Talk:M-34 (Michigan highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 1

Lead

Before reading article

• "M-34 was designated and signed" - I'm not familiar with the term "signed" in this context. Is it possible to replace it with a less jargon-y term? If not, then can it be wikilinked (or defined)?
  • Signed, as in the signs were erected along the road; in other variations of English you might hear "signposted" .Imzadi 1979 →

After reading article

Nothing to report.

Route description

• "The highway turns to the southeast south of Osseo" - My apologies for the nikpickiness, but do you mean in a southeast-south direction from Osseo, or that, just to the south of Osseo, the highway turns southeast?
• "There are a couple of residential subdivisions" - Again with the nitpickiness, but would "several" be a better replacement for "a couple"?
• "The trunkline continues east to terminate at the intersection" - Sounds a little strange to me. Would "continues east and terminates" be a better fit?
  • The latter, but see if the tweak fixed that appropriately. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Trying a different wording there. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 →

History

• "between M-34 and US 223 was abandoned and obliterated." - Obliterated sounds a bit drastic. Is this the normal terminology?
• "which is internally known as Connector 34" - What does "internally known" mean?
  • Yes, the roadway surface was removed and the former road surface was "obliterated"; this is fairly standard terminology. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →

Criterion 2

It looks to me that the article meets all three sections. All information is cited (I am assuming good faith regarding the offline sources, but I have checked the online ones) and the references are set aside in their own section; potentially dubious information has been cited directly; and I see no clear signs of original synthesis (most of what you are doing is interpreting maps).

Criterion 3

Referencing other GAs you've nominated (and seen through passing), this covers all of the bases. The content of the article is well-focused.

Criterion 4

The article is written in a neutral tone, and no real undue weight is given to any one viewpoint (partially due to how there really isn't any competing viewpoints regarding the highway).

Criterion 5

You're the only one who has really edited this article in recent days, so you are all fine here.

Criterion 6

The three large images meet the requirements set forth in WIAGA. I couldn't check the tiny pictures in the Major Intersections section, but because they appear to be off of the Commons, I'll assume good faith--to my understanding, images on the Commons are either in the public domain or are freely licensed.

Overall comments

Nice work on another one of these, Imzadi. Other than my small nitpicks in diction and the like, this article is ready to go!

On an unrelated note, I thought it might be interesting to see how extensive your impact has been to articles on Michigan highways. In checking, you've helped raise at least half of all Michigan highway articles to GA or above, which is truly astounding. Keep up the good work. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a few edits as noted above. Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All set. I'll pass it in a second. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)