Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2010

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Successful –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Route 55 edit

New Jersey Route 55 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: A well-written GA that has a lot of information and has the potential to go farther.
Nominated by: ---Dough4872 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 22:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose: decent overall, but it needs work. The route description strikes me as quite boring and dry. Turn-by-turn, intersection-by-intersection info is acceptable, but the prose should be more than a rehash of an atlas. Anything to make it more interesting and accessible would be good, since this section should describe the route as a whole, not explain every last minor detail. Also, there are some pretty random and poorly-sourced facts like The CR 555 exit provides access to the WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give me a specific list of what sentences need to be fixed in the route description and how I should go about fixing them in order to make improvements to the article? In order to make the route description interesting, I tried adding information about attractions that can be accessed from Route 55, leading to sentences like The CR 555 exit provides access to the WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America. Is there a better way sentences like this can be worded? ---Dough4872 03:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess my concerns aren't really actionable, so I've stricken my oppose –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no map. --Rschen7754 21:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map I cannot really help as MTF has gone dead and there is a large backlog. I will place a request for a map. ---Dough4872 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has a map now. ---Dough4872 03:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Imzadi1979
Review by Imzadi1979
  1. I added the Toolbox from FAC to the top of the nomination. (It won't transclude to the main ACR page, just like it doesn't at FAC). Using those tools, there's ALT text missing for the map. It will need to be added using the |map_alt= parameter in the infobox.
    1. Added ALT text. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ref 30 is formated "pp. pages 3, 7" when it should be just "pp. 3, 7". Ref 37 has two formats for dates. Personally, now that dates are unlinked, I've switched to full Month Day, Year format from ISO, but really consistency is the key. Otherwise, reference formatting is good.
    1. Fixed ref 30 and 37. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Image Check: Licensing checks out on all of them.
  4. Prose review — I'll be doing this in chunks. Where I've directly quote text from the article, bold is suggested additions and strike through is suggested deletions.
    1. The first sentence is a bit awkwardly constructed. I think it needs a "that is" inserted before "built". That might be more of a stylistic preference though.
      1. Fixed. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Another stylistic preference revolves around the density of the links in the beginning of the lead. I'd redo it as: "Also known as the Veteran's Memorial Highway, it runs 40.54 mi (65.24 km) from an intersection with Route 47 (Delsea Drive) in Port Elizabeth (within Maurice River Township in Cumberland County) north to an interchange with Route 42 in Deptford Township, Gloucester County."
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The last sentence in the first paragraph mentions Philadelphia twice. Can it be reworded?
      1. Changed to Delaware Valley as that is term that refers to the Philadelphia area. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. I would combine the last two sentences of the first RD paragraph can be combined as: "The route passes to the east of WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America before turning northwest and crossing into Vineland, where it interchanges with CR 555.,[1][2] The CR 555 an exit that provides access to the WheatonArts and the Creative Glass Center of America attractions.[3]
      1. Reworded. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. The first three paragraphs of the RD all start with Route 55. Maybe that can be changed to give us a little variety?
      1. Changed instance in second paragraph. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6. In a similar vein, so many sentences of the second paragraph all start with "Here", "From here". That should be changed up a bit.
      1. Changed wording. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    7. "Past the Garden Road interchange, Route 55 continues through a mix of farmland and woodland, passing to the east of Rudys Airport.[2]"
      1. Don't know how I missed that. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8. There are instances where there is a space between the punctuation and the reference. I can run the article through AWB at some point, if desired, and it will make all sorts of these minor MOS fixes.
      1. Fixed a few instances. An AWB run wouldn't hurt to find any I may have missed. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    9. "These two proposed freeways would become planned as toll roads and in 1962, the New Jersey Expressway Authority Act was signed into law, creating the New Jersey Expressway Authority that was to manage both the Atlantic City Expressway and the Cape May Expressway.[12]* While the Atlantic City Expressway was completed by the authority in 1965, the Cape May Expressway was turned over to the state at this time.[13][14] At this time, the The Cape May Expressway became known as was designated Route 55 and was legislated to run from US 130 in Westville to US 9 near Cape May Court House.[14] This proposed freeway was to be completed by 1975 and was projected to cost $90 million with a completion date of 1975.[15]" *Consider changing that to Atlantic City and Cape May expressways.
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    10. "The Several incidents that happened to construction workers during construction included one a construction worker being ran run over by an asphalt truck, another being blown off a bridge, and a van carrying five construction workers randomly erupting into flames.[20]"
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    11. "Meanwhile, During the burial ground litigation and construction accidents, the portion of freeway south of Route 47 in Maurice River Township had yet to be was not yet built. In 1972, it was called for this freeway to head southeast from its current terminus to the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township in order to provide adequate access to the Cape May Peninsula. the XXX wanted to provide adequate access to the Cape May Peninsula by extending the freeway southeast from the current terminus to meet the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township.[21]" The current sentence doesn't say who wanted to improve the access, which is a big omission from this section of information.
      1. Reworded and indicated NJDOT wanted to extend freeway. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    12. "In 1975, the New Jersey Department of Transportation conducted an environmental study on this proposal, which was to projected cost $155 million and be finished by 1995. However, NJDOT decided not to construct the route when they it was determined this freeway would cause destruction to several wetlands and the Pine Barrens, and the NJDOT decided not to construct the route.[22] "
      1. Fixed as suggested. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    13. There is a lot of repetition of the word "however" in the History section. Further copy editing should be explored to correct this.
      1. Removed a couple of instances of however. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    14. A lot of sentences in the History and Future sections should be rewritten to flip the order of the clauses. As in the example I gave in 4.12, the wording is awkward, and better served by reordering the sentence construction. Some parts weasel out of giving all the information this way by saying "it is to be" done. Tell us who wants what done. The information is good, but the presentation needs some improvement.
      1. Can you elaborate on how sentences have awkward wording and provide a couple of more examples? ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. What purpose does the External link "Page 3 indicates interest in Route 55 Extension" serve? I don't think this is a high-quality link for the article to have, unless it serves a purpose as a source.
    1. Removed external link. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My overall impression of the article is that it is well-researched, the quality of the information provided is high, the photos and map add to the article as well. The prose needs editing though to bring the quality up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some copyediting to address my remaining concerns with the article. The author will need to verify that I haven't altered what is being referenced in one case in the Future section. Additionally, I have tagged a sentence that needs some clarification. Once that's done, I'll be able to support this article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the Future section and there were no alterations to the content. In addition, I made some rewordings in the history to remove the unclear item. ---Dough4872 04:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – now supporting promotion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from – TMF 07:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary review by TMF

A full prose review will follow at some point. In the meantime, here's what I saw at first glance:

  • Do both alternate names in the infobox apply to NJ 55?
    • Yes, the first is an official ceremonial name while the second is the name the route was originally planned as. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formed/completion dates in the infobox are unsourced.
  • At least two pictures have fixed sizes.
  • The date formatting used in the references is inconsistent. Please choose one or the other and use only that format for all dates in the references. I personally prefer American (M D, Y).
    • Made formatting consistient. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 24, 27, and 32 still have ISO dates. – TMF 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead, route description, history, and future sections all have long paragraphs.
  • The $90 million figure in the history needs an inflation conversion.
    • Added inflation conversion there and in other places. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 1 indicates that the SLD was published in 2009, but the given access date is from 2007.
    • Fixed date to access at current date. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exit 56A/B: is the given milepost ("56.4") an approximation or a precision error ("56.40")?
    • Added more precise milepost. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. – TMF 19:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 04:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dave (talk)

