Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 41 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009.

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan

 * Nominator(s): Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the criteria. The article has recently been through a peer review which checked its sources, copy edited the article and even added some additional content to the article. Comments are welcome. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The dab finder tool found 0 disambiguation links, and the link checker tool also found 0 dead external links.
 * Using WP:REFTOOLS: the ref name MDOT82 is used more than once to name a reference, it should only be used 1 time to name 1 specific ref. -- T ru  c o   14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have the reference fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I will support it for FA:
 * 1) In the south end section of infobox, what state line are you referring to?
 * 2) The article begins with "U.S. Highway 41". Usually, articles on U.S. routes would begin such as "U.S. Route 41". Is it this way because Michigan uses the term "highway" rather than "route"?
 * 3) "serves as a major conduit"? Sounds a little awkward
 * 4) In the lead, it may help to indicate which Civil War general the highway is named for
 * 5) "It replaced the M-15 designation of the day" sounds a little awkward. Is there a better way to phrase this?
 * 6) "except for sections that are concurrent with US 2 near Escanaba or M-28 near Marquette.": Add "the" after "for" and change "or" to "and"
 * 7) References should be at the end of the sentence and not in the middle
 * 8) Is it nessecary to indicate the street grid for Escanaba in the article?
 * 9) When using verbs with subjects such as "US 2/US 41" and "US 41/M-28", they need to agree with the plural subject. For example, use "join" instead of "joins"
 * 10) When there begins a sentence, follow it with a comma
 * 11) "running through the western edge", use "part" instead of "edge"
 * 12) When referring to the "western junction of M-28", you are referring to the end of the concurrency. You may want to make this more clear
 * 13) "Sheldon Ave for northbound"? add "traffic" to clarify
 * 14) Avoid using short, choppy sentences in route description
 * 15) Is the wikilink to M-15 (Michigan highway) nessecary as it links to an unrelated route?
 * 16) You use "decommissioned" in the history section. This word has been determined a neologism in the past, even though I am okay with the word. If possible, another word could suffice here.
 * 17) "the City" sounds colliqual
 * 18) In sentence "The Portage Lake Lift Bridge connects the cities of Hancock and Houghton, by crossing over the Portage Waterway, an arm of Portage Lake that cuts across the Keweenaw Peninsula", comma is not nessecary after "Houghton"
 * 19) The "other historic bridges" section seems to jump around a little bit and should provide the information in a more consistient tone
 * 20) Warren truss redirects to a page about an Australian politician. It should link to truss bridge
 * 21) The Business loops section sounds awkward and short. Rephrase and perhaps add more information
 * 22) In the sentence "The roadway followed US 41's predecessor, M-15 and included numerous road signs bearing Sheridan's silhouette mounted on his horse Rienzi." a comma should be included after "M-15"
 * 23) "congressman" and "senator" should be capitalized
 * 24) Are the missing mileposts in the Major intersections table known?
 * 25) Is it nessecary to constantly indicate termini in the notes as it can be inferred from the directional banner of the road
 * 26) When indicating a street name in the Major intersections table, put the street name as "name1" in Template:Jct rather than the street parameter in the MIint template as it is more standard in articles
 * 27) "Cul-de-sac past Fort Wilkins State Park" would look better under "Roads" rather than "Notes"
 * 28) For Reference 2, it may help to indicate image is on Wikipedia
 * 29) Is it possible to combine the Google Maps references to show driving directions of the whole route?
 * 30) References 16 and 17 are of images uploaded to Commons. Is that appropriate for a FA?
 * 31) Reference 43 appears to be a personal website and may not be a reliable source
 * 32) Reference 44 and 51 are the same source and should be merged
 * 33) Dates should not be linked Dough4872 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replies to Dough4872:


 * 1) Done.
 * 2) Michigan vernacular is "US Highway" not "US Route".
 * 3) Suggestion for phrasing?
 * 4) "serves as a major road" or something, the term conduit just does not seem right when referring to the route Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) A good lead should summarize the article, not replace it. Maybe it's better sometimes to tease a little in the lead to entice a reader to continue through the article.
 * 6) If you have a suggestion for a better phrase, suggest it. I don't.
 * 7) "It replaced the original M-15 designation of the road" sounds better" Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Done.
