Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Pure Michigan Byway/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:29, 24 July 2015.

Pure Michigan Byway

 * Nominator(s):  Imzadi 1979  →   06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No content to leave the tourism marketing campaign to just brochures and our license plates, we now have Pure Michigan Byways! With a bunch of work, and a assistance from an intern at the Michigan Department of Transportation, I bring you the only single page that documents the lengths, dates and termini of the byways in Michigan's program. (Really, MDOT never bothered to compile a single list any place even though they're in charge of the program.) Polishing this list will provide a template for other state or national scenic byway programs in the future.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed this list at ACR and feel that it meets the FL criteria and serves as a model for how scenic byway lists should look.  Dough   4872   15:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, that review was at WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Michigan Heritage Route (back when the article was under that name). --Rschen7754 21:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I looked at the changes since I reviewed at the ACR nomination and don't see a reason why not to support. --Rschen7754 16:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) Dead links
 * 2) five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state. 5, 6, and 5 in both Upper and Lower, or 5, 6, and 5 altogether?
 * 3) a road must be a state trunkline highway can you link "state trunkline highway" somewhere, or explain it in the text?
 * 4) The criteria includes "criteria" is plural; includes → include
 * 5) to sites or districts on the National Register of Historical Places, recreational areas, or scenic landscapes. add "to" before "recreational areas" and "scenic landscapes"; it currently reads like "on" should be placed before both
 * 6) Working with local communities, organizations, and government agencies, the Pure Michigan Byway Program strives to identify roads that access Michigan's unique natural, scenic, historic, recreational, and cultural resources. The program also attempts to preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors, improve distinct roads in a careful and considerate way, promote a greater awareness of and appreciation for the state's scenic, recreational, historical and cultural resources. this doesn't sound too neutral; can you rework?
 * 7) new signs are due to be unveiled in 2015. do you have a reference for this? How close are we?
 * 8) in the southeastern corner of the LP needs a period
 * 9) The first recreational route ... The last the last recreational route?
 * 10) As of December 22, 2014, only the US 31 and M-134 proposals are are → were, past tense
 * 11) touted the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign and can you cut this? This isn't neutral.
 * 12) "say" → "said" in the same sentence
 * 13) "Ref" column in the table should be "Ref(s)", as all but one rows have multiple references
 * 14) After I sort one column, I can't sort another; after I sorted by "name", for instance, I couldn't sort by "Type"
 * 15) "Length (mi)" and "Length (km)" columns should really be combined; there should be no sorting difference between the two
 * 16) I don't think the key at the bottom is really necessary if the text is spelled with the color
 * 17) Do you have a reference for the ineligibility of the National Forest Scenic Byways routes to become Pure Michigan Byways?

