Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review
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.

U.S. Route 2 in Michigan edit

The result was promoted to A-Class!  VC  01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

U.S. Route 2 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Yes, I know the article needs more photos, but this future FAC is of the same level of importance to transportation in the UP as M-28. I have added information on all of the tourist route designations and all of the historic bridges along the roadway, similar to the M-28 and US 41 articles. In the coming days, I plan to dig for photos to complement the text.
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I support this article for A Class –Fredddie™
Comments from Fredddie
Lead
  • First paragraph looks good.
  • Seems like a long jump from being an Indian trail to being a state highway. Any record of US 2 being an auto trail like the Lincoln Highway?
  • I'm not sure reused is the verb you're looking for as far as one route number replacing another. (twice)
Route description (west)
  • You can reasonably round the mileages in the RD lead. Plus, I think four decimal places in Wisconsin is a bit much.
  • There are two links to the business route article. I think that link should be moved down to the business loop and the two links changed to point readers to the business loop section.[[#Business route|business route]] (Oops, already is)
  • Suburban UP woodlands is a bit of a stretch.
  • I don't think you need the definite article when talking about creeks, referring to the Jackson Creek. I could be wrong, though. It reads oddly to me.
  • 770 vehicles... should mention that it's on average. That is, unless exactly 770 vehicles used the highway every day during the testing period. (again for the highest-traffic section)
  • The sentence about Watersmeet HS and ESPN seems out of place; plus, it's not cited.
  • Odd that ESPN is linked, but Canada/Canadian is not.
  • In Crystal Falls, is US 2/US 141 the main highway? That sentence and the one prior could be merged for clarity.
    • Ok, some copy-editing should address these comments. The 4DP for WI was a typo, now corrected. I've switched (I think) all of the S-V pairings along the concurrencies to singular subjects for consistency and tweaked the triple concurrency issues. Imzadi 1979 →
Route description (east)
  • There are some subject-verb disagreements when you talk about US 2/US 141 together. US 2/US 141 re-enters... and US 2/US 141 exit... in the same paragraph. Looking up, the last paragraph of the western section has it, too. Pick one verb conjugation and run with it.
  • The three highways merge together... two of the higwhays were already merged, so it kinda reads like they were split at some point and now they're back together. (happens again in Escanaba)
  • Are there no railroads near the western section? The ELS is the first mention of any railroad.
  • The last three sentences together are choppy. There is no flow among them.
  • In Menominee County, the surroundings are the subject of the sentence, not US 2.
  • More subject-verb issues. The two highways run together... and ...the trunkline enters... in consecutive sentences.
  • Wouldn't it be simpler to say Central and Eastern time zones?
  • Above you spelled out both Iron Rivers, but you used Bark River (the city) and the namesake river; seems inconsistent.
  • I'm sure it's perfectly logical, but calling streets axes of Escanaba's street grid seems odd.
  • Near Thompson, US 2 leaves the western unit of the Ottawa National Forest, yet in the previous paragraph, it was passing through the western unit of the Hiawatha National Forest. One of those is wrong, but I'm not sure which.
    • There aren't any rail lines along US 2's western segment. The lines in that area are farther north along M-28 or not visible from US 2 in the Ironwood–Wakefield area. Imzadi 1979 →
    • Fixed the Ottawa/Hiawatha National Forest confusion. Imzadi 1979 →
History
  • More info about the pre-state-highway auto trails would be nice, but I'm not going to hold it over your head to get a support.
  • State trunkline section looks good.
  • Shouldn't the section be called Interstate era?
  • ...the I-75 designation supplants... supplanted? (again in the last paragraph)
  • You already defined expressway once, is it necessary to do so again?
  • MDOT raised the speed limit from 55 mph? I just want to clarify; it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article.
    • I moved the TRIH and GLAR stuff up from the memorial designations. I don't have the book handy with me at the moment, but there are some additional memorial designations that can be added into that section in their place and pad out that first paragraph. Imzadi 1979 →
Memorial designations
  • You should spell out County Road 426.
  • MDOT is already defined.
  • The circle tours should define their abbreviations for the junction list.
Historic bridges
  • Looks good.
Major intersections
  • Looks good.
Business route
  • Are we supposed to link circa?
    • I'm not sure, but it clarifies what could be an unfamiliar abbreviation. (It used to be suggested in MOS:DATE to link it, but I'm not seeing that guideline anymore. I'd rather err on the side of leaving it there for now. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember why I haven't reviewed anything in a while. There is some stuff here I could have done myself, but I wanted your opinion on them. –Fredddie™ 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed sufficiently. I support. –Fredddie™ 02:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Dough4872 23:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dough4872

