Wikipedia:Featured article review/M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC).

M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)

 * Notified: Imzadi1979, WP US Roads, noticed in December 2021

I have significant original research concerns with this article. "This routing was moved to bypass the city in 1964 when iron ore mining activity destabilized a portion of the M-35 routing southeast of town" has a non-working source link, but it seems to be a document similar to this, which does not support anything relating to iron ore mine destabilization. "Previously, it ran along Greenwood Street and North Lake Road and met US 41/M-28 in the West Ishpeming neighborhood of Ishpeming Township" - cited source can be accessed here, and I'm not finding any references to Greenwood Street or Ishpeming in there. "Arch Street is the access to Negaunee High School" is not supported by the source, which appears to actually be saying that the affected section of Teal Lake Avenue is the access. (see here, as url in the article is deceased). "From this point on, Bus. M-28 has not shared its routing with any other state trunklines." is utterly unsourced. And lastly, "Occasionally, more recent maps use this older numbering to label the highway" shouldn't be sourced to just a single map from '06. I think Talk:Ontario Highway 802/GA1 is a good example of the problems of using only a single map to support the existence of supposed route marking. Hog Farm Talk 22:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I see editing has slowed down at the article; where do things stand? Is it time for others to have a look, or is there more to be done? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on the issues yet but I found the rhetoric in this edit summary unprofessional and over the top. I am especially troubled that this is coming from someone who represents the FA process. --Rschen7754 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a little silly, but I think it's not right to characterize it as "unprofessional" - this is Wikipedia, not The Super Serious Government Organization Of Super Seriousness. There's nothing wrong with a bit of levity.(For the record, I did look at the issues, but wasn't able to find additional sources in my admittedly short search for them, so I did not leave a comment.) casualdejekyll  17:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't find it silly if it was my article being nominated. --Rschen7754 17:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wasn't a good decision on my part. But it's also not an incorrect description of the article.  And frankly, I'm doubting that this article is even notable.  See WP:GEO, which is policy and says The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability.  As none of the source actually say anything significant about this highway, it should probably be merged into M-28 (Michigan highway). Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC the issues raised by Hog Farm have not been addressed. I am also not persuaded that the topic is notable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to FARC. Step back and breathe. This FAR has been open less than a week.  V C  18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I had left a comment on this already, and I apologize that it wasn't saved apparently.
 * This nomination dropped on a holiday. To that end, that holiday fell on a Sunday, meaning it was observed on the Monday. Thus, libraries were closed until January 3.
 * Secondly, I had too leave town on January 3, so I am both away from my personal research materials and the local library for a few more days.
 * And finally, I would appreciate if egregious edit summary would be redacted as I personally felt very insulted by it and more importantly feel as it poisoned this entire process from the start. Frankly, why should any author want to participate in what should be a collegial review when faced with that level of vitriol and animus ab initio?
 *  Imzadi 1979  →   18:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit summary doesn't rise to anything in WP:CRD, IMO. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue here - This is a subset of a notable topic that warrants inclusion due to its parent. Is there an actual issue with the content that warrants the removal of the star? - Floydian τ ¢ 17:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as detailed in the block nomination statement there are a number of instances of statements that aren't supported by references/original research. Hog Farm Talk 17:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't move to FARC - issues are being resolved. Hog Farm Talk 15:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of the various concerns listed in the nomination statement, all but the single unsourced sentence has been resolved. I searched for additional sources in a couple newspaper archives but didn't find anything that seemed useful (just announcements of lane closures and paving), so I reckon that it's as comprehensive as it can be.  Notability is outside the purview of FAR so that would have to be decided elsewhere and I don't intend on going down that road. So I think the only major thing is the use of the referencing of "map that doesn't have feature"+"map from next year that does have feature", which was recently challenged at Good article reassessment/U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)/1.  I can understand both arguments and am too burned out in general to try to weigh in on that. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How does one prove a negative? But then you take that sentence out and suddenly the article is opposed for not being "comprehensive". --Rschen7754 16:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you like, I can cite every paper state highway map from 1969 through 2022. Before you scoff, I own one copy of every edition from 1958 to the present, and they are all sitting neatly in 3-inch notebooks here on my shelf, and I have digital copies of the maps from the 1919 through 1999 sitting on my hard drive. I assure you, they've all been consulted.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That research and citation technique has been used in many articles for many years, including its acceptance in a few dozen extant FAs.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As one who raised issues with of misuse of maps at the cited GAR above, I'd like to comment this case is a better use of maps than the GAR case cited above. The offending statement at the GAR was (I say was, as I fixed it) x happened between year1 and year2, cited to a maps with copyright dates of year1 and year2. I pointed out that isn't a valid use of a map as the copyright date printed on the map usually is not the same as the date the map was drafted. To use the map in that way you'd have to know when it was drafted. Making matters worse, IIRC they were both commercial maps, and commercial map publishers are more prone to include features on the map they will anticipate will be finished by the time the map is placed onto store shelves, but weren't actually finished when the map was drafted. So there's two potential sources of error using maps that way. However, in this case FAR case, a single date is cited to two maps, one drafted early in the year and one drafted later in the year, and both published by the state DOT. (Which does not have the same incentive to try to extend the shelf life of a map by drawing incomplete features as complete the way commercial map publishers do.) As such, while I understand the raised eyebrows, and maybe if it were me I'd just say "by [year]" or "cerca [year]" or "during the [year]'s" just to be safe, I don't think the two cases are the same.Dave (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From the 1920s up through, and including, 1957, the Michigan State Highway Department published 2–4 or more maps per year, settling into a spring and fall issue pattern for the last decade and a half or so. Cover art and dates changed between the semi-annual editions, and none of them bear copyright notices. Starting in 1958, the department moved to annual editions and marked them for copyright protection. They skipped 1959, desiring to move to biennial editions to save costs, but public outcry led to a requirement from the state legislature for annual updated editions. (Of note, many new freeway segments were opening each year from the 1950s through the 1970s, making a map go out of date quickly.) Some editions have specific dates noted as to their currency date, but otherwise they're current as of the January of the printed year per department practices. Thus, a change between the 1968 and 1969 maps happened in calendar year 1968. Where it is possible to source a change to a news article, that will be done since that would narrow the opening of a new segment of highway to a specific date, not a specific year.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * - thanks for explaining the difference between these Michigan maps and the situation at the NC GAR - it is clearly a different situation from that discussion. I'm not super concerned about the single uncited sentence.  I'd like to see what some of the other FAR regulars think - . I'm taking a step back from wikipedia for awhile to focus on some work stuff, so I haven't been able to give the article a close look and will have to step away from this discussion for an to-be-determined time. Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia: as far as I'm concerned, I'm just waiting for any additional comments/suggestions/etc. for improvements to the article. If there are none, I think this FAR should be closed.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This feels like an extreme level of precision for the lead, and that precise number is not found in the body. Can this be added to the body, and the lead be less precise/more general? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Business M-28 (Bus. M-28) is a state trunkline highway serving as a business route that runs for 4.841 miles (7.791 km) through the downtown districts of Ishpeming and Negaunee in the US state of Michigan.