Lead

  • I'm not convinced that Veteran's Memorial Highway should be bolded, it is a common name for a highway and the article for Veteran's Memorial is a disambiguation page, not a redirect to this article. Might want to get a second opinion on that.
  • feared - IMO that's a little too strong of word for an encyclopedia.
  • I'd minimize the future content in the lead. Two reasons- one it's temporary and will have to be changed eventually. Two, there's not really space to explain the initialism PATCO, which needs to be done on first mention.
    • Cut down to one sentence in the lead. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

  • attractions in Millville - I'd expand, what attractions? IMO the attractions are more interesting than the turn-by-turn route description.
    • Indicated attraction accessed from exit. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "at this time." doesn't sound right, maybe "that same year" or "about this time" maybe?
    • Changed to "about this time". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that was not successful." Need to clarify, what was not successful, the route or the lawsuits?
    • Clarified by saying "unsuccessful lawsuits". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bad fate fell upon many construction workers" That's pretty gutsy to say in the encyclopedia. I didn't even say that in the US-666 article. I'd maybe say "a couple of unfortunate incidents happened after the lawsuit". In addition the examples don't support "many" as they list 6 workers.
  • Again the initialism PATCO needs to be explained on first mention. Also having the words "speedline" and "rail line" right next to each other is a little awkward.
    • Indicated what PATCO means and removed redundant "speedline rail line". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was never built" -> "plans were cancelled" or "to date has not been built" Never say Never =-)
    • Changed to "plans were cancelled". ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.0 mile (1.6 km); with the advent of cell phones the usage of these call boxes became extremely limited." Two issues, fix the convert template, or manually do the conversion 1.0 mile is a little rough, maybe Every mile (about 1.6 km)... Also, are you sure the call boxes predate the advent of Cell phones? Cell phones have been around for a long time (1960's anyways), they just didn't get cheap enough for the masses until 20 years ago or so. In California, the call boxes WERE (and are) cell phones, just solar powered, permanently mounted ones.
    • Fixed conversion and reworded to indicate increasing popularity of cellphones led to the demise of the call boxes. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future

  • You have the word still in 3 back to back sentences.
  • "In his proposal, he announced" is wordy, could eliminate one of those clauses.

Exit list

  • The note for mp 60.54 is curious. Wouldn't that mean that Exit 56A is signed "To 42 South"? If so wouldn't that be the more elegant way of saying that instead of "all traffic must use NJ41 to access NJ42 South"?
    • The exit 56 signage does not indicate NJ 42 at all, I have removed the note as it does look tacky and there are other ways to access NJ 42 south (like exit 58). ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note for exit 35, IMO, should read "Southbound signed as exits 35A (east)...." This avoids the words west and southbound from being next to each other.

Pretty good, no problem supporting once these issues are resolved. Dave (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I have replied to the above comments. ---Dough4872 16:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With these changes I can now support the promotion of this article. I would like to go on record that I agree with Jullian in that I also am not a fan of the turn-by-turn route description. Were I writing this the route description would be shorter. However, you've got enough content interspersed in the route description that is not turn-by-turn that I made it through. I also recognize that everybody has a different style and I imagine there are fans of the turn-by-turn style. Dave (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Crap, I just noticed something, you need to downcase the ALL CAPS in source 24, per WP:ALLCAPS. I'll still support, AGF that this will be fixed. Dave (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the all caps from reference, thanks for catching. ---Dough4872 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the new requirements at WP:RJL, please change # in the table header of the junction list to "Exit". --Rschen7754 07:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from – TMF 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second review by TMF
  • Infobox:
    • "Veteran's Memorial Highway" - Veteran's or Veterans? A Google News and web search both seem to indicate that the latter is the correct name.
      • I actually believe the latter is also how it appears on signs. Changed. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • De-link the second instance of Millville (Route 47).
  • Lead:
    • Veteran's again.
    • "In 1962, the New Jersey Expressway Authority was created to build the Cape May Expressway along with the Atlantic City Expressway to Atlantic City." - I would consider dropping "to Atlantic City" here as to me it makes it seem like both highways were supposed to end in Atlantic City. Instead, I would simplify the sentence to read "... created to build the Cape May Expressway and the Atlantic City Expressway."
      • Removed. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd personally use "and" instead of "along with" here as suggested above. The latter works too, but IMO it doesn't flow as well as the former would. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Meanwhile, the portion south of Route 47 in Port Elizabeth to the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township was canceled in 1975 due to anticipated environmental impact." - the back end of the sentence ("due" onward) seems a bit off. Adding a "the" in between due and to makes it a bit better, but the sentence still ends in an awkward fashion. I suggest adding a short phrase to it to close the thought properly, such as "... impact that the highway would have" or such.
      • Reworded. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, the back end is good now but now the front end is a bit off. "Meanwhile, the portion between Route 47 in Port Elizabeth and the Garden State Parkway in Middle Township was canceled ..." flows better in my mind. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Plans have resurfaced for a southern extension of Route 55 due to the need to reduce traffic jams on Route 47 in the summer months and provide an adequate evacuation route for the Cape May Peninsula." - I don't really like how the first two-thirds of this sentence is phrased. "due to the need to reduce traffic jams on Route 47" is excessively wordy, but I can't think of an alternative that works with the existing first third of the sentence. Maybe "However, traffic jams on Route 47 during the summer months and the lack of an adequate evacuation route for the Cape May Peninsula have led officials to reexamine the possibility of extending Route 55 southward to <wherever's being discussed, which isn't clear from the article>.", assuming that's all backed up by sources. I assume the ST of the studied extension is Cape May, but like I said it's not explicitly clear, at least not to anyone that doesn't know what's 20 miles from the end of current Route 55.
      • Reworded as suggested and indicated where highway is to be extended to. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD:
    • Section (sec) 1, paragraph (par) 3, sentence (sen) 1: wikilink Conrail SAO.
    • Sec 2, par 1, sen 1: there should be a comma after "Gloucester County".
    • Sec 2, par 2, sen 2: "CR 538" is broken onto two lines on my layout, which tells me this article is missing some non-breaking spaces. A quick scan of the article's source code tells me that it doesn't have any.
      • Added nbsp at appropriate places. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's still a lot of places where non-breaking spaces should be used but aren't. Most of the ones I found were instances of "Route 55". – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added more nbsp. ---Dough4872 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's a bit too many now (there doesn't need to be any non-breaking spaces in the phrase "In the 1970s", for example) but I suppose too many nbsp is preferable to too few. – TMF 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • History:
    • Par 2, sen 3: "with a completion date of 1975" sounds strange. Maybe "and be completed in 1975".
    • Par 3, sen 3: "mid 1970s" needs a hyphen.
    • Par 4, sen 3: "unfortunate" - POV? Additionally, I would consider merging sentences three and four to reduce redundancy. (Something like "After the lawsuits, there were several accidents involving construction workers at work on Route 55, such as a construction worker ...")
      • Merged sentences and remove POV word. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Par 5, sen 4: "When a feasibility study was conducted to see if the extension of Route 55 could be built, plans resurfaced for a southern extension in 1993" - this doesn't seem right. Wouldn't plans to extend the road precede the conducting of studies?
      • Flipped order of sentence. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future
    • Par 2, sen 3: "It is also anticipated that the extension of Route 55 will be tolled" - I would use "would be tolled" here since this is all just a proposal and nothing's set in stone.
    • Par 2, sen 6: "A southern extension of Route 55 may also utilize portions of Route 47 and Route 347 upgraded to freeway standard." - I don't quite get what this sentence is saying. Would parts of 47 and 347 be upgraded to freeways that would then become part of 55?
      • Yes, that is what the sentence is trying to convey. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It needs to be reworded then as the current wording would likely confuse most readers. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reworded. ---Dough4872 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, the point that the sentence is trying to make is clear now, but the wording of it leaves a bit to be desired. "upgraded to freeway standard" seems off, for one. I'd suggest making standard "standards", but I've never heard of anyone use the term "freeway standards". The whole sentence needs a top-to-bottom copyedit. – TMF 01:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other
    • Refs: some (all?) uses of {{cite news}} have the newspaper name in the publisher parameter and italicized. The name of the paper should be in the newspaper parameter, which automatically italicizes the name of the paper.
    • Moar refs: Ref 36 seems to be a press release; there's a {{cite press release}} for those. I don't know if any other references are press releases; I only checked out #36 on a whim.
    • Ref 14: check to see if this is the standard notation for citing a New Jersey state law. I'm no law buff, so I don't know if this is right or not. Either way, a space needs to be added to "Section1".
      • Fixed to proper format. In addition, I found a link to the text of the law. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text is OK. Given the current state that WP:ALT is in right now, I'm not sure how much alt text matters at this time anyway. – TMF 07:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per a recent change to MOS:RJL, the "Exit" header in the exit list should be delinked. – TMF 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Initially, I had this unlinked but added the link after seeing it in other articles with the new heading. Changed. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for looking over the article again, I have replied to the above. ---Dough4872 22:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Resolved issues have been struck; comments have been left for issues not yet resolved. – TMF 04:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all issues resolved. – TMF 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
    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. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan) edit

