Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 30 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.

'''Promoted! Great job, Fredddie!''' &mdash; Viridiscalculus (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Route 30 in Iowa
review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: I like to think this is a well-written article about one of the most important roads in Iowa. I have aspirations of taking this article to FAC, but I need the great input from the project before I do so.
 * Nominated by: &mdash;Fredddie™ 00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 10:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just starting with a few quick things before I head off to bed at some point. I'll work on a more complete review of the prose later on. I'm actually starting at the bottom and working backwards on this. I'll work on the prose sections later.  Imzadi  1979   →   10:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Review from Imzadi1979
 * 1) In the junction list, the " end of overlap." notes aren't full sentences, so they shouldn't have periods. Ditto any captions that aren't full sentences (and any that are could be recrafted to not be complete sentences to drop the periods.
 * –Fredddie™
 * 1) It's more of a personal preference, but on state-detail articles, what I normally do for the state lines is use the location on the subject state's side of the line, use the direction that the highway leads away from the state line and use the notes like you did. So in other words, for the NE line, I'd use US 30 west. For the IL line, US 30 east. Both would be listed with the IA location from the IA side of the line. Since I use control cities on all appropriate junctions, I would also include the appropriate NE/IL city, but that's more optional. Consider this all a suggestion, not a "must fix".
 * I normally add directions, but for some reason did not, so this is ✅ –Fredddie™
 * 1) Without digging out my atlas at this hour, I will assume that all of the concurrencies/overlaps/whatever are on east–west sections of US 30 and that in general, US 30 doesn't turn north–south through an overlap. If it did, I'd write the notes to reflect the actual direction the overlap runs, even if that's different from the signed direction of US 30.
 * It happens twice, at US 59 and at US 61. Neither of them overlap for longer than 1.5 miles.  Would you still mention it? –Fredddie™
 * 1) We may have a copyright issue with the Great River Road marker in the junction list. has the graphic emblem tagged with a Mn/DOT source. If Mn/DOT originally created it, then under PD-MNGov it has been released into the public domain, meaning that he was free to remove the state name from the graphic and upload it to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. If it was originally created by FHWA, it would also be PD, and fair to do this. If it was instead created by the Mississippi River Parkway Commission or another group, then even if Master_son created the copy that's been uploaded from the Mn/DOT source, the original is still under copyright, which means his upload can only be used under a claim of fair-use, which means only on the Great River Road article itself. In other words, we need to know who created the original design, and if they were working as a Mn/DOT or FHWA employee. If we determine the source of the design, there's the possibility that the source released it into the public domain as well. In any event, the design isn't simple enough to claim that copyright can't attach to it. Sorry for a long discussion here, but I just want to make sure that this is done right so you don't get dinged over it at FAC. I might be worrying over nothing, but the GRR dates back to 1938 which isn't old enough for the copyright to lapse due to age. (At some point, I should research the origins of the Great Lakes Circle Tours markers, and if they're really PD, get them loaded for use in jct.)
 * Removed and mentioned in notes. –Fredddie™
 * 1) Sources all look good. I can't see any issues with their origins.
 * 2) Refs 9, 12 and 13 could use page numbers out of the books referenced.
 * This requires a trip to the library, but I'll do it. –Fredddie™
 * ✅ –Fredddie™
 * 1) I'd spell out AASHTO on ref 2 since all other organizations are unabbreviated.
 * –Fredddie™
 * 1) Maps could use section numbers, assuming the maps have sections.
 * This will take some time, but I'll do it, too. –Fredddie™
 * –Fredddie™
 * 1) The USGS for Ref 5 should be the publisher and not the author. (Others might debate this, but typically I don't consider an organization to author something, unless it is published by a different organization.)
 * 2) There's a dead link according to the tool. http://www.iowadotmaps.com/msp/historical/pdf/1989_front.pdf is coming up "Dead since 2010-07-07". Another one came up with a timeout error, but since it's an odd hour, the server is probably just down for maintenance.
 * –Fredddie™
 * 1) The last automated tool checks alt text. I know that FAC has an on-again off-again thing with alt text, but I find that it's just easier to make sure that an article has it. They can't oppose over including it, but someone could oppose over not having it. The map doesn't have any specified, which for a map should be something general about where the highlighted highway is "US 30 runs mostly east–west across the state of Iowa" or so. The service station photo doesn't have any either, and the airport sign in the junction list is coming up with the name, when it should be  to skip it like the route markers. The last one is the 1926 vintage US shield, which could just be "1926 vintage US Route 30  shield for Iowa".
 * ✅ Airport sign alt text removed. I'll take care of the others later. Alt text fixed. –Fredddie™
 * ✅ Airport sign alt text removed. I'll take care of the others later. Alt text fixed. –Fredddie™
 * OK, thanks for the first review! –Fredddie™ 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the changes you suggested. –Fredddie™ 23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, getting back to the article again, a few things I see. On the whole the article is well done and worthy of promotion with a few minor detail updates.  Imzadi  1979   →  04:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The citations that link to PDFs should have  added.
 * ✅ Please double check to see if I missed one. –Fredddie™
 * 1) Per MOS:CAPS, any article titles should be re-rendered in Title Case, even if the source gives the article title in Sentence case.
 * ✅ Thought they all were, but one wasn't. –Fredddie™
 * 1) I'm not liking the "blue snake" that results from the list of wikilinked cities in the prose: "Small towns are dotted along the entire route, connecting the larger cities and towns of Missouri Valley, Denison, Carroll, Ames, Marshalltown, Cedar Rapids, and Clinton." This is in the realm of personal preference, but I like such lists to have three items, four tops. Anything more looks like overlinking.
 * ✅ This happened in the lead and in the RD lead. I broke up the lead into three sections to match up the RD sections, and neutered the RD lead. –Fredddie™
 * 1) The first mention of an Interstate (in this case Interstate 29 in the "Western Iowa" subsection) should have the I-# abbreviation given. Ditto the first mention of a state highway. After the first mention for each type, each highway name should be abbreviated for consistency.
 * ✅ –Fredddie™
 * 1) Carrying along with that idea, wherever the first mention of the DOT is, but the abbreviation there as well, since it is abbreviated in the infobox. (I usually like to try to include a mention of the DOT in the lead somehow for this purpose.)
 * Already done. First mention is in the lead. –Fredddie™
 * 1) A suggestion that came from Tony1 during the Capitol Loop FAC was to pipe  as   so that it doesn't look like a dictionary definition link, and it bridges the concept of "runs" with "concurrently". Only the first mention of a concurrency needs the wikilink though.
 * ✅ I really like this. "Run concurrently" is a complete thought so it makes sense it's all in the link. –Fredddie™
 * 1) Double check that there aren't any "U.S. 30" abbreviations, since the given abbreviation lacks the dots.
 * ✅ –Fredddie™
 * 1) "While it has not been an official route for 84 years, ..." The problem is that this number needs to increase each calendar year. (That is unless, of course, you code in some stuff to generate the measurement automatically.) If you nominate at FAC, be prepared for someone to comment on this.
 * –Fredddie™
 * 1) "After years of lobbying by the LHA, the Iowa Department of Transportation, in 2006, designated the Lincoln Highway an Iowa Heritage Byway." Unlike "seedling miles" above, I don't know that this case should use italics. MOS:ITALIC allows italics when defining a term, but here you don't follow up with a definition of "Iowa Heritage Byway". We should get others' opinions on this, as I may be wrong here.
 * ✅ Removed the italics for Iowa Heritage Byway. –Fredddie™
 * Thanks for re-reviewing it. –Fredddie™ 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good. I'm sure that if this article goes to FAC, there will still be things to tweak, but it looks pretty darn good to me now. Therefore I support promotion to A-Class at this time.  Imzadi  1979   →  03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Dave
 * Currently the wikilink to Lincoln Highway is the 3rd mention. IMO, it should either be the 2nd mention (if the 1st is bolded) I'd consider linking the first mention instead of bolding, as the hatnote makes it clear that Lincoln Highway redirects here making bold unnecessary.
 * ✅ –Fredddie™

