Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/U.S. Route 75 in Iowa

U.S. Route 75 in Iowa

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: It's been a while since I've been to ACR, so here is an article that I believe has a chance of becoming a Featured Article.


 * Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 13:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

 * I do intend to review this article. I don't know when I'll get around to it, so I don't mind if someone else goes ahead. --Rschen7754 03:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Reconfirming that I intend to review soon. --Rschen7754 00:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Dave is reviewing I will shift my review to some of the source review/image reviews, and any obvious issues I find. --Rschen7754 03:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I will review this article.  Dough   4872   01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) When mentioning the state line termini in the infobox, you should mention what state line it is located at.
 * This doesn't apply since I didn't (and typically don't) mention the state endpoints in the infobox
 * 1) In the first paragraph of the lead, you should mention what state the route comes in from the south and leaves to the north to give more geographical context.
 * 2) "Immediately upon landing in Iowa,", the word "landing" sounds awkward here, I would use "entering" instead.
 * I used the verb land because the road already entered Iowa on the bridge.
 * 1) "US 75 enters Iowa on the Sergeant Floyd Memorial Bridge, which also carries I-129 and US 20, over the Missouri River.", you should mention the route enters Iowa from Nebraska.
 * 2) Again, would use "entering" instead of "landing".
 * Again, I think it's fine.
 * 1) "an interchange with Iowa 3 helps direct more traffic to the downtown area.", "more" seems superfluous here and should be removed.
 * The previous interchange was with the Le Mars business route; it's implied that the business route directs traffic to downtown.
 * 1) You should add a little more detail about the physical surroundings to the route description. Specifically, you should mention what kind of development the highway passes in Sioux City and what the surroundings are like in the rural areas. Also you should mention where the road leaves Sioux City and heads into rural areas.
 * There's really nothing to describe. Northwestern Iowa gives the rest of the state a bad reputation of being flat cornfields.
 * All that needs to be added here is that when the route leaves Sioux City is that it heads into farmland. Maybe add just one sentence that says "Upon leaving Sioux City, US 75 passes through farmland for most of the remainder of its route." or something similar. I think ignoring this leaves out a piece of the route description as the reader may be curious what the areas US 75 passes through in northwestern Iowa are like and some readers may be unfamiliar with the geography of Iowa and cannot assume it passes through farmland on the stretches outside of cities.  Dough   4872   01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disagree here too. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In the route description, you should add a web mapping source such as Google Maps or Bing Maps to supplement the Iowa DOT map as I doubt the Iowa DOT map can source some of the information in the route description.
 * Like what, specifically?
 * For example, in the sentence "In Hinton, the highway and railroads separate the residential western half of the town from the eastern half's grain elevator operation.", I don't think the Iowa DOT map can back up the claim that the road separates residential areas from the grain elevators. Usually, I would use both an official DOT map and a web mapping source to source the whole route description in order to accurately be able to back up all the claims presented in the route description as neither can do it alone.  Dough   4872   01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cited only this example to Google Maps. Otherwise, it would just appear like I lazily tacked on Google Maps refs. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In the last paragraph of the route description, I doubt the Google Maps of the state line section change is supposed to be the source for the sentences before the state line.
 * Did you click the link? You can clearly see a pavement change and a MnDOT sign.  Spin the view around 180 degrees and there's an Iowa welcome sign.
 * I understand that the three sentences starting with the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." can be backed up with the Google Maps ref of the state line, but its the sentences before that in the same paragraph that can't be backed up by that reference, such as "North of US 18, US 75 continues on its due-north course.", which describes a section of road well south of the state line. Again, refer to my comment above on how you should use both a DOT map and a web mapping source to source the entire route description in order to avoid these issues.  Dough   4872   01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reworded to avoid this. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add a reference to the Iowa DOT map after the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." as not to imply the Minnesota map is citing that information about the portion of the road south of the state line.  Dough4872  10th  04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I noticed the History has a lot of short subsections. May want to merge or eliminate the subsections.
 * Nope. Each subsection is a separate topic.  Some things have more to talk about than others.
 * 1) Is it necessary to spell out U.S. Highway 75 in the History given that you defined it in the lead?
 * You could have fixed that one.
 * 1) "At Court Street, they diverged; US 20 and Iowa 141 continued west along 4th and US 75 turned north onto Court", should add "Street" after 4th and Court.
 * If I do that, I'll have said Street four times in two sentences.
 * 1) Is it possible for the inflation conversions be updated for 2016?
 * This is handled automatically by the template.
 * 1) Again, don't need to spell out Interstate 29 since you defined the abbreviation in the lead.
 * You could have fixed that one, too.
 * 1) What year did US 30 Alternate replace US 30? I would add a specific year as opposed to saying "years ago".
 * I don't think this detail is important, US 75 is the subject of the article, not US 30 Alternate.
 * I think it may help in order to provide a little historical context.  Dough   4872   01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to give the year, I would remove "years ago" - without the number it's redundant, and also "US 30 years ago" could be confusing. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) "and onto the abandoned US 73 corridor", I would use "former" over "abandoned" as the highway wasn't actually abandoned.
 * I think it's fine.
 * I still think the word choice here is poor as a reader may think the former US 73 was abandoned to the point where cars were no longer allowed to drive on it and it was no longer being maintained.  Dough   4872   01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think "former" is better than "abandoned" here. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Abandonment is the meaning that I wanted to convey, so I've rephrased that part of the sentence. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) "Now a much shorter highway,", I would add "within Iowa" after that to specify that the length was shorter in Iowa as the actual total length of US 75 didn't change much with the shift into Nebraska.
 * 2) Why was the highway north of Sioux City growing?   Dough   4872   01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the rest of the paragraph.
 * Any specific reasons why US 75 was improved to a four-lane divided highway north of Sioux City?  Dough   4872   01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I still need to answer this one. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I finally answered this better.
 * Any specific reasons why US 75 was improved to a four-lane divided highway north of Sioux City?  Dough   4872   01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I still need to answer this one. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I finally answered this better.