    M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: The first business loop for M-28, and now the last BUS M-28 article to come to the ACR process.
    Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please fix the alt text - check the tool for details. --Rschen7754 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so the edit that added it before I nominated it didn't save. Re-added the ALT text again. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The article is entirely reliant on map sources. Are there any non-map sources mentioning the business route available? Other than that, I would be willing to support the article. ---Dough4872 23:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's the Michigan Highways site, but that's an SPS. Any newspaper archives for the area are not available online for the 1930s–1950s. It didn't have a memorial highway or other name applied to any part of it, so it's not in the Leo Barnett book about MI's named highways. Google doesn't turn up anything except mirrors of this page, or the Michigan Highways website, but it does appear on the maps I have. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support - Since my question has been answered, I will now support. ---Dough4872 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support straight out of the box. Great job. One recommendation though...would you consider removing the legend from the junction list (using a more generic table end template like {{jctbtm}})? This jctlist uses no colors, and colors are against STDS now, anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since only one color is allowed now (the unbuilt shading), I have considered modifying {{jcttop}} to accept an unbuilt parameter of some sort. That way, nothing is displayed if no colors are used and if the unbuilt color is used, it will display a hatnote saying "Entries in gray are unbuilt highways" or some such. As for the article, I'll make a review of it at some point in the near future. – TMF 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've modified the {{MIintbtm}} template to be a redirect of {{jctbtm}} since I did an AWB run to remove all the colors from MI articles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, my suggestion was more of a nationwide suggestion since there are states that use the unbuilt shading and I have seen reviewers comment in the past on how we don't provide an explanation of what the shading means. – TMF 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from – TMF 07:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Preliminary review by TMF

    A full prose review will follow at some point. In the meantime, here's what I saw at first glance:

    • I don't think all of the data sources for the map are listed. The local streets and urban areas were likely derived from TIGER data, which isn't mentioned on the map's information page.
    • The second link to Pentland Township in the infobox is unnecessary.
    • Since the "M-28BR" abbreviation isn't used anywhere in the article, I wouldn't list it.
    • I'm not enamored by the lack of variety in the type of sources, but I don't see it as an issue. Others (particularly if this article is taken to FAC) might, though, but you probably already know that given how many times you've been there.
    • Could the oversized history paragraph be broken up into at least two paragraphs?
    • The termini notations in the junction list are unnecessary.
    • I would utilize the "spur_of"/"spur_type" infobox params here to make up for the absence of a browse row.

    That's all for now. – TMF 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll ping Algo about the map, but the rest is done. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues struck, and the last seems to be unactionable. Neutral until I carry out a full review of the article. – TMF 05:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Rschen7754
    • "It ran west of the city of Newberry, passing through the community of Dollarville before entering downtown. Once in downtown Newberry, the highway turned south and ended near the county airport." - consider combining sentences
    • RD - again with "West of the Luce County Airport, M-117/BUS M-28 met M-28. M-117 turned west along M-28 and the business loop ended."
    • In a RD of this length no two sentences should start with the same word.
    • Standard disclaimer about short articles at FAC, of course.
    • Standard disclaimer about articles using only maps, of course. (I say these things just to acknowledge that you are aware of the risks of taking such an article to FAC. I still hope for its success though). --Rschen7754 03:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copy edits made. I don't have any plans to take this article to FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still missing one. --Rschen7754 04:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Must have missed that when I was saving the edit... Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Support promotion with the FAC disclaimer. --Rschen7754 04:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from – TMF 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Second review by TMF
    • RD:
      • Section 2: "M-117/Newberry Avenue" - was/is M-117 routed on Newberry Ave? If so, I'd put the street name in parentheticals instead. If not, I'd replace the slash with "and".
      • Same for the other two slashes; I'd use "and" but there's probably nothing wrong with using slashes. Just personal preference.
    • History:
      • Is it known when M-28 was originally assigned onto what became M-28A/M-28 BUS?
      • "The BUS M-28 designation would remain in place" --> "designation remained in place"
    • Other:
      • A photo of M-28 BUS's former routing as it is today would add to the article's quality.
      • There's at least one instance where a non-breaking space is missing ("April 15, 1953" in the History section). – TMF 07:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Made the suggested changes in the RD and History section. Now, as for the photo, I'll keep looking, but that might have to wait until my next drive up north. I can't find where a non-breaking space would be required. Dates don't use them, as it is perfectly acceptable for a date to break in the middle. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would argue that having a date break between the month and the day "might be disruptive to the reader" (wording from here) but to each their own since it doesn't seem to be explicitly mandated. I'll wait to see how feasible it is for a photo to be added in the near future; however, if a photo will be added later, I could possibly AGF and pass it on that promise. – TMF 08:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Photo has been added now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all major issues resolved. As others commented above, this likely needs more work to get to FA, but since the nominator has indicated that he has no plans to pursue FAC with this article, this is a moot point. – TMF 04:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.

    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.

    Eisenhower Tunnel edit

    This ACR is being closed early. The nominator is not a major contributor to the article in question, and did not secure the permission of the major contributors. An ACR can be reopened when the major contributors agree to nominate it, or to allow a third-party to make the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eisenhower Tunnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
    Nominator's comments: a well-written article that could rise higher in ranks
    Nominated by: --PCB 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Comments: Article is generally well-written, but has some issues:
      • "The department of transportation noted that prior to the retrofit, about 20,000 vehicles per year tripped the alarm." Which DOT noted this, CDOT or USDOT? Also needs a citation.
        • Fixed. --PCB 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The next two sentences make reference to the opinions of the "trucking industry". Who was saying this on behalf of the industry? An industry group/trucker's association? Which one?
      • The entire first paragraph of "Alternate route" has no references. Especially problematic because height information for Loveland Pass is included in there.
      • The women's-rights thing occurred before the tunnels were finished, but it's discussed after the tunnel's completion. Consider restructuring this section to more closely follow chronological order.
      • The ending of the article seems lacking in general. Part of this is related to the non-chronological order that the History section is in, but it also ends at a weird point. Has anything else happened since the tunnel was opened—any notable incidents, for example?
      • A general copyedit is needed to fix minor issues like missing commas. Sentence flow could use a few tweaks too.
    • If these issues are fixed, I would consider recommending the article for A-Class. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this article for A-class:
    1. In the infobox, is it necessary to have a parameter that indicates the tunnel has no tolls?
    2. The lead of the article looks a little short and could include a little bit more historical information.
    3. For the length of the tunnel, I think feet may be a more appropriate unit than miles.
    4. "The trucking industry lobbied the Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, to increase the vertical clearance of the tunnel.", CDOT should be in parentheses.
    5. "it is now possible for trucks 13.92 feet (4.24 m) to navigate the tunnel" add "high" after height.
    After the feet or after the meters? Putting "high" after the meters looks a bit awkward. --PCB 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, its supposed to go there. Dough4872 03:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The first paragraph of the Alternate route section needs a citation.
    2. An inflation conversion is needed for $42 million. ---Dough4872 02:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above 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 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.

