Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 41 in Michigan/archive2


 * 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 22:24, 6 June 2009.

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan

 * Nominator(s): Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the last nomination's remaining issues have been corrected. The last nomination discussion closed with a single oppose factored over sources, including using two DOT press releases as sources. The section on the Interstate Bridge has been expanded with the newspaper clippings obtained as the last FAC was closed, removing the press release source. The other press release is still used as a source only to verify the date of transfer of the now former business loop in Marquette from state to city jurisdiction. The reference desk at the Peter White Public Library in Marquette was unable to find any articles in the Marquette Mining Journal that cover the transfer at the time it was completed, leaving the MDOT press release as the only acceptible source giving the date of transfer. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I'm not at school anymore; otherwise I would help you out with this article. Apologies there...
 * "US 41 was an original US Highway first designated in 1926. It replaced the original M-15 designation of the highway, which ran from Menominee to Marquette, Houghton and ended in Copper Harbor."
 * Copyedit needed here. "was an original" -> "first designated" doesn't sound right, and should "from Menominee to Marquette, Houghton and ended in Copper Harbor" be "from Menominee through Marquette to Houghton and ending in Copper Harbor"?
 * "Realignments and construction projects have expanded the highway to four lanes in Delta and Marquette counties. These changes also created three business loops off the main highway."
 * Try "Realignments and construction projects have expanded the highway to four lanes in Delta and Marquette counties and have also created three business loops off the main highway."
 * "The 279.167-mile (449.276 km) highway comprises mostly two lanes, undivided except for the sections that are concurrent with US 2 near Escanaba and M-28 near Marquette."
 * Try "The 279.167-mile (449.276 km) highway is comprised of two lanes for much of its length; it is undivided except for sections that are concurrent with US 2 near Escanaba and M-28 near Marquette."
 * "US 41/M-28 is a four-lane expressway along the "Marquette Bypass", and segments of the highway in Delta and Marquette counties have four lanes.[5]"
 * What about the concurrent US 2 section?
 * "The highway meets the southern terminus of M-35 before following 10th Avenue north out of town east of the Menominee–Marinette Airport and west of the Bay of Green Bay.[7]"
 * Would "intersects" be preferable to "meets"?
 * "The highway meets the southern terminus of M-35 before following 10th Avenue north out of town east of the Menominee–Marinette Airport and west of the Bay of Green Bay.[7]"
 * Confusing to me. "North", "east", and "west" all in quick succession...
 * "The highway runs north through rolling farmland in the central Menominee County communities of Wallace, Stephenson, and the twin communities of Carney and Nadeau."
 * "rolling farmland"? What is that? Also, I may know what you mean by Carney and Nadeau being twin communities, but not many others will...is there something you could link that too?
 * "M-94 follows US 41 for approximately 2 miles (3 km) near Skandia, before it turns westward to provide access to K. I. Saywer, a former air force base. "
 * Does this means that M-94 runs to Sawyer and ends?
 * "US 41 turns north solo from Covington, crossing the Sturgeon River, on the way to the historic sawmill town of Alberta.[5]"
 * "Solo" seems colloquial...
 * "Continuing north from Alberta, US 41 enters the town of L'Anse on the east side of Keweenaw Bay, rounding the bay to the town of Baraga." [...] "North of Hancock, US 41 passes the Houghton County Memorial Airport before reaching the towns of Calumet and Laurium."
 * L'Anse, Calumet and Laurium are villages, no? At the least, Calumet is&mdash;it might have been huge at one point in time (wasn't it considered as a possible place for the state capital once?), but it is now a very small place.
 * "The first highway designated along the path of the modern US 41 was M-15, in use as far back as 1919.[20]"
 * Try "The first highway designated along the path of the modern US 41 was M-15; the designation was used from 1919[20]–November 11, 1926, when the U.S. Highway System was announced.[2] This resulted in US 41's routing over the alignment of M-15.[21]"
 * "Around 1930, the northern terminus of US 41 was extended easterly from Copper Harbor to Fort Wilkins State Park.[22]"
 * Is "easterly" even a word...?
 * ""Menominee" in the local Menominee language means "wild rice"."