I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

  1. Is it necessary to mention the business loop history in the route description? This information should be mentioned in the business route section.
  2. "The area is also where the waters meet.", may help to clarify which waters or how many waters meet.
  3. In the route description, you should mention that the road leaves MI for WI and heads back into MI from WI.\
  4. "Then it continues east to Vulcan passing north of Hanbury Lake through the Copper Country State Forest before crossing the Sturgeon River in Loretto before crossing into Menominee County.", I would suggest rewording the beginning of the sentence to avoid the use of "then".
  5. In the sentence "Lincoln Avenue runs north carrying four lanes of traffic past the Upper Peninsula State Fairgrounds, site of one of the two state fairgrounds for the state of Michigan, the only state to have twin fairs.", "site of one of the two state fairgrounds for the state of Michigan" should be "site of one of the two state fairs for the state of Michigan".
  6. "US 2 was shifted to the freeway and the former routing downtown St. Ignace was redesignated Business Loop I-75 (BL I-75).", the sentence i missing a word between routing and downtown.
  7. "At this time, all of US 2's former routing becomes a county road known as Mackinac Trail.", can the number of the county road be mentioned?
  8. I still don't think the CR 426 intersection should belong in the major intersections. Even though the road marks the end of a memorial highway designation, the road itself is of little significance.
  9. The link for Reference 44 has a 403 error. Dough4872 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  1. I'd rather leave it as is, than leave the reader with a question as to why it's a business spur and not a business loop since it ends at the state line.
  2. Read the next sentence, which says: "The rolling hills drain to Lake Superior via the Ontonagon River, to Lake Michigan via the Brule and Menominee rivers, or to the Gulf of Mexico via the Wisconsin and Mississippi rivers."
  3. The RD mini-lead already says: "Of US 2's 305.151 miles (491.093 km), it is divided into a 109.177-mile (175.703 km) western segment and a 195.974-mile (315.390 km) eastern segment; in between is a section of US 2 that runs for 14.460 miles (23.271 km) in the state of Wisconsin."
    • I still think its helpful to mention in the RD. Dough4872 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Helpful to mention what? Comment 4 is about how a sentence is worded, not about it its content? Can you please clarify or strike your comment as appropriate? Imzadi 1979 → 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I inserted the comment in the wrong place, it was meant for issue 3. Dough4872 23:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article already addresses the point, so a change is not necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's fine and keeps the sentences in that part of the article from previous pattern of "The <highway synonym> <verb>..." constructions.
  5. Done, but why didn't you deal with it while you were making minor word changes already?
  6. You couldn't have added that while you were already editing the article?
  7. Done, but that's kinda unneeded in some ways at that location.
  8. I disagree, and I won't remove it. US 41 and M-35 both list it in their RJLs.
  9. I can't help that. The link is valid, but ajfroggie has "hotlinking" disabled on his website, which runs afoul of the link checker tool. (Try clinking the link directly from the footnote in the article, and it works, but use the link checker tool and it will fail every time.)
Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I will now support the article for A-class. Dough4872 23:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Royalbroil

Imzadi left me a message about images. I recently took lots of photos, especially of the eastern segment. Soon I'll add a photo of the eastern terminus of the western segment. I have traveled the entire route. I also want to help improve the content article so here's some comments:

