Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 113

U.S. Route 113

 * 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 to A-Class! –Fredddie™ 11:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

review
 * Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: This article passed the Good Article process without a problem. The article has been gradually improved since then, but I am now looking for constructive criticism to take it to the next step.
 * Nominated by: Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Lead: Route description: History: Bannered routes: Content: Looking at the sources used, with the exception of the future section, they are almost entirely map and database sources. I see very few prose based sources. I have two concerns with that. 1- I strongly encourage to do a search of period newspapers (i.e. when major segments were opened or under construction) for the area. I make a habit of doing this. While not always, it's surprising how often you can find quite a bit of notable information about the highway not available in map based sources. 2- I've seen articles at FAC get grilled for relying too much on non-prose based sources. Just an FYI.Dave (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - My issues have been addressed.  Dough 48  72  02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Review by Dave
 * US 113 is part of the National Highway System along its entire length-> All of US 113 is part of the National Highway System. IMO sounds a little better, but not a big deal.
 * I changed the sentence to match your suggestion. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an article about DuPont Historic Corridor. This highway mentions a "Dupont Highway" Are the two related? if so, the articles should be linked and the connection explained. Regardless the origins of "Dupont Highway" should be explained.
 * The DuPont Highway mentioned in the historic corridor article is not the same as the DuPont Highway in this article. The DuPonts were a leading family of Delaware, so they had many, many things named for them, including multiple highways.  While the origins of the DuPont Highway are explained in the History section, I added a little more info to the sentence in the Lead, explaining the highway was a philanthropic measure initiated by one of the DuPonts. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Mataponi Creek and Corkers Creek and passes the entrance to the Shad Landing unit of Pocomoke River State Park. IMO you should briefly explain what makes these features notable, especially the state park.
 * Many of these minor bodies of water are included as reference points. The state park is notable as being a state park, and is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.  There is only so much you can say about a state park whose location is on a river, contains wetlands, or containing some unique wildlife configurations. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Five Mile Branch, Massey Branch and Poplartown Branch also need explanations. My take is these are rail lines from the context. However, I do think it is possible that the mentions of railroad crossings could be referring to the M&D railroad previously linked and the branches could be a creek or street. If all these are indeed railroad branch lines perhaps say "US 113 crosses the Snow Hill Line of the Maryland and Delaware Railroad and has several crossings with branch lines of this main as the route traverses Maryland" or something like that.
 * All of the above are bodies of water that US 113 crosses. The term "branch" is used for many minor bodies of water in Maryland.  I find it easier to disambiguate a branch as a rail line than as a body of water, since it is awkward to say "Five Mile Branch river" or "Five Mile Branch stream" but not so to say something like "the Columbia Branch rail line."  Do you have any suggestions? Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Humm. I definitely think something needs to be done, as rail lines was my first guess. If it's a branch of a river, perhaps you could say "Five Mile Branch of XYZ river." Or perhaps "Five Mile Branch which empties into XYX Lake/Bay/Ocean." Either of those would make it clear it's a body of water. You would probably only need to do this on the first "branch". However, for me using the word "branch" alone to describe a body of water is a foreign concept, so it does need explaining.Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disambiguated all bodies of water with "branch" in their name in the Route description. There are a few "branches" in the History and Future sections, but they had previously been disambiguated in the RD, so I left them alone. Viridiscalculus (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * wikilink "concurrency."
 * I wikilinked the first instance of the word concurrent. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "relocated to its present alignment as the first carriageway of a future and later upgraded to a divided highway through Newark and Ironshire as well ." is a little rough. The crossouts may help, but there is probaby a better way to re-word this.
 * I reworded as follows: "In Newark and Ironshire, US 113 was relocated to its present alignment as the first carriageway of a future divided highway." Is that better or does the sentence need further work? Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's better. Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "dualized" - Is that a word? (I don't know, i'm asking an honest question).
 * The term "dualize" is mostly used in British English, referring to constructing the second carriageway of a divided highway. It was used more often in the U.S. earlier in the 20th century.  Should I change the terms used? Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say "upgraded to a divided highway" personally. But if it is a legitimate word, you're ok to use it. Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "was built in 1976, the same year a future interchange with MD 90 was constructed." That doesn't make any sense.
 * Can you elaborate on what does not make sense? My first instinct is the "future interchange" part, but I want to be sure before I correct it.  The point I am trying to get across is an interchange was built on another highway but was not put into use for 24 years. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Taken literally this sentence implies a highway engineer had a time machine. A future interchange built in 1976? Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworded this to what I think you meant to say. Let me know if I did this right. Dave (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you rewrote it implied MD 90 was not yet built, when in fact MD 90 was the highway that was completed in 1976 and waiting for the other highway to be built to make the interchange functional. I rewrote the set of sentences as follows: "US 113's interchange with US 50 was built in 1976.[18][20] MD 90's interchange with US 113 was also constructed in 1976, but it sat unused for 24 years until US 113 between Berlin and the Delaware state line was partially relocated and expanded to a divided highway between 2000 and 2003.[21][22][23][24][25][26]"  Let me know if that solves the confusion or if that introduces new problems. Viridiscalculus (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, you've got features along the route in the History section such as "Dover Air Force Base" and "Dover International Speedway" that aren't mentioned in the Route description. Unless the route no longer passes by these features, they should be mentioned in the Route description.
 * The route no longer passes by those features. They are used as modern reference points to explain where the route once extended.  This is explained at the end of the History.  The Lead also mentions the highway originally extended north to Dover but was moved south to Milford. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * wikilink DelDOT
 * I expanded the abbreviation to Delaware Department of Transportation and wikilinked it because I had not yet used the expanded form in the prose. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * US 113 in Maryland -> The Maryland portion "US XXX in ZZZ" is a USRDism that isn't really correct english, though I'm guilty as sin as doing it too.
 * As a title, it is a USRDism, but it still works in prose as a reference to "the part of US 113 that is in Maryland." Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was specifically referring to the hatnote at the exit list. I agree that a minor change, such as "the portion of US 113 in Maryland" works. My apologies for not making that clear.Dave (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked for the phrase "US 113 in Maryland" and I removed the "in Maryland" part in the two instances it seemed unnecessary. I changed the Junction list hatnote to "US 113 runs entirely within Worcester County in Maryland." Viridiscalculus (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * wikilink "business route"
 * The term has been wikilinked. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, Dave. I am not sure what I am going to do about finding more prose sources, because finding information about highway construction from more than a decade ago is not as easy or profitable as you make it sound. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know all too well that it's not easy. Fortunately the archives search at news.google.com has improved significantly over the years. Dave (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - your most recent fix addressed my biggest concern. Two things for the record. I still think you should search period newspapers for some more prose based sources. I know how tough it can be (believe me) but it does help. And I think not doing so may cause you some grief should you take this to FAC. Second, I don't have a problem with it, but I have seen where articles with future sections get raked over the coals too. The theory is that you've got a section that is guaranteed to be out of date soon. Just something to think about. Dave (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Admrboltz