 * What in the world does this have to do with the paragraph it is in, let alone this article...?
 * Oh, got it now. Is there any way to combine the above with the preceding sentence to keep everything in one thought?
 * "MDOT has listed it as "one of Michigan's most important vehicular bridges"."
 * Why? Because of its engineering and architectural significance?
 * "Another abandoned bridge is now privately owned and in use at the mouth of the Backwater Creek on the Keweenaw Bay near L'Anse. The bridge was constructed in 1918 for $4,536 (equivalent to $64,912 in 2009).[34][62] It is an 80-foot (24 m) Warren truss design now situated on private property.[62] This abandoned bridge was listed on the National Register in 1999."
 * "privately owned" and "private property" seems redundant. Also, a ref for the last sentence?
 * "As of 2009, MDOT has not included the bridge on its inventory online."
 * Not liking the time aspect here.
 * "Signage for the Veterans Memorial Highway just west of the Ishpeming city line"
 * O_o "signage" is actually a word? I thought my Dad made it up :P
 * Hope these comments help. Cheers! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  06:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replies to Ed17:
 * I incorporated some of your copy editing suggestions, but not all of them. Some are personal preference/stylistic reasons, and either the existing text or your suggestions were equally appropriate, and I just preferred the current text.
 * "US 41/M-28 is a four-lane expressway along the "Marquette Bypass", and segments of the highway in Delta and Marquette counties have four lanes.[5]" — The concurrent US 2 section is in Delta County. The only reason M-28 is specifically mentioned in that sentence is that the specific section of US 41 mentioned as an expressway is US 41/M-28.
 * M-94 does run to K.I. Sawyer and ends at M-553 on the other side. I'm lost as to what you're questioning there.
 * Calumet, Laurium and L'Anse may hold the legal status as a village, but they are still towns in the generic sense. Mackinaw City is also a village, but Mackinac Island is legally a city.
 * Yes, "easterly" and "signage" are words.
 * Private property (as in land) and private ownership of a (highway) bridge aren't necessarily going to follow. MDOT or the county road commission could own the bridge even if a private landowner owns the surrounding property.
 * As for the time aspect of the "As of 2009, MDOT..." what would you suggest? The usage of the As of template will aid in updating the article, instead of just saying "currently"... I'm not sure what to suggest to change this situation since MDOT could always list the bridge in their inventory, but it is rather odd that they haven't yet.
 * Thanks for the suggestions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright to all of those. I'll check back in a few more days and will probably support. As to the date: I had no idea that template existed, so never mind. Cheers, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure, it looks like references 60, 45, 46, 47 have extra "p"s (there are two when there should be one because the page is singular) and reference 9 uses "Page" when "p." should be used for consistency with the rest of the article. I didn't fix these because I'm not sure about them, but it would be appreciated if you could take a look. Mm40 (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "A1+" implies that more than one page was used (A1 and after), so I'm fairly certain that it's correct. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The articles are continued on a discontinuous page, either A3 or A5, hence the "+" signs. As for reference 9, I've asked that the cite map template used be updated for consistency. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * cite map was updated to use the p. convention. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1.1 - The highway meets the southern terminus of M-35 before following 10th Avenue north out of town between the Menominee–Marinette Airport and the Bay of Green Bay.[7] The highway runs north through rolling farmland in the central Menominee County communities of Wallace, Stephenson, and the twin communities of Carney and Nadeau. - change
 * At Powers, US 41 joins with US 2. - a bit choppy
 * 1.3 - US 41 enters Houghton along Townsend Drive on the campus of MTU then passes along College Avenue into downtown. - seems like a run-on.
 * Sheldon Ave - expand.
 * The road way continues east -> The roadway continues east
 * Section 3 has a sentence with 5 citations in a row. Is there any way to break it up?
 * 3.1 - In the last paragraph, some of the sentences are a bit choppy.
 * Same for the first paragraph of 3.2.
 * These sculptures were added in addition to the other decorative elements added to the new bridge including the railings and light poles. .[47] - looks like an extra space?
 * I'm guessing that this is the case, but... are there no mileposts for some items in the junction table?