  • "a major conduit for Michigan and Canadian traffic through the state" - I saw license plates from throughout the United States - certainly consider adding Wisconsin otherwise since it is between the segments. Either that or quote the source since it's an opinion
  • "In the 1980s, the highway was truncated and removed from the I-75 freeway resulting in today's basic form." - needs some punctuation change or restructuring with the break in thought before "resulting"
  • "the NHS is a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility" - "important" implies someone's opinion (important to whom?)
  • I agree that the "watersmeet" sentence is awkward. You mean it's a "continental divide" of 3 drainage basins. I suggest combining with the next sentence so the reader can follow what that word means
  • I remember reading that the Crystal Falls area has the world's largest organism with the large moss growth. It is an important object near the route. More important than the Watersmeet basketball team IMHO.
  • To be clearer, I think that the start of the "eastern segment" section should mention the "14.460 miles in Wisconsin" figure include the eastern and western segments. As a reader, I came in to read about the eastern segment and I wondered how far the route had traveled in Wisconsin. Perhaps it could be done as an adjective. See next point
  • "US 2/US 141 re-enters Michigan crossing the Menominee River in Breitung Township north of Iron Mountain and Kingsford." needs punctuation before "crossing". Perhaps - "US 2/US 141 re-enters Michigan after its 14.460-mile jog through Wisconsin by crossing the Menominee River in Breitung Township north of Iron Mountain and Kingsford."
  • "Then it continues east to Vulcan passing north of Hanbury Lake through the Copper Country State Forest before crossing the Sturgeon River in Loretto before crossing into Menominee County" - uses the word "before" twice and they're too close together
  • "the highway crosses the namesake river" - better grammar replacing "the" with "its"
  • "In the age of the auto trail, the roads that later formed US 2 through the UP were used for the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway, named for Theodore Roosevelt, former president of the US, after his death in 1919." - A awkward/run-on sentence. Part of it could be economized a bit as "former US President Theodore Roosevelt". How about: "In the age of the auto trail, the roads that later formed US 2 were used for the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway, named for former US President." The dates follow in the next sentences.

After these minor changes, I am satisfied that the article passes not only A but FA level. Please let me know when the article gets its FA nom so I can review it. Royalbroil 04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  • That "opinion" is from the MDOT study that is the reference for that in the body of the article.
  • I added a comma there.
  • That is from the FHWA, and it is cited there. (That language has been used in M-6 (Michigan highway) and U.S. Route 131 which passed FAC earlier this year.)
  • Sentences combined.
  • The "humungous fungus 'among-us' " is not the largest organism in the world; that title belongs to a similar creature in Oregon.
  • How many times do we need to repeat the 14-mile segment in Wisconsin? It's in the article lead, the RD mini-lead, as well as the row in the junction list table. Sorry, I don't think it needs further repetition. Do we need a fourth mention of something that is kinda outside the subject of this article. After all, this is titled "U.S. Route 2 in Michigan", not "U.S. Route 2 in Michigan and Wisconsin"
  • Copy-edited for that point, and the next one.
  • The TRIH stuff was changed already from the version you reviewed, but I integrated a suggestion from your comments there.
  • I did remove the photo of the eastern terminus of the western segment; the photo was squishing text up against the infobox, and that subsection isn't long enough to need a second photo.

Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by Royalbroil
  • On that first point - I know it's from MDOT. My point is that the text should state who makes this statement just like any other opinion from an expert. Very few readers will check the references to see the source. So we agree that WP:VERIFY is covered but I disagree with having WP:NPOV covered per "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Specifically WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
  • Point #3 - Then the other articles need work too. Just because the other articles are at FA don't mean that they aren't capable of being improved. The same comment as my last one - see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
  • Point #4 - does the highway go through the fungus?
  • I'm surprised (but not offended) that you removed the terminus photo. Isn't a terminus more important to this topic that a shot taken of the sign for community on the route?
  • Are you satisfied with the number of images used in the article now? Royalbroil 04:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further replies
  • Except that I disagree that it is an opinion and not a fact. You're using personal anecdotal evidence to refute the conclusion of a department of transportation study group, which doesn't state it as an opinion, but as a fact. The fact that you were in the area in tourist season may color your perceptions.
  • Once again, you're calling something an opinion when it is a fact stated by the appropriate government agency. Surely if it were an opinion, both FACs this year would have noted that already.
  • The highway would go through it, but you'd never know it; the fungus is underground and not visible unless "fruiting bodies" (those things lay people call mushrooms and eat) are present. Even then, you'd need to know that genetically speaking, the fruiting bodies in Crystal Falls and the ones across the border in Wisconsin, etc, are all from the same fungus.
  • As for photos, termini aren't any more important than another other location along the highway for illustrating the roadway. The key importance is that people get a feel for how the environment around the highway, not specific locations, per se. The Crystal Falls photo illustrates the forestland nature of the environment that's discussed at points in the text of the article. The downtown Iron Mountain photo shows the highway passing through urbanized areas. The Lake Michigan photo shows US 2 along the lake, which it follows for a significant portion of its routing. The terminus photo from St. Ignace, and caption, helps illustrate it former freeway segment
  • As for the number of photos, I'm satisfied, but if you have more that you think would be beneficial, please keep uploading them and populating commons:Category:U.S. Route 2 in Michigan so that the Commons box at the bottom of the article is even more beneficial to readers who click on it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply

I read your responses. I'm not sure what you want me to say. You don't want to make 2 changes that I say need to be done. I gave reasons why then defended my reasons. I bring them up because I want to improve the article. All I'm asking is to name the source inline. If you don't want to do the changes then you don't have my support. Royalbroil 02:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd like to help resolve this so there isn't an oppose based on a disagreement on what the definition of "is" is.
  1. After reading ref 3 (which I believe is the reference in question), it's clear that M-28 is a major route in the UP, but it doesn't seem to mention US 2 at all.
  2. Read the National Highway System definition page, it's right there in the first sentence. Since nothing involving government tends to make sense, we'll never know who said they were important outside of the USDOT. Perhaps this would be a better resource for the sentence or two about the NHS. Then again, I can think of at least one recent FA along the NHS that does not mention it at all.
Hope this helps. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That study had referenced US 2, but maybe I had read that in a draft version that's since been replaced, however, the WUPPDR study is now being directly quoted, and only because I have a direct quote will I list the source inline. Had that been paraphrased, I would not feel it necessary as it is not an opinion but part of the conclusions of the study and therefore is a fact. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting somewhere. Good job on point #1. I wanted a direct quote. One the other point about the NHS, it is a direct quote from the FHWA website. But why isn't it in quotes? Per WP:MOSQUOTE, since it's less than a full sentence then the source need not be attributed inline. Per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works the content is luckily in public domain so the copyright is fine. Royalbroil 02:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when the text is in its simplest form and changing words to paraphrase would alter the meaning, a quotation is not necessary as it's not really a creative expression. It's my opinion that this is the case with the four words from the FHWA website definition of the NHS, so we don't need to wrap those three words in quotation marks because we can't paraphrase them and they aren't an opinion but a definition. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just double-checked Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution, which says:

If a Wikipedia article is largely constructed through summarizing reliable sources, but there is a paragraph or a few sentences copied from compatibly licensed or public-domain text which is not placed within quotations, then putting an attribution in a footnote at the end of the sentences or paragraph is sufficient, although it does not preclude supplementing that with the method described below.

That means those four words "economy, defense and mobility" don't need quotation marks. Even if you extend that to the word "important", that's only five words, and the paraphrased sentence is footnoted with a public domain source. The essay at WP:Close paraphrasing even says: "Quoting (with or without quotation marks) or closely paraphrasing public domain source material is appropriate if properly attributed to avoid plagiarism," and since this is attributed through a footnote, the use is acceptable. WP:Quotations specifically says: "For free or public domain material do not use quote marks but the text must be attributed and given a footnote, or given a link to the original text," which is also the case with that sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you didn't start out with this argument by quoting these appropriate guidelines. I had to do a bunch of legwork. It don't matter. I now Support this article as being at A class. I'm amazed at how the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is being enforced at FA and especially DYK like it were policy. Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now Support this article as being at A class. Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rschen7754 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754

  • US Highway 2 (US 2) is a part of the United States Numbered Highway System that runs from Everett, Washington, to the Upper Peninsula (UP) of the US state of Michigan. - what about the eastern part?
  • RD - Watersmeet is the home of the Watersmeet High School Nimrods, the basketball team featured on a series of ESPN commercials and a documentary series on the Sundance Channel - awkward way to start the paragraph, makes it sound like Watersmeet is the topic of the paragraph.

More to come. --Rschen7754 20:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • History - The name fell out of use before its first anniversary because of World War I. - probably would be better at end of paragraph.
  • Halifax shouldn't be a redlink.
  • US 2 was routed along its current alignment in the area, completing the changes in 1936[38][39] - lost a period.
  • Otherwise I don't see anything obvious. I didn't go over things with a fine toothed comb, but the reviews above seem to be thorough enough. --Rschen7754 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
    • Halifax wasn't a redlink last time I looked, but those Canadians keep playing around with article naming conventions or whatever and someone AWB-ed the links, and they changed it to a misspelling
    • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support from  VC  01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will start with some content issues. Once those are addressed, I will proofread the article then flip the switch to make this A-class, since there are already four approves.