For these reasons, I oppose this nomination for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Replies: replies and fixes have been made. Will you follow up?  Imzadi 1979  →   04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Those "dead links" are in citations that have archived versions in place. There's nothing to fix. The original URLs cannot be removed without breaking the citations.
 * 2) Michigan: State Program → archived on April 14, 2013
 * 3) Bay City Receives Historic Heritage Route Designation → archived on December 12, 2008
 * 4) Monroe Street (M-125) → archived on October 18, 201
 * 5) M-123 Tahquamenon Scenic Heritage Route Expanded → archived on October 7, 2012
 * 6) There are 5, 6, and 5 total across both peninsulas.
 * 7) State Trunkline Highway System or "State Trunkline Highway System" is linked in the very first sentence.
 * 8) Fixed.
 * 9) Added.
 * 10) Is there any thing specific that leads you to say it's not neutral? It's all based on what the sources say. If I had some idea upon which you're basing your opinion, I'd know what to change, if anything.
 * 11) The legislation, as noted in the body of article, was signed into law on December 30, 2014. MDOT has a full year from that date to obtain a trademark clearance and design the new signs. Therefore we could theoretically be waiting until December 30, 2015, for the new signs to be unveiled. My inquiries to MDOT about their progress on the signage have been unanswered at the present.
 * 12) Added.
 * 13) Clarified that it was the last of any type. (It's actually a scenic one.)
 * 14) Changed.
 * No, it is neutral. That is exactly what the backers were saying as part of the justification for the name change. They justified the name change by tying the new name into the tourism ad campaign.
 * 1) Changed.
 * 2) I'm not sure. It has worked just fine for me, and it's using the standard coding for sortable tables.
 * 3) I disagree and point to List of Interstate Highways in Michigan which has separate columns.
 * 4) It was suggested that I add it before I opened the nomination, and I disagreed with that suggestion. Since you agree with me, I'm removing it. :-)
 * 5) That's purely definitional. The National Forest Scenic Byways are county roads. Since they're not state trunkline highways, they can't be Pure Michigan Byways.
 * Re: #13, I found the issue, which was related to something needed for the color key that was removed in #15, so it's fixed.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Can you clarify that this is "altogether" instead of separate in the lead? It currently reads as though 5, 6, and 5 are in both; "five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated... in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state"
 * 2) I'm sure that's what the sponsors stated; we don't include what the sponsors "touted" of other legislative acts, such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or the Clean Air Act, as that wouldn't be neutral.
 * 3) "say" should still be "said" in that sentence.
 * 4) Other than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why do you think that miles and km shouldn't be combined? Seattle (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Replies: replies made and a few additional changes done to the article, so once again it's back to you.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Tweaked to add "in total" after the counts and before the mentions of the peninsulas. (Because of various things, it's pretty standard to make sure readers know that a program applies to both peninsulas; we have separate state championships by peninsula in some high school sports, and firewood from the LP can't be brought into the UP, among oddities.)
 * 2) But in this case, what they said is the reason why they replaced an otherwise perfectly good name ("Michigan Heritage Route") with "Pure Michigan Byways". If It was just a change in federal regulations requiring them to use the word "byway", they could have renamed them "Michigan Heritage Byways" or even "Michigan Byways". You need both aspects, the federal regulation and the tourism campaign, to explain the full change to "Pure Michigan Byways". It's all interconnected, so I can't cut it out, sorry. I think you need to read the opening sentence of Neutral point of view for the policy on neutrality: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That doesn't mean we have to excise all opinions. Rather, we include those that are pertinent, and to comply with the other key policies (WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research), we have to attribute them with citations. We also have to include opposing viewpoints in proportion to their occurrence in the appropriate literature. In this case, there just aren't dissenting viewpoints; the bill passed 105–3 in the House and 37–0 in the Senate. According to the press release from the Governor's office, "The bill builds on the success of the state’s “Pure Michigan” tourism campaign." Unless someone finds some dissent mentioned in the news, and I've looked, there isn't one to list.
 * 3) Changed, sorry I missed that before.
 * Ok, first off, if we combined them into a single cell, it would complicate or break sorting by length. It would also mean that either "miles" or "mi" would appear in every cell in that column as would "km". By using two columns, which is a standard option using table in convert, then the unit is dropped and moved to the header. This is just a very standard way to handle things, and I could give you dozens of examples that use two columns like this. Also, by using this formatting, the numbers are right-aligned. For columns of numbers, this promotes legibility, and because the level of precision is consistent, the decimal points line up.
 * As far as the NPOV issue, why not just prefix the statements with "According to X"? --Rschen7754 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * those "magic words" would only hand in-text attribution (in addition to inline footnotes). The text already has in-text attribution by saying, "Sponsors of the bill touted..." to attribute the "the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign..." as what they touted. WP:NPOV only requires that the viewpoint be attributed, which the current text does, not that we use some magic formula.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, from my reading I can see the point that the text seems a bit promotional. For example, "preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors" implies that there are "unique" and "irreplaceable" qualities of those corridors. "These actions provide economic benefits by stimulating tourism" is also a bit problematic as it is presented as a statement of fact, and it coming from sources that are perhaps a bit too closely related to the subject leaves me a bit uncomfortable. I'm willing to reconsider, but I'm a bit uneasy with it being left as is. --Rschen7754 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * you're talking about something else then than what is being discussed down here. We're discussing the sentence about the name change in the history section, which complies with the NPOV policy as written.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The cited sources use the words "unique" and "irreplaceable", and definitionally, if they weren't "unique" or "irreplaceable", they wouldn't be listed as PMBs by MDOT. After all, it's not just any old roadway in the state that can be listed. That being said, I did play with the language a bit in that section.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The changes made are good for me. --Rschen7754 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned that section in my original comments, and I agree that those changes look good. Can you do the same for the "sponsors touted" section? Sortability wouldn't be affected. This is an example of what the table would look like– readable and concise, to me. Seattle (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * policy requires us to attribute in text any opinions, and the current text does that already, so no changes are required to comply with WP:NPOV.
 * As for your change, I reject that. The existing formatting right-aligns each number, roughly lining up the decimal points. This enhances legibility of numbers. Ever notice how spreadsheets normally right-align numbers? Or how old-fashioned ledgers (even check book registers) align columns of numbers to the right or by the decimal?
 * The current formatting also eliminates the redundancy of the word "miles" and the symbol "km" from appearing in every column. As I noted on your FLC, you don't restate the word "County" in every row when the heading implies that, and you don't include the unit name of "people" for every row of the table in the population column, so why must I repeat the word "miles" when the heading can handle that? Sorry, I reject that change as decreasing the quality of the table, not increasing it.
 * If you don't want to repeat "mi" and "km2" after every entry, add  to convert. If you want text to be right-aligned, add   to convert. There's no reason why these two columns couldn't be combined. I'm not withdrawing my oppose until you change this inferior table to its more concise alternative. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any outstanding issues, besides the formatting of the lengths that prevent you from striking your opposition? If so, can you let me know so we can resolve them and move on?  Imzadi 1979  →   23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The "touting" of supporters and the superfluous table column keep me from supporting this article as a featured list. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think combining the columns decreases readability, due to the decimal issue, and because it makes the column look more crowded. --Rschen7754 01:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A consensus formed at Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 to combine the "Miles" and "KM" columns; both appear to be acceptable. I'm striking the combination rational from my oppose, as it appears to be a matter of personal preference. Seattle (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can use a synonym for "touted", but that would be inaccurate. "To tout" means to "peddle", "sell", "hawk", etc, and that's exactly what the sponsors were doing; they were offering reasons to persuade others of their position and the need to change the name to include "Pure Michigan" not just the word "byway". It is the concise and accurate description for what they were doing, therefore it is the neutral choice. "Touted" doesn't make a value judgement on whether or not they were correct as it does not have that implication in its meaning. The text on the page would not be neutral if it implied that they were correct or not, but it is neutral because it simply states what they touted as their reasons.
 * I won't change the columns to a format that I feel is inferior. Dozens of FAs on highways use two columns for the mileposts (and their metric conversions) and the other FLs on highways do as well, so there is ample precedent for the format. The proffered suggestions still collapse separate values, granted for the same measurement, into a single column and decrease legibility in the context of a table. Given that there is no requirement to make that change, I trust the delegates can weigh your oppose accordingly as a matter of personal preference, not one that enhances legibility.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Review by Floydian

