Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 131

U.S. Route 131

 * 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.


 * The result was promoted to A-Class! -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: I think this is a good subject for the next MI FAC after M-6. It also happens to be the second highway/freeway in my current hometown to be nominated. (Yes that means I-196 and M-11 are destined for future work to match my original hometown in having all FAs.) Oh, and if we review it in time, it could be at FAC at the same time as US 113. Let's confuse the FAC reviewers! ;)
 * Nominated by:  Imzadi  1979   →  05:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Review from the Admiral

 * Support All of my issues have been resolved. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough 48 72  01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. All my issues have been fixed explained. --P C B  15:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Brief comments:


 * The first mention of "BUS US 131" in the route description was a bit vague, as the abbreviation was never clarified.
 * Good catch. Fixed.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * "...follows a four-lane expressway-style highway...." I think this sentence could be rearranged a little. It is a four-lane expressway (I hope), not a four-lane expressway-style highway (which could imply that it is similar but actually isn't).
 * It's not a full expressway. There are few driveways in a few locations, but otherwise it is a full expressway, as explained in the next sentence.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Is it a problem that references 11 and 12 are continually used next to each other? Do they need to be grouped?
 * They're both used together for a lot of the details on whole paragraphs of the RD. Some details are specifically cited to just one or the other though. (Google is not used for the rest areas or car pool lot information.)  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * "US 131 debuted, along...." in the beginning of the history could be a little confusing. --P C B  04:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what's confusing to you? US 131 and the rest of the US Highway System have the same "birthday" if you will. They both debuted at the same time.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just didn't know what "debut" meant...hehe. --P C B  05:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, is it necessary to use the word "township" in every slot for the exit list? I'm not quite familiar with what a township is; do people in everyday language say "township"? If not, why is it necessary? --<font color="IIJJ3400">P <font color="IIJJ3400">C <font color="IIJJ3400">B  05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Townships in Michigan are subdivisions of the county. The City of Grand Rapids is legally a separate government from the Township of Grand Rapids. In common usage, we'd call them just Grand Rapids and Grand Rapids Township. See Township (United States) for more details, but yeah, I have to list that part of the municipal names.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More comments:
 * In the first sentence, shouldn't it state that the miles are in Michigan? After all miles are, not miles is.
 * Another good catch. BTW, you're welcome to edit the article for stuff like this.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Can you explain why the M-6 interchange is called a mammoth interchange?
 * That's the adjective from the article. The second half of the sentence discussed how big it is, but I expanded that a bit.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Please clarify "hidden I-296 designation".
 * Let me know if that clarifies that enough. Turns out we have an article on unsigned highways, so I linked that in.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * I think it's fine. It's just a little sounds a little scary to me, not ever hearing what a hidden designation is. --<font color="IIJJ3400">P <font color="IIJJ3400">C <font color="IIJJ3400">B  15:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "At exit 176, M-55 leaves a concurrency with M-115 and joins the freeway around the east side of Cadillac." I think I know what you mean, but "the freeway" is just a bit confusing. --<font color="IIJJ3400">P <font color="IIJJ3400">C <font color="IIJJ3400">B  01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tweaked.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