Some of the prose is a little dramatic. (Not unusual for someone writing about a favorite subject, that's the point of reviews.). I'd suggest going through and toning down the prose that suggests the highway is a living, breathing thing. Examples: More later.... I have to go. Dave (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead: "From its planning stages, Iowa was assured it would be a major part of the Lincoln Highway" "Iowa's dirt roads were famous for how muddy they became after rain." These are probably ok, but if you want to go for FA status, I could see somebody griping about weasel and/or peacock words. Maybe something like, "Iowa officials pressed for the Lincoln Highway to traverse the state, desiring more all-weather roads across the state as many were unusable due to thick mud during rainstorms"
 * "Early Lincoln Highway travelers were directed into as many small towns as were reasonable " IMO "as reasonable" sounds awkard.
 * "it was much straighter" -> the route was straightened.
 * traffic patterns have demanded This makes it sound like the Iowa state government finally caved after years of picket signs on the governor's lawn from angry highways rising up in protest. =-)
 * Thanks. Now that you mention it, it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to go through the whole article and proofread my own work.  –Fredddie™ 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I might have spoke too soon, this seems mostly confined to the lead, I haven't seen any peacock words in the Route description. More suggestions:
 * Try to find out the name of the Railroad line. It is mostly likely the Overland Route (Union Pacific Railroad), judging from.
 * You are correct. Changed all the mentions to reflect that. –Fredddie™


 * "Loess Hills, a region of deposited glacial drift extending from north of Sioux City to extreme northwestern Missouri" I'd recommend to expand on this, what physical characteristics does this glacial drift cause, what does this area look like?
 * Loess is better described as wind-deposited silt, so I changed it to say that. The hills themselves rise pretty dramatically, so I included a ref to a topography map to show this.  A picture would be awesome, and unfortunately, I haven't found a free picture of the area. –Fredddie™


 * At Jefferson and Grand Junction. I presume Grand Junction was named for a junction of two rivers? This may merit expansion, if there is a story behind the name.
 * It's named for a railroad junction, presumably. I can't nail down a source that says this definitively, but I have an 1898 atlas that shows two competing railroads intersecting at the town of Grand Junction.  It seems perfectly logical to me that that's where the name was derived.