This article is well-written and comprehensive; just a few changes are needed before I can support it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made some copy edits. The five citations in a row may look out of place, but the source used only has the NRHP sites listed by county, and the entire sentence references places in 5 counties. The only source I have for mileposting information is the Control Section/Physical Reference Atlas, which does not have control points at all of the junctions listed. I hope this clears up things for you, let me know if you have any further suggestions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support issues addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Replies to Dabomb87
 * "historic character by various organizations." I think "significance" would be a better word than "character".
 * "the bridge continues to carry traffic today although" Redundant through use of present tense.
 * "Today, drivers cannot use the " Another unnecessary usage of "[t]oday." Audit througout for this dated word.
 * "Sheridan Road was created in the early 20th century connecting Chicago with Fort Sheridan north of the city." "early 20th"-->early-20th; I think a semicolon is needed to improve the flow: "Sheridan Road was created in the early-20th century; it connected [connects?] Chicago with Fort Sheridan north of the city."
 * " Historically, there have been three business loops for US 41. "
 * "locally-controlled roadway" -ly adverbs don't need hyphens. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some copy edits to remove the word "today" from the text.
 * A semicolon would be wrong in that context as semicolons are used in place of conjunctions. I don't think a comma is even appropriate there, but I"m not sure.
 * As for the hyphen suggestions, I respectfully disagree. In the first example, early modifies the term "20th century" but "20th century" is an object, not a compound adjective. In the second example, "locally" and "controlled" should be hyphenated. "Locally-controlled" is one concept that is modifying the word "roadway". Without the word "locally", the word "controlled" takes on a totally different meaning in regards to a roadway.
 * May I intercede here? MoS recommends no hyphen after "-ly" adverbs, since the role of the item in qualifying an upcoming verb is crystal clear. It is a generally accepted rule. Tony   (talk)  15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I've implemented the ones that make sense in the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will let the "century" hyphen issue go, but "locally controlled" does not need a hyphen as an -ly adverb implies that it is linked to the verb it is modifying. See MOS. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, but the point is moot with a copy edit to reword the sentence slightly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, great work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a and 1c. It's not a bad start, but lots of work is needed. The prose is rough in places, as delineated below, and more. The History section is woefully researched—most of it is sourced to maps, which only provide a aesthetic history. Some time is needed in a library to sift through local and regional newspapers to discover the stories and issues that surrounded the highway's history.
 * Is any information available on Priscilla Press? They don't appear to even have a web site. How do we know it's not a vanity publisher? I have doubts about the suitability of Barnett as a reliable source.
 * You define and use "UP" once in the lead and once more in the body, but use "Upper Peninsula" everywhere else. Suggest getting rid of the overly-colloquial former.
 * "US 41 serves as a major conduit for Michigan traffic" What is the definition of "major conduit"? Most often used? Heavily used?
 * "Most of the highway is listed on the National Highway System." Why not all? The mention later goes into no more detail and is of no help.
 * "The highway is known for a number of historic bridges including a lift bridge, the northernmost bridge in the state and a bridge called "one of Michigan's most important vehicular bridges" by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)." Serial comma?
 * "Trunkline" is jargon.. wikilink or explain.
 * "The current bridge was last used for railroad traffic in the summer of 1982, when the Soo Line rail lines in Houghton and northward were abandoned starting in 1976." I don't follow how it was used for railroad traffic in 1982 when the lines were abandoned in 1976.
 * No need to specify acronyms you never use again (WisDOT).
 * "This reconstruction was completed ahead of schedule, with the span reopening on November 22, 2005." Revise to eliminate the noun plus -ing construction and "with" connector.
 * "These sculptures were added in addition to the other decorative elements added to the new bridge including the railings and light poles." Revise to get rid of some of the "added ... addition ... added"
 * "Five other bridges are listed on the NRHP and the Michigan SRHS addition to any inclusion on the MDOT Historic Bridge Inventory." I couldn't follow this. Addition to any inclusion?
 * "As of 2009[update], MDOT has not included the bridge on its inventory online." What is the significance of this statement?
 * "The bridge has remained in service since construction essentially unaltered." Oddly phrased, suggests the "construction" essentially unaltered... something.