    New York State Route 319 edit

    New York State Route 319 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
    Nominator's comments: NY 319 is a decommissioned highway in Chenango County, New York. Originally this got passed as a pretty cruddy GA, but since then its been revamped pretty well and has the basic details to probably go for A-class.
    Nominated by: Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 02:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I support this for A-class:
    1. Can a MTF compliant map be added to the infobox?
      That is in the works.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I can do this Monday or Tuesday if someone doesn't do it before then. – TMF 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Map is up at File:NY Route 319 map.svg. – TMF 07:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Can you request shields for CRs 4, 10, 10A, and 19 that can be used in the article?
      Um, did we miss WP:USRD/S/R#Chenango County Routes 4, 10, 10A and 19?Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Can you find the date the highway maintenance swap was approved?
      This may be impossible, the only official date is when it took effect, which was July 84.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. In last sentence of lead, indicate abbreviation for CR 10A.
      Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "County Route 4, CR 10, and CR 19": use consistient abbreviations.
      Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6. "residential neighborhoods and commercial establishments" sounds wordy.
      Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Are the boundary changes of Norwich really relevant to this article?
      It is in the turnpike history, we are trying to find a way to condense it.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Been condensed to where necessary.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8. "a contract was let" sounds awkward.
      Contract letting is the official terms used in engineering.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)
      It's not just an engineering term - it's perfectly acceptable English. See the Merriam-Webster definition of let as a verb, specifically point #2. – TMF 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Do not need to link New York twice in same paragraph.
      Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Is it really notable for the road to get new signage.
      Eh, it helps keeping the article up to date, which is often a complaint from the top tier.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding non-notable stuff is just as big of a problem. --Rschen7754 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't consider new signage to be that notable, TBH. For me, it falls along the lines of guardrail replacement or a standard pavement resurfacing, neither of which really matter 10 or 20 years out. – TMF 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    11. The sentence "The project is estimated to be completed in late 2009 and early 2010". needs to be updated.
      Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    12. References 1 and 21 should be merged.
      1 and 21 serve different purposes. 21 serves as a designation identifier.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, 1 and 21 can be merged - both show the same map that proves NY 319 west of Norwich became CR 10A. I'll do this now. – TMF 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    13. References 22 and 23 should be merged.
      22 and 23 can't be merged due to link issues. Also, they are to separate entries, one is #1045650 and one is #1045660.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    14. The images need ALT text per WP:ALT [1]. ---Dough4872 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Will be fixed.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Added by User:Juliancolton. – TMF 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My issues have been addressed. ---Dough4872 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Imzadi1979
    1. Using the toolbox I added, the ALT text needs to be added for the map using the |map_alt= parameter. The dab links, and external links check out.
      Done.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Image sourcing checks out as well.
    3. References and their formatting check out. There are a few minor formatting gaffes, like stray ] in Ref 8 and the template-generated ISO date in Ref 11. Ref 22 should be un-wikilinked because Ref 21 has the same wikilinks.
      Ref 8 fixed. I can't seem to fix 11. Refs 21 & 22 fixed, (I misread this as the URL).Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The template used to generate ref 11 has been changed; however, it's anyone's guess as to whether or not the change will stick. – TMF 02:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Prose review is forthcoming. I apologize, we're having guests over for a dinner party here, so I can't do it at the moment. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC) looks good. There's a few minor stylistic concerns, so a copy edit never hurts, but it's not required for me to support article promotion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest adding more context to the caption for the illustration in the RD. There's clearly something going on other than the road.–Juliancolton | Talk 18:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 14:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Fredddie: I have two-and-a-half issues with this article.

    • "...the hamlet of Preston within the town of the same name..." sounds incredibly awkward. You could replace it with "...the hamlet of Preston, within the town of Preston, ..."
      • To me, that introduces unnecessary redundancy. – TMF 03:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Is it even necessary to differentiate between the two? —Fredddie™ 05:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I took a look at where this exact sentence was, and I made some changes to tidy it up a bit. – TMF 07:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map doesn't give any context to where NY 319 was in the state of New York. I think it should be zoomed out, not state-wide, but wide enough to get a clue to where it was. I could point to the large cities of New York, but I couldn't point to where NY 319 was by looking at that map.
      • IMO, if it was zoomed out any farther, the red "line" marking NY 319 would be a dot. – TMF 03:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In cases like this, I've created a wide map with the route circled for the infobox and then created a detailed map that's zoomed in closely for use in the route description. —Fredddie™ 05:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would something like the inset on the NY 421 map be sufficient? I'd rather not make two maps for a route, especially for one that ceased to exist over 25 years ago. – TMF 07:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ½. If it can't be done, that's fine; but the section about the Norwich and Preston Turnpike should have an older picture. The picture of a modern highway looks out of place.

    The only non-modern day pic I've found ever working on this is the one now in the RD, the 1966 picture of NY 319's eastern terminus in Norwich.Mitch32(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 09:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, it was a want, not a need. —Fredddie™

    Support. My issues have been addressed. —Fredddie™ 21:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
    NO ACTION
    Withdrawn by nominator. Imzadi 1979 → 19:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Highway 401 (Ontario) edit

    Highway 401 (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Spent the better part of 4 months rewriting it from scratch. I use old newspaper articles often as supplements to the less specific secondary sources (ie exact dates that sections opened). If a source doesn't seem to back up everything said in the preceding sentence, chances are it is sourced to one of the later footnotes. Almost the entire article can be sourced to the book From Footpaths to Freeways or John Shragge's detailed history online.
    Nominated by: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose - This article has too many major issues to consider it A-class:
    1. References are not supposed to be in the lead unless the information is unique there.
    2. I noticed in your disclaimer the reason there are sentences lacking citations. The citations are needed in order to make sure the information is verifiable.
    3. There are several awkward sentences, such as "For nearly 90 km (56 mi), the highway is essentially urban, passing through only a few short breaks on its journey from Mississauga to Oshawa" and "At Harmony Road, the suburban surroundings vanish, and are quickly replaced by agriculture.". I would suggest having a copyeditor look over the article.
    4. "Highway 401 and Interstate 75 ran a pilot project"? How can roads run projects?