 * 9) References are acceptable in the middle of a compound/complex sentence when the first half is sourced to one specific source and the second half is sourced to a different specific source. In that case, the two maps have two different sets of information listed in that sentence.
 * 10) Reworked a bit.
 * 11) It's a compound name for a single highway. Changing it to the usage you suggest raises a problem though. When substituting for the name in subsequent sentences, the substitute wording is better as "the highway" or the "trunkline" since it's a single road.
 * 12) Commas added.
 * 13) Both are correct. My preference is to indicate that the highway is running close to the border, not just in the western part of the forest.
 * 14) Rephrased slightly.
 * 15) The word traffic is already in the sentence. Using the same word twice sounds redundant to me.
 * 16) Two sentences combined. Feel free to copy edit any others as you wish.
 * 17) Why not build the web by including the link? (P.S. the M-15 article should mention in its history section the connection to US 41)
 * 18) As as been discussed before in various forums, there is nothing wrong with the word, and I stand by my choice.
 * 19) What would you suggest as shorter reference for the municipal government known as the City of Marquette?
 * 20) It may be better to just say it out the longer way. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Errant comma removed.
 * 22) Feel free to copy edit that section at your leisure. I don't think it jumps around at all.
 * 23) I must have overlooked this, but the "Other historic bridges" section appears to describe only four bridges rather than five. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Link corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.
 * 25) Considering I could have made just a bulleted list of links, what would you like to see added from the two existing articles? There is no article researched nor written for the third business loop.
 * 26) Just add complete information about the routes' histories. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) That's where that errant comma really belonged ;-)
 * 28) Titles are only properly capitalized before names, not elsewhere in a sentence.
 * 29) The missing mileposts are not known without using a GIS program. I don't have the knowledge nor software to extract those measurements. Only the given junctions and intermediate county lines have mileage information in the Control Section Atlas.
 * 30) Could you possibly find someone who has the capabilities of using a GIS program. I unfortunately do not have the knowledge either. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) For the record, you can get these to .1 mile with Google maps if you're cleaver. If I had to do it on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada so do you =-) Dave (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) But the source used currently is to the thousandth. Using GIS would get at least to the hundredth, Google is the least precise option. Which is valued more, precision or completion? Plus, Google may give a completely different total length due to inaccuracies. In that case, MDOT's figured are a better source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Not all termini have directions (BUS M-28 is not directionally signed ever for instance) nor all directionally signed junctions termini.
 * 34) Changed. Please note that those two junctions aren't coded by jct.
 * 35) Changed around.
 * 36) What difference does the host make in this instance?
 * 37) The individual Google Maps when clicked zero in on the information being cited. Otherwise, a reader would have to search almost 280 miles of highway for a few specific facts.
 * 38) Photos are allowable as sources. What difference does it make if they are uploaded to the Commons or Flickr. The URL and link are conveniences to the reader.
 * 39) The reference as used is to a photo supporting the ribbon-cutting ceremony (as shown at the link) and the date. Photos are generally considered reliable sources.
 * 40) Ref tags merged.
 * 41) Date linking is still allowed, not forbidden. In this case, it is only an artifact of the previous template usage that linked accessdate= and parameters. It has been fixed.
 * Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied back to some of your above replies that still need to be resolved. Dough4872 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed them with the exception of "conduit" and the GIS issue. Conduit is a valid word choice in this instance, and the GIS issue is outside of my control. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since my major concerns are resolved, I will Support the article. However, I would eventually like to see the missing mileposts added somehow. Dough4872 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - just a few changes needed  - Hey, it meets the criteria, just want to change a few things:
 * 1) Section 7 - Works Cited - could use a renaming to something else.
 * 2) Is M-553 in Marquette a really major junction? It really isn't that major.
 * 3) Link Canyon Falls Bridge, if it gets info later, may be good to have.
 * 4) Unsure, should the really US 41 memorial designations be bolded?
 * 5) Link Memorial Day.
 * 6) If you could, just get some more images either by hand or from Flickr or something to add to the bottom 2 sections.

