Talk:Black River National Forest Scenic Byway/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Hi,

I'll start this review soon! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

review

• I think this is a good start to the article but it needs to be filled out. Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive is a good example to follow.

• There need to be more sections and the information needs to be more comprehensive.

• For example, under "Route description" is this: "Copper Peak,[3][4] the tallest ski flying hill in the world.[5] The 18-story facility allows visitors on clear enough days to see 85 miles (137 km) in the distance to places like Minnesota, Isle Royale and Canada." This should not be in "Route description" but in a section describing details of the byway.
• Needs more of a description of the features of this byway that led to its designation as a "scenic byway" and what that designation means.
• Needs a section called something like "Points of interest" that describes the various places to see. This section could include a description of Copper Peak, Great Conglomerate Falls and the several other scenic falls (as listed in Black River (Gogebic County). Also, there are apparently various hiking trails accessible from the byway. e.g.this mentions the byway, the harbor and trails And Black River Harbor has an interesting history. Since the byway terminates here, points of interest and the history of the harbor could be included.

• Perhaps a section called "Recreational opportunities" might work where trails, sky areas and other recreation areas could be described.
• The "History" section needs expansion and clarification.

• For example, half way through the paragraph is the sentence: "The residents of the fishing village were forced to move and settled at Black River Village." But no fishing village has been previously described. A more detailed history of the area and of the byway is needed.

• Add some images - there are several available that give an idea why this byway is considered spectacular. With addition content, there would be room for some images.
• What about wildlife? Are there any species (common or rare) that visitors might be interested in?
• prose issues

• example: the "facility allows visitors on clear enough days to see 85 miles (137 km) in the distance to places like Minnesota, Isle Royale and Canada" - this is clumsy and vague. Surely there is more to the view than just the distance visitors can see.
• The whole article needs a prose copy edit. Clearer sections, and more paragraphs would help the dense blocks of prose containing unrelated information.

• These are just my ideas. I'm interested in your feedback. The article needs work but it could become good with clarification, added content and some images. Meanwhile I'll put the article on hold. I'm willing to leave the review open as long as you are willing to work on it. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding some of the suggestions:

• The route description section on a roadway article is used to describe the route the motorist would follow on that road, the sights/environment and the landmarks.
• "Points of interest" is a long deprecated section for road articles in the US. Pierce Stocking Drive is an exception because the NPS has specifically numbered points along that drive, which is a tourist attraction on its own; those PoI are listed in the tourist guide distributed to visitors of the roadway at the gate. The BRNFSB is a county road that has a byway designation, so better models for emulation would be River Road National Scenic Byway (also a NFSB) and Whitefish Bay National Forest Scenic Byway. Separating out the recreational areas may or may not be necessary.
• The history of the harbor should be covered in its own article; this is about the road, not the harbor.
• Images are not freely available. The USFS images on the FHWA website America's Byways are under copyright. (Yes, the federal government can hold the copyright to items if the works were not created by employees of the government nor by contractors as "works for hire". Transferring ownership of your photos to a government agency does not release them into the public domain unless the transferring party releases them or the agency does so afterwards. Without clarification as to why those photos are under copyright, I have to assume that they're valid.) Searches on Flickr and other photo services don't turn up photos of the roadway or photos that are appropriately licensed. I do not live in the area to take photos of my own, and photos are not a GA requirement. The photos of the waterfalls aren't appropriate because they aren't visible from the roadway.
• As for some of the other items you've suggested, this is an article about the roadway. The waterfalls, river and harbor have or should have their own articles for greater detail.
• "Comprehensive" is not a GA, but a FA, criterion. This article addresses the main aspects of its topic (the roadway) without straying afield nor pushing the boundaries of WP:NOT (specifically related to "Wikipedia is not a tour guide.") Imzadi 1979 → 18:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I just doubled checked the scanned copies of the Michigan sections of two scenic highway books I have here.

• Booth, Barbara, ed. (2005). The Most Scenic Drives in America (Revised ed.). Pleasantville, NY: Reader's Digest. pp. 210–19. ISBN 0-7621-0580-1. covers the River Road NSB/NFSB in four paragraphs and has one paragraph on the Whitefish Bay NFSB.
• National Geographic Society. Guide to Scenic Highways and Byways (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. pp. 121–5. ISBN 0-7922-7468-7. covers Whitefish Bay NFSB and Pierce Stocking Drive.

Neither book covers this NFSB nor Brockway Mountain Drive. Hunts' Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula only covers Copper Peak and the harbor, not the roadway that connects them. The Ironwood Daily Globe article doesn't provide a whole lot of information either. So that doesn't leave much more that could be added, cited to reliable sources, without turning the article into a coatrack. Imzadi 1979 → 18:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Conglomerate Falls