    From looking at the article, it appears a lot of work needs to be done. ---Dough4872 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Number 1 is optional I believe (and information in the lead should never be unique). The citations are used to support a very contestable claim (The worlds busiest freeway and one of the widest), and I think this is a good instance of where an exception should be made.
    Number 2, they are referenced. Just rather than have Point 1.[1][3] Point 2.[2][3] Point 3.[3][4], I use Point 1.[1] Point 2.[2] Point 3.[3][4] The information is verified by its citations, I just don't source every sentence to the same citation, but rather whole paragraphs. This would be relatively easy to fix, but I assure you it would just be clutter.
    Number 3 I understand, and that is due to my poor grammar. This is likely the major weak-point of the article.
    Number 4 I reworded. The highways were the subjects of the project, which was run by the governments of Ontario and the states I-75 flows through.
    Do you know any copyeditors you'd personally recommend. Almost all of the ones listed at editors willing to copyedit aren't active anymore. Would anyone here be willing to take a look? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go through it with a fine-tooth comb. Just give me a week or so (long article!) –Juliancolton | Talk 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you :) I'm open to all criticism here—I want this to be the gold standard for road articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One quick comment – is it really called "the four-oh-one" and not "the 401" (which is used in the article itself)? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone who writes it would do so "the 401", but in conversation it's pronounced as "the four-oh-one". I'll spell it out in the rest of the article if that's necessary, but my thought was that this just shows it is not pronounced "the four hundred and one" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, spelling it as "four-oh-one" seems too informal for an encyclopedic article. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps "...and colloquially as The 401 (pronounced four-oh-one), is..." would work better. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't see why that's needed. First of all, we would need a source that explicitly says it's written as "four-oh-one", and in any case, why do we need to spell it out? 401 is easy to pronounce. Probably not a big deal, just something to consider. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Being someone who lives along the highway, I think it should be kept, so I added a ref for it. When referring to the highway, you usually do refer to it as simply that and people know what you're talking about. Gary King (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Works for me. Thanks for the fix. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm removing the "source", which obtained the information from Wikipedia. ICON publishes many such books that take tidbits from Wikipedia and other sources for its glossary-style publications. No such ICON publication should ever be used as a source. (That book was published in 2008; check its text against this 9 October 2005 revision from WP.) Here's a book that uses the term, though I don't think that's sufficient to make it a reliable ref. I'll search for something more suitable. Mindmatrix 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Alphascript books are similar, as they simply publish Wikipedia articles as books. So, this is not a valid ref. Mindmatrix 18:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this truly is a common name, shouldn't it be found in newspaper articles and/or TV report transcripts under accidents and traffic reports? Dave (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 401 is. Only audio would contain the information "four-oh-one". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. In my opinion a source calling it "The 401" would suffice. Throughout most of the english speaking world pronouncing each numeral like that is common, at least for bus routes, highway routes, train routes, etc. As such it's not a controversial detail. Dave (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. I will give this a more thorough review. My apologies, I suddenly got busy.[reply]
    Comments

    Just some general comments in reply to some of the above comments.

    1. Sometimes there will be unique information in the lead of an article. Usually this is limited to the length of a roadway, although a fully distance-posted junction list should have the distance given for the terminal junction, which means the length is in another location in the article, albeit in a slightly different form.
    2. References are permitted in the lead, especially if there is contestable information there. If that's the case, then even when it is referenced in the body of the article, a reference is highly appropriate in the lead.
    3. I'm not sure how to advise on the pronunciation issue, but I imagine that a newspaper article won't use the colloquial term in print. Your best bet is the transcript of a television or radio news story. Those are supposed to be verbatim copies of the audio. A TV station's website news stories will be closer to print newspaper and magazine sources in style. Of course if there's a news story that discusses how Ontario residents refer to their highways, then it will have the colloquial pronunciation in print.

    I'll try to get to a full review later this week, but I can't promise anything yet. I have stuff to do on-wiki with my mileposting project for Michigan, and packing and preparations for a weekend trip to Baltimore on Friday. Imzadi 1979 → 08:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: This article is so much better than what it was earlier this year. The complete rewrite has worked miracles for it, and the quality images have really made it a more interesting read. It's a little long due to the exit list, but other than that I would support it's promotion to A-class. If it does make A-class, it would be the first Ontario roads article to achieve this, a significant milestone for those involved with the wikiproject. To other reviewers, if you haven't looked at the article in a bit, I would suggest a re-read. Haljackey (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdraw nomination. I think the article is ready for WP:FAC after the recent improvements. I'd like to withdraw my nomination so that I can take it there. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above 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 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! — Viridiscalculus (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    U.S. Route 30 in Iowa edit

    U.S. Route 30 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 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: —Fredddie™ 00:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 10:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    Review from Imzadi1979

    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.

    1. In the junction list, the "<direction> end of <route> 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.
       Fixed –Fredddie™
    2. 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  Done –Fredddie™
    3. 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™
    4. We may have a copyright issue with the Great River Road marker in the junction list. Master_son (talk · contribs) 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™
    5. Sources all look good. I can't see any issues with their origins.
      1. 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™
         Done –Fredddie™
      2. I'd spell out AASHTO on ref 2 since all other organizations are unabbreviated.
         Fixed –Fredddie™
      3. Maps could use section numbers, assuming the maps have sections.
        This will take some time, but I'll do it, too. –Fredddie™
         Fixed –Fredddie™
      4. 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.)
         Fixed
    6. 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.
       Fixed –Fredddie™
    7. 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 |alt=|link= 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".
       Done Airport sign alt text removed. I'll take care of the others later. Alt text fixed. –Fredddie™

    I'll work on the prose sections later. Imzadi 1979 → 10:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thanks for the first review! –Fredddie™ 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ok, getting back to the article again, a few things I see.

    1. The citations that link to PDFs should have |format=PDF added.
       Done Please double check to see if I missed one. –Fredddie™
    2. Per MOS:CAPS#Composition Titles, any article titles should be re-rendered in Title Case, even if the source gives the article title in Sentence case.
       Done Thought they all were, but one wasn't. –Fredddie™
    3. 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.
       Done 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™
    4. 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.
       Done –Fredddie™
    5. 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™
    6. A suggestion that came from Tony1 during the Capitol Loop FAC was to pipe runs [[concurrency (road)|concurrently]] as [[concurrency (road)|runs concurrently]] 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.
       Done I really like this. "Run concurrently" is a complete thought so it makes sense it's all in the link. –Fredddie™
    7. Double check that there aren't any "U.S. 30" abbreviations, since the given abbreviation lacks the dots.
       Done –Fredddie™
    8. "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.
      {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-1926}} –Fredddie™
    9. "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.
       Done Removed the italics for Iowa Heritage Byway. –Fredddie™

    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)[reply]

    Thanks for re-reviewing it. –Fredddie™ 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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.
     Done –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:

    • 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. =-)

    More later.... I have to go. Dave (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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:

    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  Later –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).
    plus Added –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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Support - Major issues resolved. Good luck! Dave (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Dough4872
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - I have a few concerns before I can support this article for A-class:

    1. I noticed the infobox and junction list have different mileages for the route through Iowa. Can one of these mileages be used for both?
      The infobox has the official length according to AASHTO. The junction list has the length according to the Iowa DOT. Which one is wrong? –Fredddie™
      I'm not saying either one is wrong, I'm just saying to pick one of them to use. IMO, I would use the Iowa DOT mileage as that is a more recent measurement. Dough4872 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
       Done a while back –Fredddie™ 18:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Can the mini-infoboxes for the bannered routes be removed as these routes are sufficiently covered in the Bannered routes of U.S. Route 30 list? In addition, it may help to create a subsection describing the routing of IA 930.
      I don't agree with removing them, but if that's what it takes to move forward, I'll do it. –Fredddie™
       Done –Fredddie™ 04:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The US 30 Business and IA 930 infoboxes in the route description still need to be taken care of. Dough4872 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
       Done –Fredddie™ 04:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      To think of it, a separate section describing IA 930 could be added to the article, similar to how Iowa Highway 946 is covered in U.S. Route 52 in Iowa. Otherwise, the length of IA 930 should be added at the point it is mentioned in the route description. If one of the two is done, I will be willing to support the article. Dough4872 01:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Length added. –Fredddie™ 02:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Is it possible for more pictures of the road to be added to the article?
      Yes, please help! If I get a chance to get up there, I'll try to take some myself. Otherwise, I know somebody who might be willing to take some pictures. –Fredddie™
      You can also try looking on Flickr for appropriately licensed images. Dough4872 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      All three pictures in the article were found on Flickr. –Fredddie™
       Not done Please help find pictures! –Fredddie™ 18:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "In the 1920s, road paving cost $30,000-per-mile ($19,000-per-kilometer), $658 thousand-per-mile ($409 thousand-per-kilometer), adjusted for inflation", is this supposed to be a conversion to today's dollars? If so, this should be made more clear.
      This was the DYK hook, so I'll merge the two. –Fredddie™
       Done –Fredddie™ 04:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Is it possible for more details about the expressway construction, such as costs, to be mentioned in the history? Dough4872 02:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I haven't found any, but I'll keep looking. –Fredddie™
      Added some figures, still looking for more. –Fredddie™ 18:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 02:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Admrboltz
    1. Image Review:
      File:US_30_(IA)_map.svg: Lacks a key, GIS source.
       Done –Fredddie™
    2. "runs 332 miles" - while I understand this, casual / non-road fans may not understand, maybe "spans 332 miles"
       Done –Fredddie™
    3. WP:OVERLINK in the citations. Only link the first instance of each item (e.g. Iowa DOT)
       Done. 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)[reply]