 * @SandyGeorgia: agreed about rounding, but it's in the body. Look at the bottom row of the junction list table. By definition, the milepost of the terminus is the length of the whole highway.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia: also, it's already in the body prose in the last sentence of the route description's penultimate paragraph: "The total length of Bus. M-28 is 4.873 miles (7.842 km)." Should that be rounded as well?  Imzadi 1979  →   19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a ctrl-f on 4.841 and didn't find it ... probably because of difference between 4.841 and 4.873 ??? What is that ? Anyway, I don't care about excess precision in body, but feel it is too much for the lead.  Fix however you think best.  That's all I've got; please revert anything I may have messed up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Something was weird then as the four values should have matched (lead, infobox, body sentence and junction list).
 * Anyway, the lead is rounded, while the full value from the source is in the other threee location. Yes, highways are really measured to the thousandth of a mile in many states, which might sound overly precise until you realize that's 5.28 feet or almost a two-yard increment, so it's not "excess precision". Given that rights-of-way are measured and surveyed in feet, they could be slightly more precise and merely rounded to the thousandth of a mile. Thank you for the quick review.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, for a road article, that level of precision in the body makes sense to me! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

pls give this a look when you have time. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Will today, but it probably won't be for another day or two. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "so named because it was once a rail line into downtown Negaunee" - not supported by any sources in that paragraph
 * Digging around on makes it look like more recent traffic counts are available.   For instance, if I'm reading it right, there were 6,467 AADT at Teal Lake Avenue in 2021

Beyond those two, I don't think I have further major concerns related to the FA criteria. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Per HF above, I am OK with Close without FARC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * - just to make sure you saw that. I'm also okay with close without FARC, as the AADT numbers in the article are still fairly recent and I'm not going to advocate for it to remain in FAR over that single clause. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hog Farm: according to the nomination form for the Marquette and Western Railroad Negaunee Freight Depot, which is just about 120 feet west of the Rail Street overpass over Silver Street, rail service to the depot was discontinued in 1965, and "Rail Street runs down the south side of what was originally a wide railroad grade with tracks that ran on both sides of the depot building. The tracks were removed when the grade was converted to a city street." There are other sources, such as the dedication plaque for the bridge itself that note that it was built in 1936 by the federal government and the State Highway Department with the cooperation of the Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railroad, the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, and the City of Negaunee. Were it just a city street back then, the railroads would not have "cooperated". I tweaked the wording slightly lest someone object to the proposition that a city street built over a former rail line and then named Rail Street was named because of the rail line. I also added the explicit citation to the nomination form, and I trust that those actions are appropriate to absolve any concerns there.
 * I can look over adjusting traffic data, but if the 2019 counts are good enough for now, let's conclude this review.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 2019 counts are good enough for now - the FAR's definitely ready to close. Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.