 * Prose
 * 1) "in total" is redundant
 * 2) "state. Another three have been proposed." - I believe a semi-colon is more appropriate here
 * 3) "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, and is a reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign." - "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, in reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign." or "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, as a reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign."
 * 4) "To be listed as a Pure Michigan Byway, a road must be a state trunkline highway, and it must be nominated through a two-stage process." - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both those commas are unnecessary.
 * 5) "These actions also provide economic benefits by stimulating tourism." - I think after the "also" in the previous sentence that this one should be removed.
 * 6) "Staffers for State Representative Peter Pettalia of Presque Isle..." would sound better as "Staffers for Presque Isle State Representative Peter Pettalia", YMMV
 * 7) At the end of the Program section, you mention that the MDOT director presents a report to the legislature. Do they have to approve this report or?
 * 8) In Types and requirements, the style I usually see would place the first citation after the colon in "The Legislature defined these types to be:", rather than the placement here. I'm unsure if there is a MOS guideline to provide clearance here.
 * 9) In other sections, you place a comma before "and" in lists of three or more items, but in this section you do not. This should be consistent throughout the article.
 * 10) "All routes are given specific termini points with a reasonable length." - define "reasonable length"
 * 11) "These sites need to be visible from the route of the byway, or in the case of historic districts, a "substantial portion of the district must lie adjacent to the highway"." - I believe that there should be a comma after "or" here.
 * 12) I feel that the final four paragraphs of this section could be one paragraph. YMMV.
 * 13) In the history section, I want to point out that I think linking the abbreviations UP and LP here is a great idea, as they haven't been used since the lede.
 * 14) "As of December 22, 2014, only the US 31 and M-134 proposals were active." - since this is cited to an annual report, is the specific date even significant?
 * 15) "The bill passed the House in March 2014,[5] and it passed the state Senate during the lame duck session in December 2014." - two things: a) I think the proper language would be "in the state Senate" and "in the house"; b) "it passed" is redundant here.
 * 16) I'm not sure about "touted"....... just joking ;)
 * 17) "and to unveil the new signage bearing the new program name." - one of those "new"s needs to be dropped.
 * List
 * 1) I'm not sure whether the s in parenthesis is necessary in the "Ref(s)." column header.
 * 2) Can the km column be made sortable?
 * 3) As I mentioned to you at one point, I think the table colours should match the infobox/map colours, or a legend should be included for MOS:COLOR compliance.