    Thanks! I have made the changes you suggested. –Fredddie™ 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – looks good to me. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2010 (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.
    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. --Rschen7754 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    M-6 (Michigan highway) edit

    Toolbox

    M-6 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: The newest freeway in Michigan, and the newest GA (at the moment). Should be in decent shape with some tweaking and stuff for a future FAC. Another article that minimally uses maps for historical information, but that's because the freeway was covered in the press while it was being planned for 32 years.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 01:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 03:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. Is it possible to have an inflation conversion for "$35 million/mi (approximately $22 million/km)"?
    2. The alignment of the two images in the route description needs to be fixed.
    3. The sentence "Near the Wilson Avenue interchange, curves to the northwest around the edge of the Ironwood Golf Course headed for the interchange with Byron Center Avenue." sounds awkward.
    4. The sentence "Local residents were distributing some 2,000 flyers to their neighbors in opposition to the freeway." needs to be reworded.
    5. "fall of 1982", avoid using seasons to refer to dates as this stance assumes the reader is in the Northern Hemisphere.
    6. "Michigan Governor John Engler": avoid touching wikilinks.
    7. The dashes in the exit column for the termini should be removed.
    8. Reference 29 is a SPS, but its use may be okay in the article as it is citing a picture. Dough4872 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replies
    1. Done.
    2. I'm planning on some newer photos later this week, so I'll wait until I get get some.
    3. Done.
    4. Switched, but it was really ok before.
    5. I personally disagree though. If had an exact month, I'd include it. I think it's fair to use a seasonal reference on a geographically dependent article. (This highway is in Michigan, so "fall of 1982" should be a distinct time period, unlike at article on a chemical element that's not location-dependent.)
      I still think the article needs to be neutral in this regard. A reader from the Southern Hemisphere may misinterpret the "fall of 1982" as being around April rather than October. Dough4872 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      See WP:SEASON. "Even when the season reference is unambiguous (for instance when a particular location is clearly involved) a date or month may be preferable to a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest)." The wording isn't prohibited. Yes, the MOS prefers that better dates be used, but for a bunch of reasons, I can't convert what the source says to something else without distorting it. Which definition of fall: astrological, meteorological, tourist season? The three are different, and if a Southern Hemisphere reader can't deduce that "fall" in Michigan means around October when reading an article on a highway In Michigan, then I shouldn't have to potentially distort or misrepresent the facts for their ignorance. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Done and fixed another potential one when I found that Dick Posthumus has his own article now.
    7. The exits are unnumbered on M-6, but they are exits. If they were left blank, that could be interpreted as no interchange.
      I don't see leaving the field blank as there being no interchange. Since this is an exit list for a freeway, it is automatically assumed that the junction is an interchange. Dough4872 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      To me, blank exit column for a row equals no exit/interchange, and the dash means unnumbered. Additionally, the heading "Exit list" can't be determinative either. We use "exit list" or "major junctions" on mixed-type highways all the time depending on which type encompasses a majority of the roadway. An explicit meaning can't be derived from the heading title. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8. I can go either way on this. It doesn't need to remain the article now that the DYK hook has appeared on the Main Page. Let's see what others think. Imzadi 1979 → 02:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 03:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Admrboltz
    Resolved issues from Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Image Review:
      1. File:Michigan 6 map.png needs legend and GIS source.
      2. I CSD'ed the dup images on en.wiki for ya.
    2. "A gas tax hike was approved in 1972" - tax hike sounds... weird. Its what we would say, but maybe "an increase in the gas tax" would be more encyclopedic.
    3. Whats with the large commented out section in the Earlier designation section?
    4. "July 1982 actively started to oppose the roadway the fall 1982" - doesn't flow, seems like its missing a word or two.

    Otherwise, looks good. It looks like your GA reviewer caught a lot of it. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies
    1. Done, as best as I can do.
    2. Done.
    3. Well, I'm still researching it, but according to Chris Bessert's website which offers up some details that while construction was progressing on the I-696 freeway, that the service drives and other connecting roads bore the M-6 designation in the 1970s. Until I can verify that information in other sources, it's going to stay commented out. If I can get my hands on some 1970s vintage AAA maps, I can verify part of that, but the MDOT maps don't show it on the Detroit inset.
    4. Done.
    Thanks for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Dave

    NOTE: Review in progress. Have not made a complete read of the article yet Finished.

    • IMO the origin of the name should at least be briefly explained in the lead. Even if it's as simple as "M-6, or the Paul B. Henry Freeway, after a late congressman, is a...
    • "Many locals still refer to it by its original name, the South Beltline." IMO that's an iffy statement to have without a source and/or in the lead. Maybe just "also called the South Beltline" in the lead and have the "most locals" part in the body where it can be explained in detail?
    • I'd really try to get a picture of the clover-leaf interchange. With the superlatives given in the text, I had to go to googlemaps to check it out. =-) Maybe do something like CL did with Utah State Route 201 with File:Spaghettibowl.png?
    • "again redesignated two years later"
    • "The consultants were also studying the type of roadway between a full freeway or a boulevard-style arterial street setup." IMO that's a little awkward. How about, "The consultants were asked to study a full freeway and a limited access boulevard design." (yes I would wikilink those terms)
    • "The choice of consultants on the project was controversial at the time; local planners felt that MDOT picked BKI Inc. only because they used a minority-owned subcontractor and not because they would be qualified for the project" I'm not sure I like this sentence, as it does invite controversy in an article that doesn't need to be controversial. If you do decide to keep it, I would find a suitable link to put in there somewhere, maybe Minority business enterprise, racial quota or reverse discrimination.
    • "State and local officials in January 1981 expected the freeway to cost between $40–100 million " the "in January 1981" should be moved, probably to after the dollar figure.
    • "The results of the study by BKI were later< criticized by local planners in May 1982." You need to either say later or give the date, but not both (redundant).
    • The freeway was even studied
    • In parsing the article I added a few commas, and notices several more where I thought commas might be helpful. Suggest parsing the article, or asking someone to parse and add commas (I would, but I'm not the best to ask about grammar feedback).

    More to come... Dave (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • bonus payment
    • "leaving the interchanges at US 131 and I-196 and the connecting roadbed to be completed at the time." Do you mean "at the same time"? As written this doesn't make sense.
    • "That stretch of freeway opened" I think you mean "This stretch".
    • "The M-6 Trail was constructed in a $3.5 million project starting in 2008 to create a 10-foot (3.0 m) wide path linking the Kent Trails with the Paul Henry Rail Trail. " That definitely needs a comma or two.
    • Frederik and Lena Meijer Foundation. That should probably link to something, As I'm sure this is the same Meijer as the Meijer stores, so surely an article exists about a related subject to this.