 * I've either corrected the issue or disputed it above. –Fredddie™ 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it hard to follow what's happening here. Does this need further input to resolve a disagreement, or is this simply inactive? --Rschen7754 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A little of both. I've marked the ones on which I'd like some extra input with. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I have everything covered. –Fredddie™ 20:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Issues 8 and 9, both regarding sourcing in the route description, still need to be addressed.  Dough   4872   21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And again. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * --Rschen7754 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One more reply above and we should be good.  Dough4872  10th  04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Rschen7754 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I'm supposed to look over. I thought I had it all figured out the last time. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Issue 9 still needs to be addressed, see my last comment there.  Dough   4872   23:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made the change myself since it was so minor: Is this good for the both of you? --Rschen7754 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - It may have taken a long time, but I can finally support the article for A-class.  Dough   4872   05:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead:
 * For me the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are the hooks to keep someone reading the article. While some of the route description should be summarized for the lead as well, my $.02 is to compress this content, to something like "US 75 is routed in the extreme NW corner of Iowa, forking from I-29 near Souix City towards the Minnesota state line"
 * the bolded "No 22" looks awkward. What I'd do is reverse the order of this sentence, so that the bold reference to NO 22 can use the full title and the mention of No 12 can use the abbreviated form.

Route description:


 * "two half interchanges complete the reconnection of the business loop to the mainline highway" I'm not sure non-roadgeeks will understand the phrase two half interchanges. Perhaps re-word or add a paragraph about half interchanges to the article for Diamond interchange and wikilink.


 * I would attempt to get the official names of the BNSF and UP rail lines (as both companies operate dozens of lines, saying UP rail line is about as specific as saying "the state route"). This isn't always easy but some resources:UP's Maps page, one is dedicated to listing names of rail linesequivalent maps pages for BNSF main linesmaps of BNSF branch and short line partners, note this has 4 lines listed by name in Iowa. In many cases if you can find an old map that shows who owned the rail line before the BNSF / Modern UP conglomerates were created in the 1990's, you can usually find out the rail line's name from that. For example from this pdf it appears the BNSF line in question was acquired from the Great Northern Railway (U.S.), and saying that is more specific than BNSF. Similarly, the history section of your article mentions Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway, which is one of the many predecessors of the modern UP, could this be the same line?


