Talk:M-15 (Michigan highway)/GA1

GA review

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

Reviewer: CL (T · C) — 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this is my first GA review, please tell me when I make a recommendation that is in fact against GA standards. With that said, let's take a look, shall we?

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   1a. Here are some sentences that may be a little awkward, ambiguous or repetitive:
   → "The highway is a recreational highway..." [the two instances of "highway" are a bit repetitive; "recreational highway" is a bit vague]
   → "...angling up to Vassar." ["angling" is a bit of an awkward verb]
   → "By July 1, 1960, the northern end..." [using that date is too specific in that instance; "July 1960" or even simply "1960" would work]
   → "The accident happened when her brother swerved to avoid a stopped car. The truck he was driving crossed into the path of an oncoming sport-utility vehicle." [I'd remove this sentence. It seems to get a little too detailed.]
   → "He was quoted as saying "It's a death trap." He then retorted "How many people have to die before something is done?" [combine these two sentences, so: "He was quoted as saying, "It's a death trap. How many people have to..."]
   1b. Compliant, except:
   → "By June 1942, The M-24 concurrency is removed..." [uncapitalize The, replace "is" with "was"]
   → I realize the MOS states that either 'U.S.' or 'US' may be used, but perhaps since the rest of USRD uses the former it's best to stick with that. However, that's up to you.
   → In this article, all the quotes should be preceded by a comma (He was quoted as saying, "It's a death trap."; ...quoted in the article as saying, "We do not just let them go." and a few other instances in the history section)
   → In the infobox, should it say "at Clarkston" or "in Clarkston"? (also, in my browser, the I-75 shield seems to be too far above the I-69 shield)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All the refs check out.
   Does MDOT or any other entity not post any mileage figures? I won't count this against the review, since if a RS for mileage can't be found there's no other option

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad, but not too broad. Exactly what it should be

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The 1910s-era picture is great! Wonderful add for the article.
   I don't think the map is compliant with MTR standards. Perhaps you should file a request for an updated one.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Another great article. Fix the stuff above and you're set. Congrats! CL (T · C) — 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

   P.S. Thanks for the SR-201 review. I thought I'd have to wait until at least April for someone to take a look.

Replies

1a. Reworded, but it is a Recreational Heritage Route as part of the Michigan Heritage Route System, so I'll leave the word "recreational" in there.

Changed.

Yes, but the 1960 map specifically states on it that all changes through that date are incorporated on the map, meaning I can state to the exact date it was completed by. Other MDOT maps aren't so precise, rounding to the month of publication.

I have to be careful not to remove too much though. I've nominated the article at DYK, and it's going to be close if they accept the expansion as it is now. (We can always revisit this later after the DYK nomination is approved or denied.

I combined them another way, since we don't know if he said those two things consecutively. They're separate quotes in the source article, so I wouldn't want to combine them and lead to any misunderstandings.

1b. Fixed.

I'd prefer to keep US as it then is more consistent with the US ## abbreviation scheme.

I missed those missing commas when proofreading what someone else added, but they are there now.

As for the infobox, the US 24 junction is south of the City of the Village of Clarkston. (Weird name, but that's what they called it.) The I-75 junction is on the northern edge, but inside the municipality. That means both the "near" and the "at" are correct. I'm also getting that same issue, but there's nothing to fix.

2. The Control Section Atlas gives control section terminii that don't correspond with the highway junctions. Since I don't know how to use GIS to determine lengths, the best I can currently do is the total length, for now. Most other trunklines though have control sections that correspond to junctions.

6. I'm glad you liked that photo. Stratosphere created all of the trunkline maps before MTF was formed.

Let me know if these changes are satisfactory. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is now GA-compliant. Pass - CL (T · C) — 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)