That's all I see. Good inline sourcing :) - I can't tell you why I'm a nitpick. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on one historical photo from 1933 that's hosted on Flickr that shows highway construction. I'm hoping it a) will be relicensed or b) confirmed as a WPA work and in the public domain. Yes, M-553 is a major junction. If it were dropped, it would be the only state trunkline junction along the highway removed from the table. None of the memorial designations have redirects here, so they shouldn't be bolded. The links are added. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 17 (nolte...) needs a last access date.
 * Are the two pictures (refs 16 and 17) really reliable sources?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Btw, I love this road, spent many an hour driving it on family vacations..) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The two photos are only establishing the existence of the signs shown in the respective photos, which are unique. I have no reason to believe a photo isn't reliable. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The very first mention is wikilinked, but I think you found a second one linked later. The extra linking has been removed. Dave (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comments Support - My concerns are resolved Dave (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO this statement is a little rough "These changes also created at least two business loops off the main highway, one of which still exists, another is signed with a different designation." , maybe?
 * I would like to see more information about the Interstate bridge (i.e. year built, length, how was the river crossed before these bridges were built, etc?) As lift bridges are pretty rare, especially for those of use in the desert =-), this is the kind of thing that can add some interest.
 * Having the section about the Portage lift bridge is nice, but this section is similarly missing some basics, year built, etc.
 * I've added the construction date to the section. The Interstate Bridge though isn't a lift bridge, it's a plain concrete bridge many miles away from the lift bridge. I've added some info about it though.
 * The word concurrent is used in the route description at least once before it is linked.
 * "historic sawmill town of Alberta" WP:Peacock term, don't say historic, explain why it's historic.
 * Added in the Henry Ford connection.
 * Feel free to add any addition comments. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - File:U.S. 41 (MI) map.png - Please provide a source for this image and include it on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added source used for the GIS data. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All image issues addressed. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose by karanacs. I actually think this article is pretty well-written, but I am unhappy with the level of sourcing. The majority of the article is sourced to maps, to the MI DOT, or to self-published websites and press releases. In some cases, I don't think these sources support the wording that is used. Details below: Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Replies: Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really important that we know in this article that M-35 is the shortest state trunkline highway between Menominee and Escanaba? This seems like extraneous information.
 * Any expanation for why the highway doesn't follow "the most direct path between two locations"? Did they have to get permission for that?
 * I think you need a citation for this that is not a map
 * Under American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines, US Highways are to follow the most direct path between two locations
 * The 1926 creation of the U.S. Highway System led to the redesignation of M-15 as US 41. - the map proves that in 1926 this was redesignated; can it prove that this happened in 1926 as part of the US Highway System creation?
 * The northern terminus of US 41 was extended easterly from Copper Harbor to Fort Wilkins State Park in 1930 -- the map shows the extension in 1930; does that really prove that this was extended in 1930? Maybe they extended it before that and it just took a while to show up on the new maps.
 * The rest of the mainline history section has the same problems as above - we are assuming that a map published in 1930, etc means that the road actually changed in that year, instead of that the map changed in that year. I don't think that is a valid assumption to make.
 * The 34,700 number for 2006 AADT doesn't appear to supported by its source
 * Is this really supported by the current map that is used as a source? The two cities host BUS M-28, which was once designated as BUS US 41 as well
 * Need a page number for sentences sourced to Hunt's Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula
 * I don't think is really appropriate: A mileage sign in Copper Harbor gives the distance down US 41 to Miami, Florida as 1,990 miles (3,203 km), sourced to a picture of the sign. This information doesn't seem to be that vital to the article, and if it is, find a better source.
 * I also don't think that it is appropriate to source this Past the park entrance, US 41 ends at a cul-de-sac, marked by a large wooden sign to a picture of a sign. This picture is on wikipedia - anyone can change it if they choose.
 * Surely there is a newspaper reference or something that can show that this was the first scenic heritage route so that we don't have to source this to a governmental website that is essentially not an independent source?
 * Can we replace the press releases with newspaper articles? When at all possible, avoid self-published sources.
 * What makes http://dlund.20m.com/dick6.html a reliable source?
 * Do we really care about the colors of the lift bridge? That seems trivial.
 * I don't like that the lift bridge info is cited to a self-published city website. I've seen too many city websites for history that are just, well, wrong.