Flying Hill

reply

• ok, sorry. It should be "broad" in its coverage. (I actually looked around on the articles Project tags, but couldn't find much guidance.) Just trying to make the article interesting and informative. I think the things you do mention could be better described and in context, e.g. the "fishing village" mention.
• What about my prose concerns, the skiing tower description etc., the disorganization. I understand that you are a good writer of many of these articles, but the prose is subpar. Also the blocks of text make reading difficult. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:USRD/STDS is the standards page for the U.S. Roads WikiProject. The waterfalls photos aren't really appropriate for this article because the falls are not visible from the roadway... most of the Black River isn't visible from the roadway actually.
  • If you have specific prose concerns, please list them. Just saying "subpar" when I wrote the whole thing isn't going to convey to me what you want me to change, if your expectations for GA-level prose are higher than my understanding of what GA-level prose should be.
  • The fishing village is mentioned in the RD and the history; I don't have any further descriptions in my sources to expand on it.
  • The view from Copper Peak is a direct paraphrase of the source: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Isle Royale and Canada were the four locations mentioned that are visible from it on a clear day. I omitted Wisconsin as being a bit obvious from a map of the area. (Bessemer and Ironwood aren't that far from the state line after all.) Otherwise it's just a really tall tower. I can personally vouch that it's visible with the naked eye from the overlook at Lake of the Clouds at the western end of the former M-107 on a clear day, a full county over and 20–22 miles (32–35 km) away in the Porcupine Mountains, but I'm not a RS that can be quoted, and I looked for others that might back my observation to no avail.
  • The article follows the standard organization for US highway/road articles: it has the Big Three sections (RD, History, junction/exit list). Imzadi 1979 → 19:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

reply

• ok. I assume my copy edits were alright as they fixed some problems in the prose and added some obvious links.[1]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   "The residents of the fishing village were forced to move and settled at Black River Village." What fishing village? When you say "the fishing village" the implication is that the existence of the fishing village has already been explained. This is a prose/organization problem. (If your source says "the fishing village" with no other explanation, then the source is poorly written and that's not an excuse to repeat that here.)

   "The 18-story facility allows visitors on clear enough days to see 85 miles (137 km) in the distance to places like Minnesota, Isle Royale and Canada." - the use of the word "like" is not encyclopedic. Please use "such as" or "including" or some other wording.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lede is not a concise summary of the article

   e.g. lede says: "The byway provides access to several waterfalls and other visitor attractions in the area." There is plenty of info in the online sources about "other visitor attractions". However, the article body goes into detail about "the tallest ski flying hill in the world" and not does mention any others except the waterfalls. I suggest that "other visitor attractions" should be removed from the lede if the articles isn't going to follow up with additional information. Please make the lede a summary of the article.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   There seems to be a preponderance of reliance on maps and other primary sources.

   C. No original research:

   See above use of primary sources

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   Does not expand on "visitor attractions" mentioned in lede.

   B. Remains focused:

   The detail of what was originally the "18-story-tall facility" seems "off topic", according to the criteria mentioned above. The text only says the road curves away from it - i.e. sounds like the road doesn't go directly up to it, so the detail about the view from the tower does not seem relevant. If the road does, please clarify, as well as the significance to the road of the view into the several other states specifically mentioned that can be seen from the tower. The waterfalls are mentioned in the lede, while the ski tower isn't, but the tower seems to be given off topic detail in the article.

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   There are images available of the ski tower and the major waterfall.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article is placed on hold. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Replies

1. The fishing village is introduced at the end of the RD, so to say that it's not introduced earlier is false.
2. There is nothing unencyclopedic about the word "like". You may disagree, but this is GAN, not FAC, and the standards for prose are looser here.
3. Please read Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles for clarification. Maps are not primary sources, they are secondary ones. The primary source is aerial photography or raw GIS data which is used to create the map, a secondary source. Please also see a majority of Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles, Category:A-Class U.S. road transport articles, or Category:GA-Class U.S. road transport articles for hundreds of similar articles that use maps as source material.
4. Such use is not WP:OR, or those dozens of FAs and hundreds of GAs would be stuck at B-Class.
5. The objection on photos is not proper. We don't have photos of the roadway. Photos of the waterfalls are not appropriate (not visible from the roadway) and the ski hill photo, while free, and it's quite poor. The tower and cables from the ski lift obscures the top of the structure which downplays the overall size. "where possible" does not mean we have to use poor photographs.
6. The article is not "disorganized", it's just organized differently than you, or the applicable wikiproject, would do things. Either way, "organization" is a FA criterion, not one for GAs. Please stop requiring things above and beyond what the GA criteria require. Thank you, Imzadi 1979 → 03:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
7. In reviewing source materials, Black River Scenic Byway Overview covers the ski flying hill in greater detail than the waterfalls and omits other details, yet I'm vilified for similar content.
8. I have added some details on the harbor, but anything more belongs in a separate article on the harbor.
9. I added the Royal Palm Ranch mentioned by GORP, but had to use the business's website for the size of the facility.
10. The other attractions listed by the GORP source isn't actually on this roadway. Big Powderhorn Mountain Village Is on CR 511 (Powderhorn Road), which means it's not an attraction on the byway. Imzadi 1979 → 04:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

reply

• ok, since you point out that the standards for GA are quite minimal. This minimally passes.
• I do suggest that you upgrade the prose, but of course that is up to you.

• other examples of sub par or poor prose:

• "allows visitors on clear enough days" - should be "on clear days"
• "shy of the banks as it passes through the woods. The woods through which the roadway passes" - repetitious
• "The area was also host to three taverns" - "The area" refers specifically to the harbor, or too a more general "area"?

• Pass. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)