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.
Nominator's comments: It's been a while since I've been to ACR with my own article, so here goes. A few things I want to mention first.
I am acutely aware of the lack of pictures. I will work on this while the ACR is open.
I have been asked in private to make markers for the auto trails.
There has been a push to get US 6's historical route signed. So far it's been one guy making the push and only in eastern Iowa, so it hasn't had a lot of coverage outside his website (SPS problems). It should still be mentioned.
Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 02:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 02:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article after Dough4872 -- Nbound (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I got bored... Too bad Dough :P
Lead
It is signed in places as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway - Where? or is it just intermittantly? The main US 6 article gives the impression that this name covers all of US6, if so it should be mentioned as such, and then noted the signage is intermittant.
Iowa is a little funny with how and where GAotRH is signed. The signs are indeed intermittent, not every US 6 signs has an accompanying GAotRH sign, but some do. It is mainly signed along the parts of US 6 that do not overlap I-80, but it is also signed on the former sections of US 6 that are now county roads. Weird, huh? –Fredddie™ 04:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the signage along former US 6 is remnant, it should probably be ignored. Better yet, if the situation is complex -rather than say what it is "signed" as, mention that it is "declared" or "<insert term>" as GAotRH instead-- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little more digging on this reread the part I wrote about it, and where the GAotRH is signed today is where US 6 was located in 1947. Hope that explains it a little more. –Fredddie™ 05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a result, the least-traveled sections of the route were moved onto I-80. -- As a result, the least travelled sections were decommissioned and parts of the original route where moved onto parallel sections of I-80
I don't like the word decommissioned, but I get what you're saying. –Fredddie™
Ill leave this one upto you. Ill consider it Done in any case -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does that sound now? –Fredddie™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RD
When describing the physical construction of the highway is it single or dual carriageway?
In the mini-lead, it mentions that it's mostly a 2-lane road. Is that not enough? –Fredddie™
The four lane sections were what I was mainly refering to :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it –Fredddie™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The route parallels I-80 for most of its length; however nearly one-third of the route overlaps the Interstate Highway - its mot going to be immediately obvious to international readers that I-80 is an interstate highway
Isn't that the purpose of the I-80 article? –Fredddie™
Possibly, but if so, then we probably dont need a separate link/mention for Interstate Highway. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the link –Fredddie™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US 6 crosses the Missouri River via the Grenville Dodge Memorial Bridge into Council Bluffs, Iowa with I-480 --> ... as part of a duplex (or insert term of choice here) with I-480
Mentions of CR routes, or perhaps just the first mention, should link to the appropriate article concerning county routes, international readers have no idea what CR stands for
Oops. That was an artifact from copying over some text from the I-80 article. –Fredddie™
There actually no articles about Iowa's county roads, just a section on the primary highway system article. Given that, I don't think a link to county highway would be appropriate here since it doesn't really mention Iowa in depth. This doesn't mean I disagree with you, though. –Fredddie™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one-half mile (0.80 km) -- convert to 800m instead. (similar with other sub 1km conversions)
Some information on the type of landscape would be good. I dont know what Iowa looks like :)
Would a paragraph in the mini-lead supported by pictures in the body work for you? –Fredddie™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History
It would be great to get a shield, signage, or other marker for the early routes (all appear to be pre-23 so hopefully no major copyright issues) [just noticed that this was mentioned by the nom, consider this a public request then]
This should be safe to consider a pre-FAC goal. -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The primary highway system should be linked from the first instance in the Great White Way subsection
Might have to use better terminology than "overlaps" (and similar), such as duplex or concurrency
I disagree here. I think two routes "overlapping" is an easier concept to grasp than two routes "being concurrent". Plus, a road "duplex" is a neologism. –Fredddie™
Sounds fair enough, Id personally prefer concurrency to "overlaps" but your usage is consistent. Done
Information to do with previous versions of the US6 shield (if applicable) would be interesting
That would do nicely, though you could alternatively link to another generalised article that shows example or template versions rather than re-do for each road - your choice :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Managed to do both, though I'm not entirely sold on it here. –Fredddie™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to dig up some more history by trawling some newspaper archives (just a suggestion)
Suggestion only Done -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part the article is quite interesting and informative -- Nbound (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realised I had forgottent about this recently, Ill try and reply/pass/whatever in the next day or so :) -- Nbound (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most things are fine or reasoning explained - Await updates on remainder -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've replied or asked enough questions to address everything. –Fredddie™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That mini-lead with pics would be good prior to any FAC attempt -- Nbound (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will review the article. Dough4872 02:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Is there a reason the mileage in the lead is rounded to the nearest whole number and not to three decimal places like it is in the infobox?