  • Route description
    1. I think mentioning the National Highway System in both the Lead and the Route description mini-lead is repetitive. I would eliminate the reference from the Lead.
    2. You mention the segments of US 2 that are part of the two particular Great Lakes Circle Tours in both the Route description mini-Lead and the Memorial designations and tourist routes section. I would remove the mentions from one of the sections. If you can get dates for when the circle tour routes were designated, I suggest Memorial designations section.
    3. There is a large expanse of text without a header under "Eastern segment," but the photos are nicely staggered, so it is probably not a problem.
    4. I love the Watersmeet section. If you are talking about attractions that are not specifically on US 2, I would mention the Lac Vieux Desert resort casino.
    5. "The county courthouse is at the top of Superior Avenue, which is the starting point for M-69." I would rewrite this sentence. Unless the county courthouse is notable, I would remove it from the start of the sentence and emphasize US 2 intersects M-69, which is Superior Street, next to the courthouse. The term "top of" should be replaced with the cardinal direction.
    6. To be consistent between the western and eastern segment sections, I would mention county crossings in the eastern segment section.
    7. Can you mention the type of interchange US 2 has with I-75? The sentence suggests the U.S. Highway crosses and continues over the Interstate (the reader might think that until they read "the US 2 designation ends") and it is not clear they have an interchange.
  • History
    1. In the first header, I would change "early statehood" to "early auto trails" or just "auto trails." The first phrase implies there is content about the mid-19th century when Michigan became a state, which is not the case.
  • Memorial designations and tourist routes
    1. Since you mention County Road 426 in this section, I recommend mentioning it in the Route description so the reader has prior context.
  • History bridges
    1. Is the Iron River bridge notable enough to have its own article? I would remove the wikilink.
  • Footnotes
    1. If you can, please incorporate footnotes b through f into the prose. It would be better to provide the reader context in the prose instead of asking them to head to the bottom of the article and back up to continue reading. Footnote a can be used in the text at the top of Major intersections.
  • EOR  VC  03:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've implemented most of the suggestions. The Iron River Bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places, and a member of the NRHP project has been creating all of the missing articles from the List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Michigan. In other words, that link will turn blue at some point in the future. As for the footnotes, several of these are analogs to ones I used in U.S. Route 131, and I feel that they contain content that is not needed in-line to understand the subject of this article, which is US 2. All of them are provided for clarification and used in footnotes to avoid jumping away from the core subject and jumping back in the prose. Foonote a was previously the "length notes" in the infobox, but to streamline display there, it has been converted to a footnote since the content is also mentioned in the notes above the RJL table. Imzadi 1979 → 23:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent, all of my issues have been addressed. I will keep this open until I complete the proofreading job in case I find any other issues that require your attention. Then I will case my comments and close the ACR. Good luck at FAC!  VC  00:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finished copyediting the article. I found a few more things that require your attention in the references:
    1. References 6, 58, and 59 have a comma, a space, and a period after the map scale. One way to remove the sensation that something is missing is to add and populate the edition field of cite map.
    2. Are you able to add pages to reference 7?
    3. There are a few map citations (for example, reference 41) that have in the Section field a range of grid sections, such as C2–D3 or B1–D10, where the letters are different. Since these designations are based on a two-dimensional grid, there is no one sequence of sections that accurately covers what sections on the map you are referring to. Can you more accurately represent the sections, such as C2–C3, D3 for the first example?
    4. Is reference 72 citing a television program or a website article? If it is the latter, can you provide a URL for the article?
  • Once those items are resolved, I will promote the article.  VC  19:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something's changed with {{cite map}} that's producing the error, and I just noticed it as well. I'm going to see about getting it fixed.
    • Done. Thanks for the catch.
    • The problem is that changing it to your suggestion is quite a bit more cumbersome. I don't see that it is a problem, and several other articles have been sent to FAC that have similar section ranges.
    • Website article, since removed from their site so the URL died. The article wasn't archived any place, so the URL has been removed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All issues have been addressed. Time to shut this ACR down.  VC  01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/U.S._Route_2_in_Michigan&oldid=1138362908"