    Some brief replies so far:

    • Even after the official name was legislated, the local press (and the populace) has stuck to the original name interchangeably with the designation. Maybe we can combine this with your first suggestion and reword that as "Even after the freeway was named for the late congressman, local residents and the press used the original name, South Beltline". Look at the Grand Rapids Press headlines in the references section, almost all of them use some variation of either South Beltline or South Belt in the last decade. (The articles themselves use both the South Beltline and M-6 names. About the only place you see the official memorial name is the one roadsign westbound after the ramps from I-96 merge together. As I recall, the other end doesn't have a similar sign.)
      • That works. Note my slight change. Dave (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've e-mailed my photo source at MDOT to get a copy of their aerial photo of the interchange. I can't do what CL did because Tearraserver's last photos of Wyoming, MI are from 1999, when the future interchange was still a rest area on US 131. I am planning on getting out one of these afternoons when I'm not busy and the weather is nice to photograph some more of the freeway, since the phase I and II sections have no photographic coverage yet.
    • I know it's a little repetitious, but that wording is reinforcing the notion that the roadway that was the first M-6 had its designation changed twice in short order.Imzadi 1979 → 02:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, I don't think it needs re-enforcing. Dave (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have finished reading the article. All in all, very thorough. Most of my concerns are copyediting. I do recommend a thorough copyedit. Dave (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've completed my changes from your suggestions.

    • The past tense "used" isn't correct in that revised sentence in the lead. The name is in current use on the traffic reports (which frequently use "the M-6 South Beltline" or "M-6" or "South Beltline") and in other news reports that mention the roadway.
      • How about "continued to use"? Dave (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every other sentence in that paragraph is in the present tense because everything in that paragraph is current information. The opening portion of the sentence is past tense only to relate that the naming was a past event, but the usage of the name is still current. I don't think it would be a good idea to switch tense of the subject of a sentence in the middle of a paragraph and switch back. Imzadi 1979 → 14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm leaving in the bit about BKI's minority subcontractor. This freeway was controversial, and that was part of the controversy. I did add the wikilink though.
    • I rewrote the sentence as part of my expansion of M-6 Trail. It was kind of sad that the article on the freeway had more information about the trail than the article on the trail. I destubbed the trail article and copied the languages I used there, here.
    • There isn't anything to link that to short of piping the link to Fred Meijer (businessman). The foundation, like many others like it, isn't notable enough for its own article, but it's not directly affiliated with the company to be linked there. (From my knowledge of the situation, Fred Meijer gives away his personal money through his foundation, not the company's money.)
      • I think Fred Meijer (businessman) is an acceptable pipe target. It's mearly to give some context to those, such as me, who are not from the area and don't know the significance of the name. Dave (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the other specific suggestions, I disagree with them and haven't implemented them. I'll let others weigh in with their opinions though. Others are welcome to copyedit as well though.Imzadi 1979 → 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Imzadi, my sincere apologies in taking so long to get back to this. I don't really have an excuse, other than I've found myself unmotivated and somewhat on an emotional roller-coaster these days. You have resolved most of my concerns, as such I will Support promotion. However, there are a few things I strongly encourage to check before going up to FAC.
    1. (and I just noticed this) Continuing east, the beltline curves to the southeast and into the massive cloverleaf interchange complex at US 131 This has 3 sources; however, they are all maps. The only problem with that is "massive" is a relative term, and I'm not sure it can be justifiably used when the source is a map. Might want to get a 2nd opinion on that.
    2. The above sentence where we are debating if the word should be "use, used, or continued to use". It still doesn't sound right to my ears. However, As 3 others have most likely read that same sentence with no objection, I'll defer to their opinions, with a request to have someone from outside the project give it an look-see. Good luck. Dave (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well regarding number 1, the next sentence does describe the size of the interchange (yes, I know, I'm still waiting on the photos that should be arriving this week) as: "This interchange stretches over a mile (1.6 km), encompassing 27 bridges and 18 retaining walls making it the largest freeway interchange in Western Michigan." That sentence is cited to an article titled: "South Beltline Junction to be Area's Largest: The Cloverleaf Interchange with US 131 Will Stretch for a Mile and Require Widening of the Road" out of the Grand Rapids Press. I'm willing to massage the text on which word is used, but some superlative needs to be in there somehow, I think. As for the other comment, my plans with this are similar to Capitol Loop. Its next stop will be WP:PR with a ping to the couple of editors that polished that other article before FAC. I figure that if ACR doesn't grind to a halt now, it could be at FAC by the end of the year, my schedule permitting. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Fredddie
    Resolved issues from –Fredddie™ 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Only a few issues from me. –Fredddie™ 17:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I fixed a run-on sentence about the Meijer Trail in the RD, so it now reads "The right-of-way along M-6 includes a 9-mile (14 km) pedestrian path known as the Frederik Meijer Trail. Previously, it was called the M-6 Trail." When did the trail get renamed? I tried to look it up and fix it myself but there are more than one Fred Meijer trails in Michigan.
    2. If you showed me a blank map of Michigan and asked me to point where Grand Rapids is, I couldn't do it. Since you mentioned Western Michigan, I could probably get close. I think for the benefit of those users who don't know anything about Michigan, it could be explained a little better where Grand Rapids is. While you're at it, I would explain that Keweenaw County is in the UP.
    3. If you think it would help with the above point, I could make a statewide map showing where M-6 is located.
    Replies
    1. I don't know, and I haven't found any source that gives the timeframe for the name change. Until working on this stuff for the highway and trail articles, I wasn't aware it had been changed. (Locals just call it the M-6 Trail the few times it's been discussed in conversation.)
    2. Tweaks being applied to text.
    3. An inset on the map probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't hurt to get a MTF-standard SVG map as well.
    Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Works for me; I now support. –Fredddie™ 22:36, 9 December 2010 (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.
    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.
    Support. --Rschen7754 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah) edit

    Toolbox

    Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: I would like to try again after the last failed ACR for this article, which can be found here.
    Nominated by: Admrboltz (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this article for A-class:
    1. Is it necessary to have the UT 58 section in the notes at the top of the infobox? It looks tacky and there is already a UT 58 shield in the browse at the bottom of the infobox.
      1. It was added as a comprimise in the last ACR. Dave and CL were going back and forth about how to list the fact that UT-58 is concurrent through Utah. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The lead seems a little hard to follow, jumping between a description of the route and history. Can it be restructured to describe the routing first then the history?
      1. Tweaked some. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Maybe move the sentence "Wendover Boulevard was formerly part of U.S. Route 40 (US 40), which connected California to New Jersey via Nevada and Utah." to before describing the designation of BL-80. Dough4872 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Moved --Admrboltz (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "Starting at the final Nevada exit of I-80", this assumes the reader is traveling west to east on I-80. I would change "final" to "easternmost".
      1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "Just west of the intersection is the fire station and courthouse, as well as a filling station and fast food outlet." seems a little too detailed for the route descrption. Maybe say "Just west of the intersection the road passes a few businesses and the courthouse."
      1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. The first paragraph needs clarifications as to citations. Is the West Wendover map supposed to be the citation used for the paragraph save for the sentence citing the image of the painted line? If so, a citation to the map should be added after the sentence "The two casinos are connected via a sky bridge that allows pedestrian access between the two hotels without crossing the highway." to make sure that is cited to the map and not the image of the line.
      1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. The sentence "At the border, BL-80 becomes concurrent with Utah State Route 58 for the final 1.363 mi (2.194 km) through Wendover, Utah." needs a citation. Dough4872 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Some detail could be added to the route description, such as how many lanes the road is and what surroundings the road passes in Wendover, UT.
      1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Are there traffic counts more recent than 2007 available? Also, "The average traffic measurement is collected at the Nevada–Utah state line." needs a citation.
      1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Still need a citation for the first paragraph describing the traffic counts. Dough4872 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Fixed --Admrboltz (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8. The history is missing a few details, such as the history of the US 40 and NV 224 designations through Wendover and when BL-80 was established.
      1. This is going to take some doing first, as info on the NV side of the border is hard to come by. UT keeps all this info in the UDOT logs. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    9. The sentence "The Utah segment, SR-58 was designated in 1969 between the state line and the junction with Frontage Road, which was formerly US 40." sounds awkward.
      1. Tweaked --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    10. The sentence "No such request was submitted." needs a citation and should be combined with the sentence before it.
      1. How do you cite this though? --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. If there is no reasonable way to do it, then that is not a huge issue. However, this sentence should still be combined with the preceding sentence. Dough4872 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    11. The image caption "BL-80 approaching the state line" needs some more details as to what direction it is approaching the state line.
      1. Done --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    12. In the Major intersections table, it may help to have a column for what state the road is in since it spans multiple states. Dough4872 03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Thats never been done in any other article. I would like to hear other comments on this first. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        1. A few other articles covering routes in multiple states, such as Pennsylvania Route 491, Route 54 (Delaware–Maryland), and Nebraska Highway 370, have this setup. Others have the table divided into two for each state, which would make it look unnecessarily fragmented in this case. Dough4872 03:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Added a state field. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - My issues have been addressed. If an establishment date for NV 224 can eventually be found, that would be great. Dough4872 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by Dave
    Resolved issues from Dave (talk)