 * '''Support --Admrboltz (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Rschen7754


 * Lead - what is a post road? (link?)
 * A post road is a highway designated by the government to carry correspondence between towns back when mail was the only form of long-distance communication. I wikilinked the term.  V  C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The highway between Pocomoke City and Dover was designated US 113 as part of the original U.S. Highway System in 1926. The highway was widened in both states in the 1930s and 1940s. - same beginning
 * I changed the second "the highway" to "US 113".  V C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * RD - intro - two sentences start with "Known as". Not particularly engaging.
 * I changed the wording in the second sentence for more variety. This may change again depending on what I change further in the Route description.  V  C  05:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.1 - "section" and "old alignment" repeated too. Again with "crosses".
 * Run-on- The highway crosses Church Branch of the Shingle Landing Prong of the St. Martin River then another old alignment of US 113 splits to the west, accessed at its southern end via a right-in/right-out interchange southbound.
 * 1.2 - Median widening - where are you sourcing this from?
 * I removed information about the median.  V C  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * at grade - that supposed to be hyphenated? (unsure on this one)
 * At grade is hyphenated when used as an adjective ("at-grade crossing") and not hyphenated when used as an adverb ("crosses the railroad at grade"). I think I have the hyphenation correct, but I would check my work.  V  C  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sourcing - all off the DOT site and maps. FAC may complain. Just a warning.
 * The RD fails to address the question of "Why does the reader care?" All I get from reading it is that the road intersects other roads and crosses rivers. I suspect this does have to do with the first part being based solely on the DOT site and maps.
 * I added a bunch of non-road specific sources and information about the towns along the route to liven up the Route description.  V C  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * History - US 113 is the descendent of an old post road - descendant?
 * I changed "descendent" to "successor".  V C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2.1 first paragraph - four sentences in a row start with The.
 * I am not sure how to fix this. The highway did not have a name in the 1910s, although I can try to find something.  It would be incorrect to use US 113 because the highway did not receive that designation until 1926.  The definite article "the" is being used properly here, so barring new information the sentences should remain as they are.  V  C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just restructure the sentences so they don't all begin with "the". --Rschen7754 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I diversified sentence structure in the first paragraph of Maryland history.  V C  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6 cites for one sentence!?
 * I split the sentence into multiple sentences and added some missing information. No sentence should have more than three cites now.  V  C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2.2 - in the end the DuPont Highway was constructed in Sussex County as a 14-foot (4.3 m) roadway on the 200-foot (61 m) right-of-way. - 14-foot wide?
 * That is correct. Many roads built in the 1910s and 1920s were built that narrow because automobiles were smaller and not capable of today's speeds.  V  C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify and say wide as opposed to long? --Rschen7754 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.  V C  23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Junction list - end of Maryland - it looks like US 113 exits from itself!?
 * I agree that is awkward. Should I combine the two junction lists into one?  If yes, should the mileages remain separate or be treated as one highway?  V  C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually I've seen colspans used to make the distinction more clear. --Rschen7754 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I combined the state Junction lists into one Junction list.  V C  04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Other than the route description, the article looks great. You just need to fix the RD and make some minor edits and you should be good to go.