 * Hinton is wikilinked on the 2nd instance, not the first.
 * Fixed. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

History:


 * It's a bit weird to see the King of Trails with both a red wikilink (implying there will someday be an article about the subject) and an infobox (implying this IS the article about the subject). I have no objections to this, but it looks strange to me. You might just do something like a straw poll on WT:USRD or WT:HWY and see if I'm the only one or if others think it's weird too.
 * There should be an article on the King of Trails; however there isn't, so we have a redlink. If a KoT article ever gets written, this article would serve as the Iowa state-detail article, so I put an infobox.  I consider it the same as Lincoln Highway in Iowa redirecting to U.S. Route 30 in Iowa. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that makes sense Dave (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The road connected 89 cities with populations over 1000 residents and nine military posts" That sentence needs a time reference, (I.E. When first formed, the road connected...) a city of 1000 people had much more significance 100 years ago than it does today.
 * I misread what you originally asked, so I was puzzled why you were asking for a reference on something that was already cited. I re-read this and figured it out. –Fredddie™ 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

exit list:

References:
 * I'm used to seeing state lines indicated in the location column (i.e. concurrent with the mention of Missouri River) not the notes column. This doesn't bother me, but again you might bounce it off a couple of people.
 * I'm not sure why I did that. Probably just to have some endpoint symmetry by mentioning the state line on both ends.  It's not perfect, but it's not hurting anything. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The Checklinks tool redflags two sources, and the reasons for the redflags appear to be serious:
 * These have been fixed. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for taking so long to get back to this. As it turns out I had a lot of unplanned travel recently. Dave (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Replies
 * I think I tried to summarize each paragraph of the RD into a sentence for the lead. Is that still too much?
 * I don't know what changes have been made in the month or so that I first read the lead, but it reads better now.


 * "No. 22" is only bolded because Iowa Primary Road No. 22 redirects to US 75, not that that link is going to get thousands of hits, but it is what it is. As far as reorganizing the sentence, No. 12 was the southern half and No. 22 was the northern half.  But I get what you're saying. –Fredddie™ 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're going to have to address this in some fashion. To me it seriously appears the article was vandalized by a newbie who like to "blog bold" everything. I get it that it's bold because of the redirect. I think reversing the sentence order is the easiest solution, and I'm not concerned that this breaks the S-N guideline for one sentence. However, if you want to fix it another way, that's cool too. I'd just make sure it's fixed, as I'm fairly confident that's going to cause a problem. Dave (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you think you can finish this review soon? --Rschen7754 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I should be able to get to this later this week. Dave (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Again my apologies for taking so long. I'm back now and will try to get to more reviews this week. Dave (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first few and commented inline. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --Rschen7754 19:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I finished my review of this article. I was waiting for Fredddie to comment on my suggestions. It looks like he has on all but the one about finding the name of the rail line. Fredddie, you out there? Dave (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm here. I can't find the names of the rail line. It's like they don't want me to find it. –Fredddie™ 13:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let me re-read the article and see if I have any final suggestions. Dave (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I couldn't find a definitive source for the name of the rail line either. The only thing I do know is the current BNSF line came from the Great Northern Railway which is the "N" in the BNSF conglomerate. So I won't hold it against you. But would suggest that if someday you find yourself in a Railroad museum in the area (or whatever) take a look. If User:NE2 is still around, you might ping him. He was sorting through a ton of railroad docs back in the day. You also might just state that (i.e. crosses the BNSF Railway (ex-Great Northern Railway)) to at least narrow it down. With that said, all my other issues have been resolved, so I'll Support promotion, best of luck. Dave (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

 * File:US 75 (IA) map.svg - GFDL 1.2/CC-BY-SA 3.0 - needs sources indicated, needs caption
 * File:091607-SiouxCity-Historic4th.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
 * I would recommend adding more images. I won't make this hold up the ACR, but at FAC I would expect more.
 * Also, source 8 is broken. --Rschen7754 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * --Rschen7754 08:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed this not realizing you mentioned it. –Fredddie™ 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * could you fix the map issues above? Then I think we can close this entirely. --Rschen7754 20:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to make a new map altogether, but QGIS is not cooperating today. –Fredddie™ 22:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reinstalled QGIS and we're good to go. –Fredddie™ 23:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: this ACR is now ready to close. --Rschen7754 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.