Everything else looks good. Unfortunately my DNS is out temporarily, so I can't spot check, but I'm not gonna hold up my review any longer on those grounds. I conditionally support pending fixes. -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I converted them over to a numbered list so I can reply by number. I'll be working on tweaks here and will reply shortly.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * 1–3: done.
 * 4: I think both are needed. The second comma sets off an independent clause ("it must be nominated through a two-stage process" can stand alone as a sentence), and the first comma sets off the "to be listed" as applying to both of the subsequent clauses.
 * 5: done.
 * 6: I'm not changing it because he isn't the state rep for Presque Isle, but rather a state rep who happens to be from Presque Isle. Your proposed switch would reverse that relationship.
 * 7: It's just an information report, no approval necessary.
 * 8: I put it where I did because that is a block quote, and direct quotations are supposed to have a citation afterwards. For other articles that put it before the colon, I'd say they do it wrong, or at least inconsistent with placing the footnote after the closing quotation marks.
 * 9: done.
 * 10: MDOT does not define "reasonable length", so I can't.
 * 11: done
 * 12: they're intentionally separated to keep each subtopic together, mirroring the definition list in the blockquote above it.
 * 13: thank you It's one of the times where WP:OVERLINK's allowances come in handy.
 * 14: maybe, maybe not. I aimed for accuracy there, since that's the date of the last report listing them as active proposals.
 * 15: Since the Senate and the House are co-equal branches of the Legislature, it would be weird to capitalize one and not the other.
 * 16: It's a good thing I understand your sense of humour as well as I usually do... :-)
 * 17: done.
 * List
 * 1: I'm ambivalent on that. That was the suggested format from 's review above, and it certainly is common to put the "s" in parentheses when dealing with something that refers to either a singular or plural subject. (One row of the table has a single footnote applying to it while all of the rest have two or more.)
 * 2: Yeah, it can.
 * 3: The problem is that if I made them match exactly, then black text wouldn't stand out. The map uses the same shades from the signage so that the lines will stand out from the background, but in the table, I used a pastel version of the three signage colors so that black text would stand out as the important detail. The orange shade, is the same shade we use for proposed highways in infobox road, et al., or in the new-style templatized routelists. As noted above in Seattle's review, a color key isn't needed because meaning behind each color is spelled out with each usage. So I guess my options are to switch the teal/brown/blue to the same shade as the signs and use white text for the Historic/Recreational/Scenic labels or to leave it as is.
 * I've made fixes as noted above, or otherwise commented.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Prose point #15, the capitalization wasn't an an issue; rather it was to impart the use of "in the" for the house and senate, since the legislation was done in the senate/house, not through it. I'll accept the colour issue, I just wanted to clear it up before the ninnies complained. Regarding point one for the List, I think "Ref." is acceptable short-form for references as well as reference. Won't hold this up on that semantic however.


 * Support - My concerns are addressed, although my DNS is still wonky until Monday or Tuesday so I can't spot check references for verification. -  Floydian  τ  ¢  19:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Seattle, have your concerns been addressed? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, "touted" is analysis of a third-party source in violation of WP:WEASEL. The phrase "Sponsors of the bill touted the promotional benefits..." is furthermore a WEASEL phrase, as it "aim[s] at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". Seattle (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except,, that it isn't a weasel word at all. WP:WEASEL says that we have to attribute stated opinions to their sources. Well, I've just added a direct quote from the cited news article. Even if I hadn't, you need to read a little further down that MOS page to see: "Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." (emphasis in original) If you had read the news article, or read the quotation I just added to the article, you'd see that the text of the article "accurately represent[s] the opinions of the source", in this case the lead sponsor of the bill. The attribution is, and was, supported, and is now even more strongly supported by a direct quote, so I ask you to please strike your oppose !vote.  Imzadi 1979   →   06:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * any thoughts from a third party?  Imzadi 1979  →   06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the whole problem could be resolved by changing "tout" to "said". Seattle doesn't seem to have an issue with presenting their opinion, but rather the word you are using to introduce the opinion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tout is synonymous with promote. I see no issue myself. -  Floydian  τ ¢  17:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Though they are synonyms, they do not have the exact same meaning. Besides, the suggestion was for "said", as in "said that the inclusion of the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign would be beneficial". "WP:SAID states "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms." Tout is not neutral, as among its meanings are a sense of persistence or hassling. "to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately" according to Merriam-Webster. "Attempt to sell (something), typically by a direct or persistent approach" according to Oxford. "to try to persuade people to buy something by telling them about it, especially loudly and in public", according to Macmillan. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

wording changed. Can the oppose !vote be stricken now as that was the only thing left, aside from the opposition based on using separate mile and kilometer columns, which I believe you had also struck earlier?  Imzadi 1979  →   01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Now you've added "indicated", which is POV under WP:SAID as well. WP:SAID states that to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. Wiktionary lists indicate as "[t]o point out; to discover; to direct to a knowledge of; to show; to make known." "Stated" would be neutral. Furthermore the sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Sponsors of the bill said that by including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign would provide promotional benefits. It's a dependent clause without anything else. Fix the grammar and replace "indicated" with "stated" and I'll strike my oppose. Seattle (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * {{u|Crisco 1492 beat me to it, so take another look.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good. How hard was that? Seattle (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * {{FLCClosed|promoted}} — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.