Rschen7754 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I addressed all of the non-Route description issues. I will need more time to work through the RD issues.  V  C  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Re-review of Maryland RD section
 * US 113 heads northeast as a four-lane divided highway with a wide, tree-filled median - again with the tree-filled, that's not sourced.
 * I removed the information about the median both here and in the fifth paragraph.
 * As of 2011, the divided highway extended south to Goody Hill Road between Newark and Ironshire. - be more precise, say like the fourth quarter of 2010.
 * I rewrote the sentence to indicate the present extend of divided highway and the section under construction as of October 2010, and referenced it.
 * which contains several museums and preserves buildings from the late 19th century when Berlin was at the intersection of the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington Railroad (now the Snow Hill Line) and the defunct Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway. - That's a bit too much detail. Also, there's a period before and after the ref.
 * I removed the specific railroad lines from both the Pocomoke City and Berlin sentences. I also removed the extra period.
 * Next sentence - intersects intersects.
 * Fixed.
 * with a narrow, guardrailed median - again with the medians.
 * Removed.
 * Throughout the RD you overuse "farmland and forest".
 * I removed all references to farmland and forest from the Maryland section and will do the same with the Delaware section later. I will save the forest descriptions for when the route passes through state forests, which the highway does in both states.  The reader can assume that since the highway passes through a flat, rural area, there is a lot of farmland along it.
 * The last paragraph seems a little long.
 * I did some consolidation to shorten the paragraph.
 * As far as writing the DE part - you're on the right track with the MD part, but don't go too far off on a tangent. This is the US Route 113 article, not some other article. Briefly explaining what something is is fine, but don't go overboard. --Rschen7754 02:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed several items above in the Maryland RD. A few left to complete.  V  C  19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed remaining items. Now time to work on the Delaware section.  V  C  20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delaware section of the Route description has been rewritten.  V C  16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Rereview of DE part of RD
 * First paragraph is long. Keep in mind that just adding breaks in between paragraphs is an option. However in this case, the first paragraph is a little detail-heavy.
 * I removed a few details and rewrote a few sentences to make the paragraph more concise. I also moved the image to the next paragraph so the paragraph does not look so long.  V  C  07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "The U.S. highway" is overused. --Rschen7754 05:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced some instances of U.S. highway with U.S. route.  V C  07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Support with disclaimer When I first reviewed the article the RD was void of any description indicating why the reader should care about the article. The article has definitely improved since then. However, a concern I have is that upon taking this article to FAC, some may complain that there is too much tangential detail. It's a hard balance to find the point where the RD remains interesting and has details yet there isn't a "detail overload". It's also hard to tell where FAC will draw that line as well. I think the article is to the point where if FAC draws the line more towards the less-detailed side, the changes could be made without much difficulty. But again, it's FAC, and who knows what will happen there. Otherwise, the article is good and I have no reservations about the rest of it. --Rschen7754 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.