Wikipedia:Peer review/Capitol Loop/archive1

Capitol Loop

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I completed an overhaul of the article. It has previously been through the project's ACR process before the overhaul. I'd like to get some outside feedback, and hopefully someone to give it a copy-editing and polishing. In the overhaul, I re-researched the history of the roadway, and updated it with some current developments. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. Are there any non-map sources that can be added to the route description?
2. "where the street is divided into north and south bound sections each three-lanes wide", shouldn't northbound and southbound be one word?
3. Is it necessary to have a section of the route description devoted to traffic counts? I remember a discussion at WT:USRD a while ago where traffic counts were said to be needless information in an article.
4. "MDOT's original beautification project was delayed from 1999 to 2004 so that it could be combined with the city's sewer work. This combination was planned to prevent digging up the same streets 10–15 years after the beautification project.", I'm a little confused with these two sentences. It says the beautification was delayed 5 years and then says about digging the streets for the sewers 10-15 years later. Can these two sentences be clarified?
5. "with the beautification project on Ottawa and Allegan, Pine and Walnut streets", the comma use seems a little awkward here.
6. In talking about the speed limit increase, the source mentions the specific increases on the specific streets. Is it possible to mention these in the article?
7. In the Major intersections table, the sentence "The following table lists the major junctions along the Capitol Loop." is redundant to the section header.
8. Is it possible for more pictures of the actual road to be added to the article?

From what I see, this is a generally well-written article. Dough4872 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Replies:

1. I added the Greater Lansing Convention and Visitors Bureau guide book to cite the location of the museums. I added a citation to the Michigan Bar Journal to establish that the Hall of Justice is the home of the state supreme court. I can't think of anything else to cite for the sake of adding non-map sources to the section. There are only 4 map sources in use, out of 36 sources, and 1 of them is purely for a date printed above the legend (the ROW map).
2. In this case, I'd say no. Phrasing it this way avoids the repetition of the "bound" syllable in the two words.
3. You asked for non-map sources in the RD, and then want me to pull the paragraph that's cited to a non-map source?
4. Rewording. I don't know how much more I can clarify though. MDOT delayed their project and the city moved up theirs by 10–15 years so that streets would be rebuilt just once, not twice.
5. In rereading it, the first "and" should have been removed and replaced by a comma.
6. Why? I think it's a bit of an unnecessary level of detail. Yes, they can be added, but is it needed?
7. Reworded. In past FACs, I've been asked for that introductory sentence to explain the inclusion criteria for the table. (Why these intersections and not the half dozen or more cross streets?)
8. I'll see what I can do, but it's a 70-mile drive from here to Lansing for what would be 15 minutes of photographing 2.3 miles of roadway. Ideally though, any photos added to the history section should relate to the content of the history, which would mean photos of the construction (don't have them, probably can't get any out of the newspapers' collections) or a boring photo of a new speed limit sign (and when I was there last week, I don't recall seeing them up yet, but I wasn't looking for them either.) Most of the photos on Flickr or Panoramio are of the State Capitol Building itself and don't show the streets. Is there something specific you'd like to see?

Imzadi 1979 → 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on these comments, I feel the article looks like it is heading in the right direction and could be considered for FAC soon. Dough4872 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I found and added two photos release for upload from Panoramio that show parts of the Capitol Loop. Imzadi 1979 → 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Imzadi, great article. One thing that stands out as being a bit odd is the use or overuse of "trunkline". It seems to be a bit wp:jargon-ish. Coming from Australia, I don't think that I have heard trunkline used in the context of highways before. Perhaps railways and pipelines (maybe?) but not highways. Trunkline is just a redirect to Michigan Highway System, so it appears to be a very localised colloquialism here. I understand the history and the titles of state legislation and the current and historical usage made by the state highway administration, and because of all that technically Capitol Loop is a trunkline. Most readers would know the subject as being a highway. I looked in a sturdy American dictionary (Merriam Webster) for trunkline and found

: a transportation system (as an airline, railroad, or highway) handling long-distance through traffic

Now I can handle that but how is a 3.8 km loop road "handling long-distance through traffic"? For example; would the fragment "The trunkline serves the Capitol Park which was created ...", be better as "The highway serves the Capitol Park which was created ..." or even "The road serves the Capitol Park which was created ..."? This comment may also apply to other short Michigan highways that wouldn't actually handle much "through traffic". I imagine the main reason for the highway or trunkline designation was to allow the state to repair the pot-holes outside their head-office (Capitol building), not that it carries much through traffic, yes?. Reading through user Dough4872's comments above I would add weight to the use of relevant images. The article is about a road. Relevant images will be mostly filled with the road and the road being the main subject. The image of the Capitol building doesn't quite cut it. Bleakcomb (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, legally all state highways are part of Michigan's "state trunkline highway system", no matter the length. This loop was created to direct traffic into the downtown area and to the Capitol. It's not so that the state repairs potholes in front of the Capitol. The front of the building faces Capitol Avenue, and the back faces Walnut Street, both of which are plain Lansing city streets. In keeping with your comments, I have removed some of the usages, but all can not be removed from the article.

As for the photos, two were added after Dough's comments, which show Allegan Street and Michigan Avenue from top a tower downtown. I won't remove the photo of the State Capitol, after all this is the building for which the highway was named, and the dome of which appears on all of the reassurance markers. Thanks for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 05:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)