 * It continues east towards Palisades-Kepler State Park. I'd expand on what makes this state park notable.
 * It's not really notable on its own, it's just a state park. A point of reference.  At the two mentions, I changed them to say 2 miles west of Mount Vernon, which is equally true.

The above 3 suggestions are all related. In my opinion, the route description should dedicate more space to scenic and geographic information and what cannot be gleamed from a map. While the intersections with other highways must be included, IMO, it should be limited to what is not obvious from an exit list and/or map.
 * I will fix these –Fredddie™


 * As a funny side-note, It is scaring the hell out of me how many towns in my neck of the woods have the same name as towns mentioned in this Article. Are you sure Iowa doesn't extend out to Nevada? =-)
 * We pronounce it Ne-VAY-duh here. –Fredddie™


 * My opinion is to only have the mini-infoboxes for the roads that have enough content for a dedicated heading in the article. As currently organized that would be Lincoln Highway. Although one section for the US-30ALTs and/or US-30BUS could be created with minor re-organization. IMO the SR-930 infobox isn't appropriate with only a one sentence mention.
 * I knew this would be a point of contention with some roads editors. I don't agree with the thinking that all blurbs about related/child routes have to go in a ==Related routes== section.  I wanted the small infobox to be located next to where the road it describes is talked about.  Rather than mention it in the history section and then again in a related route section.  Now, there is another mention of Iowa 930 in the 1960s section.  I could expand that a bit and that could justify the small infobox there. –Fredddie™


 * "in order to spread the word about the Lincoln Highway" That doesn't quite sound right. I'd reword.
 * Reworded. –Fredddie™


 * Was there an established trail that pre-dated the Lincoln Highway? Or was the decision to use this route for the Lincoln Highway blazing a new trail? In the west most early highways and rail lines were built along either river corridors or foot and wagon trails.
 * Given the proximity to the train tracks, I'd say trains. –Fredddie™


 * I'm not sure if "seedling miles" should be in italics. Might check the WP:MOS. What you may consider doing is linking to the section of the Lincoln Highway article titled "Seedling Miles and the Ideal Section"
 * MOS is deliciously vague on this. I'll keep for now. –Fredddie™


 * I thought the decision was not to have MUTCD symbols for Airports, etc? Although that decision has gone back-and-forth so many times I'm probably not current.
 * The decision was to not disallow icons such that they don't get in the way. I don't think they get in the way. –Fredddie™


 * add a category for Lincoln Highway (it exists).
 * –Fredddie™

Anyways, The article is very thorough, and for that I congratulate you, for a lot of research. IMO, the Route description focuses too much on technical specifications and intersections while not giving enough coverage to attractions and notable places. Ironically a this is covered later in the "Legacy of the Lincoln Highway" section. It would be possible to merge this in the route description. Howver, I have not problem with this being a separate section either. With some tweaks and fixes this article will meet the criteria. Dave (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I could try merging the Legacy section into the RD.  If it doesn't look right, we can revert. –Fredddie™ 05:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my ascertain the Route description is very technical and I don't like all the infoboxes. However, I'm willing to defer to the judgment of others on those subjects, as I've been known to be overly harsh in my opinions. I.E. If I'm the only one who feels this way, I'll vote support. The one thing I would add, now that you've confirmed this route parallels the Overland Route, it's history even pre-dates the Lincoln Highway, and would have it's origins in the mid-1800's. Near as I can tell before acquisition by the Union Pacific, this line was the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company line which itself originates from the Galena and Chicago Union Railroad (note this article has a map of Iowa you might be able to use). I'm getting this from the chronological timeline at uprr.com, which hints as much but doesn't explicitly say. Dave (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it's just happenstance that the Lincoln Highway was routed along the Overland Route. I haven't been able to find much of anything saying why the LH was routed where it was.  –Fredddie™ 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I read over the RD again while considering what you were saying about writing about the notable stuff it passes. Unfortunately, so much of the route has been bypassed and bypassed again, it doesn't really go past anything worth talking about.  All of the good stuff is on the old Lincoln Highway alignment.  I did, however, add a note in the section lead about it passing through a lot of farmland. –Fredddie™ 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It would be nice if we could prod some other editors along to review this article together and get this thing promoted to A class. If that happens, we can poll the other reviewers. Dave (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Major issues resolved. Good luck! Dave (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Dough4872


 * Support - My issues have been addressed.  Dough 48  72  02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Review by Admrboltz
 * 1) Image Review:
 * File:US_30_(IA)_map.svg: Lacks a key, GIS source.
 * ✅ –Fredddie™
 * 1) "runs 332 miles" - while I understand this, casual / non-road fans may not understand, maybe "spans 332 miles"
 * ✅ –Fredddie™
 * 1) WP:OVERLINK in the citations. Only link the first instance of each item (e.g. Iowa DOT)
 * ✅. I removed links to Iowa State Highway Commission as well since they all redirect to the DOT. –Fredddie™

Otherwise, looks great to me. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have made the changes you suggested. –Fredddie™ 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting keep-green.svg|20px]] Support – looks good to me. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2010 (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.