 * "... and only the Jacobetti and Veterans memorial highways still have signage posted on the side of the road." Without the context you will doubtless provide later, this means nothing to the read. There are other problems with this sentence. "Memorial Highways" should surely be capitalized since it is part of the title; "at the side of the road"?
 * Fix ellipses in quotations per WP:ELLIPSES.
 * "MDOT unveiled plans on March 31, 2009, to rebuild" What is the comma doing?
 * "roundabout retaining the current right-turn lanes from the current intersection layout." Spot the redundant word.
 * "MDOT has stated that many of the concerns expressed are due to misconceptions of the design and will not come to pass." The concerns won't come to pass? They already have. Or do you mean that the perceived problems won't come to pass?
 * "Historically, there have been three business loops for US 41." This is redundant. If you use the past tense, you don't need to say "historically". I see another reviewer has already brought this up.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I gave the article a copy edit per your suggestions, but I have a few comments.
 * LeRoy Barnett, PhD is the retired Head of Reference for the Michigan State Archives according to the jacket of the book. The forward to his book was written by Gloria Jeff, then director of MDOT, and signed as "Gloria Jeff, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation". The book also credits Michigan History magazine, the Michigan Bureau of History, the Grand Rapids Public Library, the Newberry Library, Wayne State University, the Burton Historical Collections, MDOT, "various county road commissions", the State Archives, the MDOT Photo Lab and the LIbrary of Michigan as sources. According to the company has published other Michigan historical books, and the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries recommends another of their books at  as further reading on the history of Michigan.
 * There is no source given as to why MDOT didn't list all of the highway on the NHS, just that only part of it was.
 * State-maintained highways in Michigan are legally called "state trunkline highways". The first usage of the term in the lead is already wikilnked to the article on the system.
 * I didn't capitalize "memorial highways" in that sentence for the same reason I don't capitalize "counties" at the end of a list of county names:. ie. Marquette and Baraga counties vs. Marquette County. Likewise Jacobetti and Veterans memorial highways vs. Jacobetti Memorial Highway.
 * The oppose is stated as under criteria 1a and 1c, and I would like some clarification. I can understand if you don't like my writing style; you've opposed over that before on a different article. The solution is for us to partner to polish prose collaboratively. You've stated an opposition to the quality of the research, but not the comprehensiveness of the article (criterion 1b). The article covers the major high points of the history of the roadway: the historic bridges built to carry it, the memorial designations applied to it and the physical changes made to the pavement. There are other changes made to the highway, which are mostly minor realignments to straighten curves in the routing. These minor changes were left out, even though they too could be added and documented on the maps of the time. The changes given are easily referenced to the various maps I own. What would be gained by researching old newspapers except to change the source of the information from a map to a news story? As I stated in the renomination above, the final transfer of the business loop through Marquette from state to city jurisdiction didn't even warrant a news story, meaning the best source for the date of the change remains an MDOT press release. The previous FAC discussion approved of the use of maps from the agency that owns the road as one of the best sources to document the changes made to the road.
