Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Brockway Mountain Drive


 * The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class. CL — 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Brockway Mountain Drive (4 net support votes)
review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: Currently one of the few county-roads to be rated as a GA. I think it could do well as an A-Class article.
 * Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - well written, all refs check out, images are on commons and are freely licensed. -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - This article is very informative, has good images, and may be the next FA for USRD. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All in all a good article, these are minor suggestions. Dave (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Additional Comment, the Awards and Recognition section is short. Consider merging with the History section, which is also short? Dave (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The phrase "scenic highway" in the lead should have a source at the end of the sentence. It appears there are already several in the article already that would work, it's just to ensure nobody accuses you of using Peacock terms in the lead.
 * Per WP:MOS common units such as feet and meters should not be linked.
 * "scenic loop off of M-26" sounds kinds odd. Maybe "scenic alternative to M-26" or "scenic loop connecting to M-26"
 * wikilink first instance of hairpin turn
 * first paragraph of Rout description needs a source. The 2nd paragraph could use one for the last sentences too.
 * Major intersections: Some state projects where a route only passes through a single county or city remove that column from the table and just have a note that the entire route is in foo county. What is the standard for the Michigan project?
 * Just a disclosure here, I didn't write the article. Stratosphere did. I nominated it as the best candidate in the MSHP pool for A-Class at the moment. Anyways, the links in the measurements have been removed. Michigan has few examples of single-county roads articles so far. The freeways didn't have a template series for creating the exit lists and omitted the county column in the hand-coding, but the surface routes have included all the columns like all other routes for consistency. Otherwise the table would have to be rebuilt with hand coding to eliminate the templates. I've updated references to include Google Maps where appropriate as well.Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the two sections are just dissimilar enough to remain separate, even if they are short. Otherwise, all other comments should be addressed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think they should be merged, but this is not a strong enough objection to merit an oppose vote. Also for some reason linking above sea level looks odd, but I can't put my finger on why, nor do I have any recommended way to change it, so an oppose on that basis wouldn't' be fair. So I will vote Support Dave (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with minor nitpick: Well written article overall, though "The road was not paved until starting in 1938, with the entire route being completely paved by 1946." is somewhat awkwardly worded. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sentence reworded. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.