We've been criticized at FAC for being too precise in our route descriptions. This is me addressing that. –Fredddie™
"From there, it travels east through Oakland and Atlantic, Iowa.", is it really necessary to mention that Atlantic is in Iowa. The title of the article should imply that it is in Iowa.
Must have been from when I delinked a bunch of stuff with AWB. You could have done this, btw. –Fredddie™
Toward the end of the second paragraph of the lead, you continuously refer to US 6 as "it". Can some varied wording be added here?
Again, seeing a lot of use of "it". I would go through the whole article and try to make sure the wording referring to US 6 is as varied as possible.
Hey look over here! How about now? –Fredddie™ 04:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The three routes run together for four miles (6.4 km), when US 6 / US 71 split away from Iowa 83 and continue north to I-80. At I-80, US 6 splits away from US 71 and joins I-80.", you use "split(s) away" in two consecutive sentences. One of the instances should be changed.
"It turns off of Iowa 14 and enters the western side of Newton, passing through its downtown area and the Jasper County courthouse.", does US 6 actually pass through the courthouse? I would use better wording here.
"On November 11, 1926, members of the American Association of State Highway Officials approved the plan to create a system of interstate highways across the country.", don't you mean U.S. highways? I would change the wording to avoid confusion with the Interstate Highway System that was created in 1956.
It's not wrong. When the US Highway System was created, they were called interstate highways (note the common noun form). –Fredddie™
You could perhaps provide a little more context on where US 6 was extended from to from in 1931.
"The abandoned section became an extended Iowa 83 and an Adair County road.", what was the name or number of this county road? Dough4872 03:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do this myself, but it's easily visible in the lead, so I thought I'd check first: I'm not sure a comma is the correct punctuation mark after mentioning the two auto trails. I think a semicolon or just a full stop would fit better.
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the RD mini-lead. It says the route is two lanes away from I-80, but then that the portion between Adel and Waukee is four lanes. It's unclear that that portion is away from I-80 as well.
Not sure if you're missing the "while" in there, but that sentence reads differently if you don't see the "while". I did add in a "however" to show a continuation of the thought. –Fredddie™
US 6 rejoins I-80 for the second time and the interstate returns to its four-lane configuration. – Forgive me if I missed something here, but it isn't clear that I-80 ever deviated from its four-lane configuration.
In Eastern Iowa, the article seems to imply that US 6 rejoins I-80 as it's approaching the Quad Cities, but that isn't really clear.
You'll have to be a little more specific. I don't see anything like that. –Fredddie™
In the last sentence of the first paragrah, US 6 and Iowa 38 are heading toward I-80, and in the first sentence of the second paragraph, US 6 and I-80 are running toward the Quad Cities, though it isn't mentioned that US 6 ever rejoined I-80. TCN7JM 06:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. –Fredddie™ 15:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need a source for US 61 Business being US 61 prior to 2010.
Map has no caption. Done --Rschen7754 03:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are done. –Fredddie™ 04:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
I can pick up the spotcheck whenever the time comes. --Rschen7754 10:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since this has been inactive for over 1 month, with outstanding replies, this discussion has been suspended. It will be automatically failed 6 months from this posting if there are no attempts to resolve the issues in that time. --Rschen7754 03:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: were you still planning on adding material to this article? --Rschen7754 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to, but I would like to see more news coverage first. Right now, what's out there makes it seem like it's one guy going from city to city and asking to put up the signs. I don't think would be quite enough for a whole paragraph just yet. –Fredddie™ 23:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note that I don't have any immediate plans here for FAC. –Fredddie™ 04:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source 5: Map, good on V.
Source 8: Good on V and CP.
Source 11: Need another map from 2010 to verify. Done
Better, but it doesn't quite match "prior to 2010". --Rschen7754 23:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, found the AASHTO application and approval instead. –Fredddie™
Source 18: Good on V and CP.
Source 20: Good on V and CP.
Source 21: Good on V and CP, factoring in source 22.
Source 25: Good on V and CP.
Source 34: Need another map to verify.
Source 39: File not found.
Source 41: Need another map to verify. --Rschen7754 23:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rest should be fixed. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Iowa 925 and 927 coming from? --Rschen7754 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it was on the 1991 map, not 1990. –Fredddie™ 04:13, 27 December 2013 (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.
_map.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
