Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 296/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Interstate 296 edit

Featured article candidates/Interstate 296/archive1

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last freeway in the Interstate 96 family that isn't already an FA. (I-96, I-196, I-496 were promoted this year and I-696 was last year). It's also a short article, but it has the most complete history of why this Interstate Highway does not appear on maps and lacks signage in the field. Imzadi 1979 → 03:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dough4872:

You should mention when I-296 was designated and built in the lead.
"the freeway designation begins across the river from the 6th Street Bridge Park and Belknap Hill north of the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum and the DeVos Place Convention Center". By freeway designation do you mean I-296? If so it seems redundant to mention it here as you already mentioned that I-296 begins at I-196.
"South of the Ann Street interchange, the highway crosses a rail line.", maybe you can mention what railroad company owns the line.
In the exit list, I would split the I-96/US 131 entry in order to have the exit list in proper chronological order (US 131, M-37, I-96). Dough 48 72 04:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 1, 3 and 4 implemented. As for number 2, the first sentence mentions where the southern terminus of I-296 is, the second sentence is about the unusual lane arrangements and then the third sentence, which is the one you're mentioning, brings things back to the terminus with greater specificity about the landmarks around it. I think that's fine, so unless you elaborate about something specific with a suggestion, I'm leaving it as is. Imzadi 1979 → 05:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article looks good now and meets all FA criteria. Dough 48 72 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image / Source Review and one general comment by Admr Boltz 05:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC):[reply]

File:I-296.svg should be {{PD-USGov-MUTCD}}
File:Interstate 296 (Michigan) map.svg needs creation date in {{information}}
File:Grand Rapids, Michigan 1955 Yellow Book.jpg should be {{PD-USGov-DOT}} as the Bureau of Public Roads is a precursor to the FHWA. I'd also drill the links in the page down to the MI specific articles and not their national counterparts in the description.
Alt text looks OK to me.
References all formatted correctly, no dead links
References appear to be reliable, newspaper, FHWA and MI state printed maps.
The Yellow Book is a short name for the reference book, I'd suggest using the official name and only use Yellow Book if you reference it again.
- All done, thanks! Imzadi 1979 → 05:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good to me now. Support --Admr Boltz 06:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments' – I'm currently going through the article and doing some light copyediting (as always, feel free to revert any changes you disagree with), and overall the article is excellent. Just a couple questions...

the highway crosses a rail line owned by CSX Transportation and West River Drive. – like I said, I'm not sure how to reword this, but at present it sounds like the tracks are owned jointly by CSX and West River Drive. I know what it means, and any reasonable person could figure it out, but it's one of those things that just jolts the reader's brain a bit.
Random visual comment, but I just tried this in preview, and I think you could move {{portal|Michigan Highways}} to the Footnotes section to alleviate the need for an otherwise empty See also section.

Otherwise, I'm happy to support promotion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked that sentence. Everything should look good now. Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Wow, I read through the entire article, and I couldn't find a single fault. And that slightly annoyed me, so I read parts of it again, but it's really well-written, and I'd be happy to see this little road as an FA. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I'm just curious if the coordinators would like to see anything more on this review. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even when a nom is getting good support I generally like to leave it open at least two weeks but given we're almost at that point, plus the article's brevity, I think we can safely put this to bed, yes. I'll likely walk through the list tonight and action this and a few others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.