 * Infobox and lead
 * As we discussed on IRC, the red box around the zoomed in area is hard to see at 290x172px. I suggested replacing it with File:Map of USA MI.svg, but that's where the discussion ended.
 * The problem is that the US 131 map doesn't show the whole state and does show parts of other states.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Note1 seems ill-placed. Wouldn't it be just as easy to show each state's mileage using length_notes?
 * U.S. Route 491 uses basically the same thing, although Dave didn't separate his explanatory footnotes from his referential footnotes like I did. Instead this one note substitutes for 2 references, when it's not really needed to break the two states' mileages out separately.
 * I won't press this further here, but I think this should be discussed at WT:USRD. Rather than in-fight among ourselves about which method is the One True Method of showing how total lengths are figured, we should hash it out as a project.
 * As I said on the I-470 ACR, I'm not too keen on using postal abbreviations in the infobox. We're not mailing letters here.
 * Sorry, I don't agree, but I won't argue.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Each states' counties should be on separate lines, even if Indiana only has one. It will eliminate that awkward comma after Elkhart County.
 * U.S. state should be linked.
 * Low value link. Tony1 pulled it on Capitol Loop. I agree, and I pull it from articles in general. The link to Michigan (or whatever state) is higher value.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Surely this is an obvious oversight. Freeway is mentioned over 100 times, but it not linked once.
 * Yeah, added.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * I don't know if I would say it runs on the western side of the LP. I-29 runs along the western side.  Maybe just say it runs through the western LP.
 * When I read that it didn't originally end in Indiana, then read the sentence about Fife Lake, I assumed Fife Lake was in the south. That should be clarified.
 * Clarified.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * "The state started near Three Rivers..." This would be a good spot to mention MDOT for the first time.
 * Except that it wasn't MDOT until 1978. It was the State Highway Department back then. Rather than confuse people with the names, I left MSHD's first mention until the History section.
 * The blurb about freeway construction doesn't seem to flow very well. I might go through it myself and tweak it.


 * Route description
 * "In 2007, INDOT determined that 7,949 cars and 2,068 trucks used the section of US 131 in the state of Indiana.[8]" All year? This happens more than once.
 * Tweaked.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Northerly and similar have ambiguous meanings, so they should be avoided.
 * Hmm. No one's ever complained before. I need to think about this one.  Imzadi 1979  → 
 * Through Michigan, believe it or not, I think there is too much detail on what the route travels through.
 * Suggestions on what to trim?  Imzadi 1979  →   05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, my concern is tl;dr. If each section was somewhere between the lengths of 'Services' and 'S-Curve replacement', I'd be happier.
 * I've trimmed 1,315B from the article, and absent any specific details you want removed, I can only come up with a few ideas on places to trim further. One is to spin the entire Memorial designations section out completely as a sub article and drop a single paragraph summary in its place. Second would be to cut out the entire historic bridge section. The third would be to cut the car pool lot information, although I'd prefer that it stay. I'd rather not pull the bridges as the one is on the NRHP. Anything else, and we're not cutting fat but meat from the article. I'd be down to removing details on landmarks, or the environment around the freeway. As it stands now, some counties have only two or three sentences, and whole communities along the highway are no longer mentioned at all.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the RD, I don't really like what appears to be a lead paragraph for Michigan under the third-level heading for SW Michigan. I'm not so certain it would be better to change the SW Michigan header to Michigan, placing a fourth-level heading after the first Michigan paragraph and making the other Michigan sections fourth-level as well.
 * Calling the S-Curve iconic is borderline weasely.
 * Swapped with a different adjective from the news article.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Convert has an option to convert the parentheses to square brackets.
 * Which doesn't work when forcing abbreviations. The original quotation was abbreviated, but I can't force both brackets and abbreviation, so I have to leave that alone.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "This fluid will melt ice to lower temperatures than the −20 °F (−29 °C) at which salt stops working..." I think you meant to say the fluid will melt ice at temperatures lower than –20 °F.
 * "Ouwinga was a state lawmaker who died while serving in the Michigan House of Representatives in 1991." I think it's clearer to say "...who died in 1991 while serving..."
 * Tweaked the last two.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Built as Trunk Line Bridge No. 61 in 1916–17, the 45-foot-long (14 m) span is 18 feet (5.5 m) wide in a concrete through-girder style that cost $9,956.63 to build.[102]" This sentence seems awkward, but I don't know a better way to fix it.  Also, when you read it with the sentence before it, Trunk Line gets repetitive.
 * After this, we'll be good to go for my concerns. –Fredddie™ 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We're good now. Support. –Fredddie™ 01:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the status of this review? --Rschen7754 23:05, 11 March 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.