The Grand Rapids Press did not list anything specific in their coverage of the project beyond the fact that the contractor just accelerated the schedule. I added that with a direct quote about "employees [who] have been known to work 13-hour days and 100-hour weeks" on projects, which although a general statement from the article still illustrates the kind of company that performed the work.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's one mention of the US 131 Association - what is that, when was it created, what impact did it have? That would be interesting information to flesh out the history section.
 * There aren't many additional sources on them that I've found. I've found one news clipping from 1972 showing that they lobbied Congress for freeway funding and a high school scholarship in honor of a group member. Unlike the various citizens' groups that formed in the wake of the M-6/South Beltline, this one operates/operated very much under the radar. In fact, there is a billboard near the town of Mancelona with the message "Don't you wish you were on a freeway right now? Only X Y miles to go." with the two different mileages indicated, and it listed their website address, but that site has been offline for the last 7 years at least. (They did have the good sense to update the mileage after the Cadillac and Manton bypasses were built, but that's it.)  Imzadi 1979  →   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I left a request for Karanacs to reply here on April 13, and her last edits were to this FAC on April 7 and a discussion page on April 8.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Some comments (figuring I'd comment on another FAC while mine is still up) --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick responses, most of that works. The only thing I'm still a little iffy on is the highway/freeway/expressway thing, which AFIAK didn't have significant differences (and I do know a fair bit about roads to begin with). That said, it shouldn't hinder the article too much, so I'll be happy to support it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous resolved comments moved to the talk page.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments. Support on 1a—improvements made. Tony   (talk)  09:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The prose needs a careful sifting through by an independent editor. Otherwise, it's a creditable piece of work.  Tony   (talk)  06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note detailed comments moved to the talk page.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "US 131 extends 0.67 miles (1,078 m)", "all but 0.67 miles (1.08 km)", and "the proposed five-mile (8.0 km) highway". Precision is part art and part science but in the these particular examples, I'd recommend matching significant figures to make it '0.67 miles (1.1 km)' and 'five-mile (8 km) highway'.
 * Many times adding one level of precision to a small miles-to-kilometers measurement is beneficial, although in this case it probably doesn't matter. The one conversion has been fixed to match the previous one (I think it was previously using a feet-to-meters conversion and wasn't updated fully when switched to mileage.)  Imzadi 1979  →   23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It says "approximately 172 miles (277 km)" and "about 213 miles (343 km)". There are many instances on Wikipedia where terms like 'approximately', 'about', 'roughly' are followed by apparent precision. This creates an apparent contradiction when I read it. If the statistic is valid, then I think we should just say it without the fuzziness of 'approximately' and 'about'.
 * The actual freeway length is 172.132 mi, yes to three decimal places. SandyGeorgia does not like that precise of measurement in the prose of a road article, which is why it is rounded to the mile. I will let others argue this point and follow, but the precision of that measurement has been rounded off. As for the 213 miles, that is a fuzzy measurement because it involves roads that made up the highway in 1926. Because of the length of time, even though I can generate a measurement to 3 DPs, it wouldn't be appropriate to express that level of precision.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph about rest area naming and denaming has more detail than is appropriate for a road article. It might belong in a focussed article about how rest area names are added and removed, or in an article about the particular rest area, or an article about the people concerned. I'm not sure that this route article is the right place for publishing the names of people convicted of crimes unconnected to the route. Furthermore, the paragraph is time dependent because it contains the phrase "A new honoree will be chosen".
 * The time-dependent issue will be eviscerated when the new name is chosen and the article is updated. As for the remainder, I disagree with completely removing the paragraph. At most, removing the name might be acceptable, but removing the paragraph with the "denaming" reduces the entire subsection to yet another dry recitation of statistics and facts.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I've gone through the entire article, proverbial pencil and eraser in hand, and made mostly minor changes and edits where I saw fit. In general, the article is well-written, informative, substantial, and generally clear (although I got lost in the freeway conversion section), and my copyedits were usually of a trivial nature. Juliancolton (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.