 * Any further comments are appreciated. Please feel free to copy edit the article directly at any time. Another option would be to contact me on my talk page to collaborate on any copy editing. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, an additional comment in explanation. Today I was informed of a "Memorandum of Understanding" from May 13, 2009 which extended M-30 south 4.83 miles along Meridian Road in Midland County. Legally, this section of road is now a state highway, and the transfer wasn't covered in any news source according to Google. This means until MDOT updates the map or posts signage in the field which can be photographed, only the MOU is a source for the transfer, no news stories, no articles, nothing. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I actually listed all the prose problems I found, so there should be no need for me to edit the article or make additional suggestions unless future edits degrade the article. Your writing style is fine, but not perfect, nor is any of ours. As to my 1c objection, I feel I was clear about what I am looking for. I don't have a problem with your using maps for the aesthetic history of the road. However, there are always other news stories about budget, politics, historic events, etc. You will need to spend some time with a library database that indexes newspapers, or in a library that keeps physical or electronic archives of newspapers. Just for a relevant comparison, Zilwaukee Bridge could have a History section sourced to maps, but it would be boring and covering only aesthetics. However, if you dig into the Saginaw News and other area papers, you'll find tons of great stories about the construction and history of the bridge, the controversies, how we all thought it was going to sink into the river, etc. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The construction of a major bridge always gets a significant amount of coverage in the media. Realignments of highway rarely do, unless it involves a freeway bypass of a community, and even in that case it is hit-or-miss. As an addendum, it's much easier to research a static structure situated in one location than it is to research a 270-plus mile highway that has a routing that can change and has changed many times. Once a bridge is completed, there's not much more to say about it. However, even after a road is completed (or initially assigned would probably be the equivalent here), its routing can and does change often, especially one this long. –  T M F 01:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the realignment. That has been mentioned here but I'm not focused on that issue, nor have I even mentioned it. I'm talking about the entire history of the road. The proper research must be done, and it won't be accomplished via Google searches. I'm inflexible on this matter. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm confused here. The history of the road is covered in the article. The realignments since the 1926 designation of the highway have been covered. The historic bridges built for the highway are covered, dating back to 1914 with the construction of Trunk Line Bridge No. 1. The Memorial Highway designations for the road are covered back to 1917. The previous designation for the roadway is covered. Ok, so the part that under a draft of the original highway plan M-15 would have been part of 3 US highways and not one isn't in there, but that's trivial. (Menominee to Powers would have been US 41, Powers to Rapid River would have been just US 2, Rapid River to Covington would have been US 102 and Covington to Copper Harbor would have been US 41.) I can't include the first highway centerline story, since that section of M-15 was used for M-28, not US 41 between Negaunee and Marquette. I have more resources than just Google at my disposal here, historical books from MDOT, old maps, etc. What sorts of things do you want added to the article? Give me some hypothetical examples so I have an idea what it is you want. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, as I acknowledged, you have covered the aesthetic history of the road. However, the research is necessary to find the human stories. Examples are decisions about routing, funding, conflicts and controversies, etc. Did two counties argue about where the road should go? Did a city lobby to have it go through without success? That kind of thing you will not find on maps and in MDOT reports. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just e-mailed the public libraries' reference desks for Menominee, Marquette, Escanaba, Grand Rapids, the Kent District Library and the Library of Michigan in Lansing. (I currently live in the Grand Rapids Metro area, not in the Marquette area that was home to me.) I would ask that if this research request is the only outstanding issue that the FAC be held open pending word back from the libraries in question. There's no guarantee that the newspapers of the time even covered the issues you describe, let alone that the issues even existed along any or all of the highway. I've already done database searches online through the KDL and turned up very little. What I have found is engineering studies from MDOT connected to construction projects, but no news coverage in the various databases. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I've been in contact with research librarians at the Grand Rapids Public Library's History and Special Collections section. They ironically have forwarded my research request to Dr. Barnett for assistance who has conveyed to me via e-mail that the article is well written as it stands. He's pointed me to the Marquette County Historical Society Library and the Copper Country Archives at Michigan Technological University for further investigation. The GRHSC librarian expressed that the request for the information wanted by LaserBrain has "stumped" the staff. Once again I maintain that the information that's being requested may not even exist as there is no guarantee that an 82 year old highway has had any controversies unlike a major bridge project with an unfortunate accident during construction. In total now, I have been in touch with librarians from four libraries that have yet to find anything remotely close to what's being requested. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that this be treated as an unactionable oppose. It seems that if the information just cannot be found, this FAC shouldn't be failed on the grounds that it does not have information that cannot be found. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I appreciate your explanation of the Barnett reference. I'm not sure you're right about the memorial highways thing, because you are still making it part of the proper noun. If I had been to Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium, I wouldn't say, "I've been to Yankee and Shea stadiums" would I? I would capitalize Stadiums. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As discussed before on another forum, both "Yankee and Shea stadiums" as well as "Yankee and Shea Stadiums" (shouldn't that be stadia anyway?) would be correct. You wouldn't say ""Presidents Bush and Clinton", you'd say "presidents Bush and Clinton". I've kept consistent here since I used "Marquette and Baraga counties" in the article, why switch conventions to "Jacobetti and Veterans Hemorial Highways" toward the end of the article? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say "Presidents Bush and Clinton". In this use, it is part of the proper noun. "Drs. Smith and Johnson work at this hospital", etc. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I discussed with an English-teacher friend of mine, we both could be right and we both could be wrong. Unlike the French Language, there is no academy that standardizes rules in the English Language. In the spirit of collaboration, I will change to your preferred usage in this sentence. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - This article has the best prose and layout of any FA, GA or A-Class article I have ever seen. The article is complete, neat, well-organized and understandable; all references are in line and the works cited were cited as supposed to. –CG 17:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on an image issue: The first concern is more crucial. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:US 41 M-28 Marquette roundabout.jpg: where did Michigan Department of Transportation say they released this image into the public domain?
