Talk:Ford–Lodge interchange

Redirected

In short, I'm not sure this deserves a separate article at the present. Most of the text in the history was not cited, and when that was pared away, we're left with a basic description and the statement that this interchange was the first freeway-to-freeway interchange in the country. While that claim should make this notable, we need more than that for an article. The statement is sufficiently covered in both the I-94 and M-10 articles.

My other qualm is with the title. I don't find many sources giving this interchange a name. I'm not sure that we should either. The content of the article still exists in the article history, and anyone interested could create Draft:Ford–Lodge interchange and use that to improve the text. Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to rewrite it and resubmit. I'm not sure how densely populated with footnotes you require the text to be, but I'm sure I can cite things more frequently. I still have my original draft of the article. It also sounds as though I'll have to cite local Detroit sources that refer to it as the "Ford-Lodge Interchange." I can do that. Going along with the interchange's "first" status is the line of thought that engineers put into what was, at the time, an unsolved problem: now to move traffic seamlessly from one freeway to another. I referred to that process, and cited the source, in the article that just got torpedoed. I'll resubmit as soon as I can find the time to work on it. dr-t 00:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)dr-t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-t (talk • contribs)

The Good Article Criteria have a good summary of what policy requires to be cited, and what does not need citation. As one example, every direct quotation must have a citation every time, per policy, typically immediately following the sentence containing the quotation. Quotations would need to be cited, even if in the lead, while other items in the lead would not need a footnote if they repeat or summarize cited information from the body of the article.

A good rule of thumb is that every body paragraph should have some citation at the end that applies to all of the content therein, or at least all of the content after the last footnote within the paragraph. Everything in the lead should be a summary of the content in the body, so skip citations there generally.

As for the existence of a separate article on a subject like an individual interchange, the golden rule is WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline. To have an article, we must have "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". A single webpage by MDOT fails the "independent of the subject" part, although it has the "significant coverage" part covered because the article is about the subject and not just a passing mention. The FHWA source is just a passing mention, so that's not really "significant" either. For an interchange, I'd expect to see multiple citations to a variety of sources from third-party sources, like newspapers. Yes, we'd need DOT sources for basic details not repeated in those other places, but news sources need to be present to demonstrate notability. "Significant coverage" should also be enduring; if the interchange was only covered by the media at the time it was opened and shortly thereafter, it would lack notability.

The question of the engineering isn't unique to just this one interchange, but rather shared by others of the same type, so that content may be better off in an article on the interchange design. We have articles like cloverleaf interchange or single-point urban interchange for that reason.

if an interchange hasn't been named, I tend not to think of it as significant enough for a separate article. Memorial names applied by the government that fail to be repeated fail this "test" of mine. Legislators love to name things after people, but if the public doesn't use the name, it's meaningless. If the press named it in 1955 and then the name was dropped from popular usage, then similarly, it's not a meaningful aspect of the structure. If people just call it "that interchange between I-94 and M-10" or "that interchange between I-94 and the Lodge", or something similar now, then you can't say it really still has a name in common usage.

As for the format of the title, our Manual of Style (MOS) has a section on dash usage (MOS:DASH) that says we'd use an en dash in the title as an interchange is the connection between two separate roads, so "Ford–Lodge", even if other sources use/used a hyphen (sometimes out of technical limitations or differing house styles).

In short: we need to supply enough citations to cover the basics (quotes, statistics, extraordinary claims, information that is counterintuitive or liable to challenge), preferring at least one footnote per body paragraph at a minimum, a variety of sources that satisfy GNG to demonstrate notability, and a variety of sources that demonstrate the usage of a name. I seriously suggest that you work on the content at Draft:Ford–Lodge interchange for the time being before taking the article to the main page. I'll move the pre-redirect content there in a moment. Imzadi 1979 → 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the current name is irrelevent. This is a historic traffic device. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Naming notwithstanding, the article has sufficient material and seems notable enough to stand on its own. Quality of sources is not in itself sufficient grounds to unilaterally delete the article and convert it to a redirect. Looking at the history of the article, Imzadi has repeatedly removed this content against consensus of other editors. If you think it should not stand then you should take it to WP:AFD. I have restored the article and that's how it should remain. Pinging Imzadi1979 Wbm1058 Anthony Appleyard Legacypac who have been involved in this issue. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ref

"Urge Skyway Road at Lodgeway's End" – May be of good use here. It can replace ref 3 and mentions that the interchange partially opened January 18, 1955, and that it was scheduled to be complete by October. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)