Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/M-6 (Michigan highway)


 * 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.

Promoted. --Rschen7754 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

M-6 (Michigan highway)
review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: The newest freeway in Michigan, and the newest GA (at the moment). Should be in decent shape with some tweaking and stuff for a future FAC. Another article that minimally uses maps for historical information, but that's because the freeway was covered in the press while it was being planned for 32 years.
 * Nominated by:  Imzadi  1979   →  01:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)




 * Support - My issues have been addressed.  Dough 48  72  03:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Admrboltz

NOTE: Review in progress. Have not made a complete read of the article yet Finished.
 * Support - issues resolved. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Review by Dave

More to come... Dave (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Some brief replies so far:
 * IMO the origin of the name should at least be briefly explained in the lead. Even if it's as simple as "M-6, or the Paul B. Henry Freeway, after a late congressman, is a...
 * "Many locals still refer to it by its original name, the South Beltline." IMO that's an iffy statement to have without a source and/or in the lead. Maybe just "also called the South Beltline" in the lead and have the "most locals" part in the body where it can be explained in detail?
 * I'd really try to get a picture of the clover-leaf interchange. With the superlatives given in the text, I had to go to googlemaps to check it out. =-) Maybe do something like CL did with Utah State Route 201 with File:Spaghettibowl.png?
 * " again re designated two years later"
 * "The consultants were also studying the type of roadway between a full freeway or a boulevard-style arterial street setup." IMO that's a little awkward. How about, "The consultants were asked to study a full freeway and a limited access boulevard design." (yes I would wikilink those terms)
 * "The choice of consultants on the project was controversial at the time; local planners felt that MDOT picked BKI Inc. only because they used a minority-owned subcontractor and not because they would be qualified for the project" I'm not sure I like this sentence, as it does invite controversy in an article that doesn't need to be controversial. If you do decide to keep it, I would find a suitable link to put in there somewhere, maybe Minority business enterprise, racial quota or reverse discrimination.
 * "State and local officials in January 1981 expected the freeway to cost between $40–100 million " the "in January 1981" should be moved, probably to after the dollar figure.
 * "The results of the study by BKI were later< criticized by local planners in May 1982." You need to either say later or give the date, but not both (redundant).
 * The freeway was even studied
 * In parsing the article I added a few commas, and notices several more where I thought commas might be helpful. Suggest parsing the article, or asking someone to parse and add commas (I would, but I'm not the best to ask about grammar feedback).
 * bonus payment
 * "leaving the interchanges at US 131 and I-196 and the connecting roadbed to be completed at the time." Do you mean "at the same time"? As written this doesn't make sense.
 * "That stretch of freeway opened" I think you mean "This stretch".
 * "The M-6 Trail was constructed in a $3.5 million project starting in 2008 to create a 10-foot (3.0 m) wide path linking the Kent Trails with the Paul Henry Rail Trail. " That definitely needs a comma or two.
 * Frederik and Lena Meijer Foundation. That should probably link to something, As I'm sure this is the same Meijer as the Meijer stores, so surely an article exists about a related subject to this.
 * Even after the official name was legislated, the local press (and the populace) has stuck to the original name interchangeably with the designation. Maybe we can combine this with your first suggestion and reword that as "Even after the freeway was named for the late congressman, local residents and the press use d the original name, South Beltline". Look at the Grand Rapids Press headlines in the references section, almost all of them use some variation of either South Beltline or South Belt in the last decade. (The articles themselves use both the South Beltline and M-6 names. About the only place you see the official memorial name is the one roadsign westbound after the ramps from I-96 merge together. As I recall, the other end doesn't have a similar sign.)
 * That works. Note my slight change. Dave (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've e-mailed my photo source at MDOT to get a copy of their aerial photo of the interchange. I can't do what CL did because Tearraserver's last photos of Wyoming, MI are from 1999, when the future interchange was still a rest area on US 131. I am planning on getting out one of these afternoons when I'm not busy and the weather is nice to photograph some more of the freeway, since the phase I and II sections have no photographic coverage yet.
 * I know it's a little repetitious, but that wording is reinforcing the notion that the roadway that was the first M-6 had its designation changed twice in short order.  Imzadi  1979   →  02:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I don't think it needs re-enforcing. Dave (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have finished reading the article. All in all, very thorough. Most of my concerns are copyediting. I do recommend a thorough copyedit. Dave (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've completed my changes from your suggestions.
 * The past tense "used" isn't correct in that revised sentence in the lead. The name is in current use on the traffic reports (which frequently use "the M-6 South Beltline" or "M-6" or "South Beltline") and in other news reports that mention the roadway.
 * How about "continued to use"? Dave (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Every other sentence in that paragraph is in the present tense because everything in that paragraph is current information. The opening portion of the sentence is past tense only to relate that the naming was a past event, but the usage of the name is still current. I don't think it would be a good idea to switch tense of the subject of a sentence in the middle of a paragraph and switch back.  Imzadi  1979   →  14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving in the bit about BKI's minority subcontractor. This freeway was controversial, and that was part of the controversy. I did add the wikilink though.
 * I rewrote the sentence as part of my expansion of M-6 Trail. It was kind of sad that the article on the freeway had more information about the trail than the article on the trail. I destubbed the trail article and copied the languages I used there, here.
 * There isn't anything to link that to short of piping the link to Fred Meijer (businessman). The foundation, like many others like it, isn't notable enough for its own article, but it's not directly affiliated with the company to be linked there. (From my knowledge of the situation, Fred Meijer gives away his personal money through his foundation, not the company's money.)
 * I think Fred Meijer (businessman) is an acceptable pipe target. It's mearly to give some context to those, such as me, who are not from the area and don't know the significance of the name. Dave (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  Imzadi  1979   →  14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the other specific suggestions, I disagree with them and haven't implemented them. I'll let others weigh in with their opinions though. Others are welcome to copyedit as well though.  Imzadi  1979   →  06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Imzadi, my sincere apologies in taking so long to get back to this. I don't really have an excuse, other than I've found myself unmotivated and somewhat on an emotional roller-coaster these days. You have resolved most of my concerns, as such I will Support promotion. However, there are a few things I strongly encourage to check before going up to FAC.


 * 1) (and I just noticed this) Continuing east, the beltline curves to the southeast and into the massive cloverleaf interchange complex at US 131 This has 3 sources; however, they are all maps. The only problem with that is "massive" is a relative term, and I'm not sure it can be justifiably used when the source is a map. Might want to get a 2nd opinion on that.
 * 2) The above sentence where we are debating if the word should be "use, used, or continued to use". It still doesn't sound right to my ears. However, As 3 others have most likely read that same sentence with no objection, I'll defer to their opinions, with a request to have someone from outside the project give it an look-see. Good luck. Dave (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well regarding number 1, the next sentence does describe the size of the interchange (yes, I know, I'm still waiting on the photos that should be arriving this week) as: "This interchange stretches over a mile (1.6 km), encompassing 27 bridges and 18 retaining walls making it the largest freeway interchange in Western Michigan." That sentence is cited to an article titled: "South Beltline Junction to be Area's Largest: The Cloverleaf Interchange with US 131 Will Stretch for a Mile and Require Widening of the Road" out of the Grand Rapids Press. I'm willing to massage the text on which word is used, but some superlative needs to be in there somehow, I think. As for the other comment, my plans with this are similar to Capitol Loop. Its next stop will be WP:PR with a ping to the couple of editors that polished that other article before FAC. I figure that if ACR doesn't grind to a halt now, it could be at FAC by the end of the year, my schedule permitting.  Imzadi  1979   →  20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Fredddie


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