 * OTRS awaits from 1 June 2009. Jappalang (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Interstate Bridge MWMM.JPG: not a biggie, this image is awaiting OTRS (since 18 May 2009)
 * The OTRS is now there, but what is the license? Jappalang (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've forwared MDOT's release into OTRS, and marked the photo accordingly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the proper OTRS link to the image in question. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Interstate Bridge photo is licensed as CC-BY-SA 1.0 confirmed by OTRS. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the 1.0 correct? I am a bit amazed that with us at the 3.0 stage, a request or permission would be given for 1.0 at this stage...  Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what the OTRS editor tagged it as. If I was picking, it would be at 3.0.... it probably should be updated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for going MIA... in the OTRS thread, the copyright holder specified CC-by-SA but did not name a specific CbSA license version. I put down the default until I could get back to the FAC. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake, I misread the thread and didn't see how the copyright holder had given permission for the implementation of the license. Imzadi, could you please change the license to what you want (assuming 3.0) and then leave a note explaining that deference was given to you by the copyright holder just so it's clear to non-OTRS people what went down? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I updated the licensing information in accordance with the OTRS ticket and noted that on the image's page. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The other image's OTRS thing has been squared away, I believe. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is it, no more image issues. Article is using photos that are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed.  Jappalang (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  Support if Laser brain does. until the writing is fixed up throughout. Here are examples just from the lead!
 * "Along its 279.167-mile (449.276 km) route in the state, US 41 serves as a major conduit for Michigan traffic." Can we make it neater? "The 279 miles (449.276 km) of the US 41 that lie within Michigan serve as a major conduit." I don't think I've removed too much: where else would the conduit be, and for what else but traffic? Is the plural OK?
 * "Along the route, US 41 passes through farm fields, forest lands, and along the Lake Superior shoreline." Three words are redundant. And there are really two, not three items in this list (through ... and ..., and along ...).
 * Redundant "also" ("and" does the job perfectly well, but needs a preceding comma, since there are other ands in the vicinity).
 * Included ... include ... including. bridges ... bridge ... bridge ... bridge.
 * "called" -->"referred to as".
 * "Seven different memorial ..."—Do we need "different"? Another "including. (We can cope with, say, two in a para, but not four; what about "..., one of them named for ..."?
 * As much as I detest the dots, why are we free of these blessed fly spots (US, U.S.) half the time and not throughout, including the title? I think the WikiProject would object, actually, but make it consistent, please.
 * "US 41 was an original US Highway first designated in 1926."—Hard to comprehend; is an "original" highway of special status? In any case, it doesn't go well with "first".