 * Is there a source for Today, drivers cannot use the Peshekee River Bridge south of US 41/M-28 in western Marquette County's Michigamme Township?
 * This is a self-published source and should be avoided: http://www.lindberginc.com/projects.htm
 * M-35 vs. US 41 info pulled.
 * As for the argument that the highway wasn't changed when the maps show the change, the article has been tweaked and fully complies with the proposed guideline on maps formulated in response to a debate at WT:RS.
 * The AADT info has since been updated. The previous link went to the newly released 2007 data. Rather than update the number, I updated to the archived, static link for 2006 (which is only slightly different than the 2007 data.)
 * The BUS M-28 sentence received its own referencing, even though it's foreshadowing information cited in a subsequent section.
 * Hunt's Guide is published both online and in book format. I'm referencing directly to the online edition, so it doesn't have page numbers.
 * I think it's absurd not to source to a photo of the sign being discussed. Photography is specifically listed as an exception to WP:OR and the sign is rather unique. I did pull the reference to the sign out of the lead, but I feel it should stay in the body of the article.
 * Ditto on the photo of the terminus. As both photos are directly shown in the article, any replacement of the photograph/source will be readily apparent, and easily revertible.
 * There are only two press releases in use. They are published by the agency that administers the roadway in question. To argue that they are SPSs would mean that Department of Energy articles would not be allowable in articles on nuclear power plants.
 * The Lund source is no longer in use since the article no longer states when the replacement bridge opened. The colors of the lift bridge are pulled.
 * The fact that other city websites may be wrong doesn't prove that Hancock's website is. If you can find a better source, let me know.
 * The National Register of Historic Places listing states that the bridge is "Vacant/Not in use". I've cited that sentence to that source, as well as the replacement. The Lindberg Construction source was pulled along with the replacement date.
 * Thank you for making improvements so quickly. I've struck many of my comments, but I am still unhappy about the number of self-published sources that are being used.  The article has very few independent sources and would be better served by removing press releases and self-published websites and replacing them with news or book sources.  As for the city website, you have no way of knowing who wrote that information or how accurate it is, and it is an inappropriate source for any history information. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note regarding karanacs review: I proposed guidelines for using maps as sources, resulting from what I perceived as a common misuse of maps as sources. However, there was little interest and the push went nowhere. I agree this was a miss when I reviewed this article. I have gone over the article with Imzadi, and believe the article is now in compliance with these proposed guidelines. If you have more sway than me and can get these guidelines discussed again, I would be grateful for the effort.Dave (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the guideline - it is written pretty clearly and makes sense. I'm not an expert on getting guidelines passes, though, and don't really know the steps to go about doing that. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm a little confused, did I understand correctly that you're of the opinion that a Michigan Department of Transportation press release or map is a self-published source? MDOT is the governing agency officially charged with such matters. IMO that's like saying the FBI is not acceptable for sourcing an article on crime statistics, or the Department of Energy is not acceptable for a source on Nuclear power, or 20th Century Fox is not acceptable to use for an article on the Simpsons. Or did I misunderstand?Dave (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the maps, as the MI DOT would be the most authoritative source for that information. I do have an issue with using press releases when newspaper articles are almost certainly available.  Those articles would be independent sources and may very well contain information that is not included in the press release (for example, local impact and potential problems with the intended action).  It is always much better to avoid press releases and use independent sources instead. Karanacs (talk)
 * I've placed e-mail requests with the Marinette Eagle-Herald and Peter White Public Library in Marquette for clippings from the former and the Marquette Mining Journal. Neither newspaper archives back very far online. Archive.org breaks on the MJ's website in that time frame and doesn't have the EH site at all. That's all I can do at the moment concerning the press release-referenced information. I re-edited the Lift Bridge section to eliminate the City of Hancock's website as a source, using Hunt's Guide for one piece of info. As an aside, the author of the City's article on the bridge's history was written by the city's photographer and keeper of the photo archive used to illustrate the article. Does that affect the accuracy of the article originally used in your opinion? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was written by a published historian (of books/journal articles from this area and this time period), I'd accept the city website. I don't think a photographer would be counted as an expert in the field (history of this area), which is the usual guidance for accepting a self-published source. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well at any rate, the source has been replaced. So I guess I wait until the paper and library return my e-mail. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.