    I will have a full review shortly. However in the interim here are a few things I noticed:

    • I'd work in a link to Wendover Cut-off somewhere in the history section, as SR-58 is essentially the western end of that road
      • The only solid reference on the Wendover Cut-off page is a reference to Utah highways, a SPS... --Admrboltz (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rail line that passes through Wendover is referenced by owner only. The name of the line was the Feather River Route until the Union Pacific transferred it over to the Central Corridor (Union Pacific Railroad). Might want to work one of those two links in there somehow. IMO it is relevent as Wendover was essentially founded by the Western Pacific as the last available water before crossing the salt flats along the Feather River Route.
    • I agree with Dough that having two SR-58 shields in the infobox does look awkward; however, I don't think I'll oppose over that, as I'm not sure how to fix it. Let me think on this.

    Dave (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Thinking about the dual shield more, how about just getting rid of the SR-58 shield at the top of the infobox? Was that an option considered?[reply]

    Yeah, before I didnt have UT 58 in the browse box, I will drop it up top now. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check for articles for some of the features mentioned. For example, Wendover Peppermill exists.
      • Done, when I was last editing the article, none of those existed. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sentences like "Just west of the intersection the highway passes the courthouse, as well as a few businesses." aren't very helpful. At a minimum get rid of "as well as a few businesses", that doesn't inform much about the highway. To make this a truly valuable article, I'd research the official name of the courthouse.
      • Previously, I had mentioned the businesses but Dough did not like the business directory. Changed around though. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're looking for ways to fill space, I'd suggest to add some content about the nearby Wendover Air Force Base nearby, which has quite a bit of history, namely as the home base of the Enola Gay and the base from which the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan during WWII.
      • I've been there, its pretty snazzy, but... as you mentioned the article is about the road, not the stuff around it... Wouldn't that make the article cover too much?
        • In my opinion, if done right, adding points of interest like this can really add to the article. However there is a limit, I wouldn't add more than a couple of sentences on a point of interest, otherwise the article can sound promotional and like a travel guide. Dave (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify, IMO just saying "passes by a couple of buildings, oh and a school, doesn't help. If you can put names and notability to the features, IMO, that helps. Dave (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for sources about the Victory Highway and Wendover Cutoff, the Article on the (dead) link to iup.edu on the Wendover cutoff is an EXCELLENT book (it's cited as a web citation, but it it in fact a (formerly) on-line book. I have it, as I used it for my research into U.S. Route 50 in Nevada and can look up specifics. You can also see how I cited that work on that article to get around the now dead link. If you have email enabled, I can email it to you when I get home (on the road now).
    • As for sources about the rail line, uprr.com has some surprising gems in it, but you have to dig. For pages I've used: http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/maps/index.shtml and http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/uprr-chr.shtml The challenge is, while the Nevada DOT official map does specify this as the former Western Pacific Line (the Utah DOT map does not) is finding a source that actually uses the name "Feather River Route", most sources that use the name Feather River Route focus on the portion through the Feather River Gorge, and use a more generic name like "Main WP line" for other portions. However, the uprr.com link above does refer to the line by both names, so could be used to show the connection. Dave (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got the stuff for the Central Cooridor name, but still working on the FRR mention. --Admrboltz(talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got the Feather River Route --Admrboltz (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My issues resolved. Dave (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me add one addendum. You have the fact that I-80 BL is signed sourced to a photo on flickr. That will raise some eyebrows at FAC, should you decide nominate this article there. If you plan to nominate at FAC, I would advise to just not source it, if no better source can be found. That I-80 BL is signed is not controversial, and as such can probably squeak by without one. (Everybody's getting so anal about sourcing these days that few have actually read what WP:V actually says when citing that policy =-) ). Dave (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks :) Imz suggested I get pictures of the signs into the article and let the reader figure it out on their own. Also, can you collapse your comments? --Admrboltz (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another PS, the article fails the ALT text test [3] To be fair most of the images that are not in compliance are not used directly in this page, but via embedded templates. Still, that will have to be fixed before nominating to FAC. For the map in infobox road, there is a map_alt parameter for this. (and yes I've had to fix many templates for my nominations to FAC) Dave (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well shoot, the article looks good. I just have a few points to make:
    • In addition to US-40, US-50 Alternate (and before that US-50) ran through the area, coming west from Salt Lake and then turning south in Wendover at present day US-93A. I'm not sure when exactly US-50 switched alignments with US-50A (sometime in the early '50s I'm guessing), but there are plenty of maps and sources that they did run through Wendover.
      • Added into last paragraph of history section. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map looks a little different from the other maps that are usually around - this is more of a matter of personal preference but I'd like to see a standard map (whatever that means).
      • Its three years old now, but it gets the point across. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the RD, where it says, "BL-80 continues in an easterly direction passing 100 East (Aria Boulevard)...", I think you could just nix "100 East" and put Aria Boulevard. Since the street is named, its position in Wendover's grid is unnecessary to mention.
    • Other than that (they're minor issues), I'll support this ACR. Good luck! CL (T · C) — 02:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, see replies above. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Review by Imzadi1979

    The article looks good. Just some comments for the moment, starting at the bottom first.

    1. This might not be something necessarily mentioned at FAC, but MOS:CAPS#Composition_titles says to change titles into Title Case. Fns 6, 16, 18–21 should be updated. Fns 24 and 25 probably should be as well. Otherwise, I can't fault anything in your sources.
      1.  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. It would be nice if we could get the distance measurement at the state line crossing in the junction list. I'd span the first three columns with a blank cell, use the distance and then either use the state line as the destination or span that across the last two columns and run the concurrency note on a second line in that span.
      1.  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Can include the statutory definition in the prose? The effect of these last two comment would be to create copies of information in the infobox in the body of the article.
      1.  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "BL-80 was routed over the former US 40, through West Wendover and Wendover, along Wendover Boulevard since 1926." That sentence is missing a few words, unless you're trying to imply that BL-80 existed there since 1926. Something like: "BL-80 was routed over the former US 40, which followed Wendover Boulevard through West Wendover and Wendover in 1926."
      1.  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just those few items for me, otherwise the article looks good to go for me. Imzadi 1979 → 07:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I have changed the above items. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see anything left in the artilce that's obviously in change of changing. Thus I can support promotion to A-Class at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 10 December 2010 (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/2010&oldid=448803044"