 * Another idle "also". Please audit every "also" in the text; remove 95%. Tony   (talk)  15:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some copy edits throughout the text of the article. As for the US/U.S. situation, I standardized on US. The article's title won't be changed since between the 49 DOTs that are responsible for maintaining sections of the United States Numbered Highway System, US #, U.S. # and US-# conventions are in place. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials uses U.S. Route and U.S. Highway in their internal documentation for the full name of the highways in question, which is why the "fly spots" were in use the way they were previously. Feel free to follow up with further suggestions or make copy edits to the article yourself. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments — in regards to requests by LaserBrain above for research into more historical information on the highway, I have been in contact with librarians from the Spies Public Library in Menominee, the Peter White Public Library in Marquette, the Grand Rapids Public Library, the Kent District Library and the Library of Michigan in Lansing. I'm awaiting replies yet from the Copper Country Archives at Michigan Technological University in Houghton and the Marquette County Historical Society's library. I have e-mailed the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (who are in charge of the US Highway numbers and routings). I've been in personal correspondence with LeRoy Barnett, author of one of the books cited in the article and retired head of reference with the State Archives. He's personally mailed me a copy of an article on the Military Road that he wrote that will allow me to add some 19th century history to the article for the section of the highway north of Houghton. With the exception of his article, nothing has been turned up that would satisfy LaserBrain's request. I submit that his oppose on criterion 1c is now unactionable because the article has been thoroughly researched, and what he desires does not exist. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your dedication to looking into the issue! I've stricken my 1c opposition above—I'm satisfied all that could be done to research the history has been done. As for the 1a, I'll have to evaluate the text again especially in light of Tony's recent opposition. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. It really sets a great standard for US highway articles, which have often been little more than travelogues; Route 41 does offer rich pickings for history and research. I've fixed a few things in the history section. See the BBC's recent doco series The_Ascent_of_Money for a fascinating account of how the Rothschild family's sitting on the sidelines and the confederate government's reliance on "cotton" bonds were critical ingredients in the outcome of the Civil War, as well as the attitude of the British government. (There was no "United Kindgom" by name, then, was there?). That "formatprice/inflation/current year" template ... I'd be happier if it said "roughly equivalent to"; or better still, "~ $x in 2009", but I suppose the tilde is a no-no. And is it worth translating 2004 dollars into 2009?The cost and price structures were so different in those days. See the recent discussion concerning the creation of a new, similar template (can't find link). I do hope you continue to prepare nominations. "Seven bridges along the US 41 corridor have been recognized for their historic character by various organizations." Since you say precisely which organisations, why not "have been officially reconized." "Various" is such a non-word. 4 ft = 1 m? Rough guess, 1.3 m? Is that the convert template at work again!? "Now the middle section is left in an intermediate position for the warmer nine months of the year ; in this position, so that vehicle traffic can use use the lower deck of the lift span and pleasure craft can pass under the bridge." "Now" is when? It will date. "As of ?". Tony   (talk)  13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will update some things later with your suggestions. (I'm just home on my lunch hour at the moment.) As for the UK vs. Great Britain mention, the Act of Union in 1801 merged Great Britain and Ireland to form the United Kingdom, so yes, during the American Civil War, it was the UK already. Either wording is really fine by me though. Thanks for the reviews. Hopefully LaserBrain comes back soon so we can start to wrap this nomination up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comments I dove into another random section (Business loops) and spotted more problems. I don't think it's far off at this point, but I'm not ready to support because I'm still seeing things.
 * "There have been three business loops for US 41. These included the loops in Ishpeming–Negaunee, Marquette and Baraga." Why "included" when you've named all three? Normally, "including/ed" is used when you are giving representatives of a long list: "I bought five flavors of ice cream, including your favorite, blue moon."
 * In the caption of the image there "The now former BUS US 41 along Washington Street in downtown Marquette" what is "now" doing? I see that in the accompanying prose as well. I know what you're trying to do with it, but does leaving it out really change the meaning? The "now" is implied.
 * "It was later designated as BUS US 41/BUS M-28" In earlier constructions of this sort, you don't use "as" (and correctly so).
 * "The proposed swap traded jurisdiction on the unsigned M-554 and the business route from the state to the city." This is confusing to me. First, the "swap traded" is ungainly. Second, it doesn't make sense because I don't see anything being "traded"; I just see jurisdiction being passed from the state to the city for two different roads.
 * Later, you call it a transfer which seems more apt.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've swept through that section mentioned, and Dank has given the article an unsolicited copy edit through other sections. Are we getting warmer? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as soon as LaserBrain and Tony are happy, with the standard disclaimer. I just finished some copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the copy edit. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I gave it another read-through and it's looking good. Thanks for the copyedit, DanK—a fresh pair of eyes is always helpful especially since I've been through it 2 or 3 times and Imzadi probably a hundred. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I'm satisfied that Tony's and Laser brains comments along with Dank's copy-edit have pushed this to FA quality. Great job (to both reviewers and nominator), and I'm impressed with the research. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.