Talk:M-50 (Michigan highway)/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ankit Maity in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- Grammatical errors found such as "through mostly".
Fixed
- Grammatical errors found such as "through mostly".
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Couldn't understand why attention was diverted to "Business route" Fixed
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Replies
- The "through mostly fields" isn't ungrammatical. The land in that area the highway passes through is mostly fields. However, the sentence has been tweaked.
- As for the business route, there isn't enough content to warrant a stand-alone article, especially given that M-50 was rerouted to replace its own business route. Merging a related highway into the parent article is fairly standard practice when there is only one or two such roads to merge. For Michigan alone it has been done with:
U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, current business route
U.S. Route 12 in Michigan, current and former business routes related to US 112 (US 12 replaced US 112, former BUS US 12 routes are now BL I-94 routes)- M-17 (Michigan highway), former business route also replaced by the mainline like M-50
U.S. Route 27 in Michigan, former truck route; additional former business routes are now BL I-69 orBUS US 127 routes merged into the appropriate lists- M-32 (Michigan highway), current business route
- U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, former business route in Baraga; its other two have stand-alone articles
- M-43 (Michigan highway), former business route
- M-44 (Michigan highway), current connector route
- M-54 (Michigan highway), former business route
- M-55 (Michigan highway), former business route
- M-60 (Michigan highway), current business route and former alternate route
- M-76 (Michigan highway), former business route
- M-78 (Michigan highway), former business and truck routes
- M-125 (Michigan highway), current connector route
- Interstate 375 (Michigan), current unsigned business route
M-553 (Michigan highway), both its predecessor CR 553 and its sister highway M-554- I-69, I-75, I-94, I-96, I-196, US 10, M-21, US 23, US 24, US 31, US 127 and US 131 have separate lists for business/connector/related routes because of WP:SIZE; if size weren't an issue they would be merged into the parent articles.
- The only stand-alone articles are M-13 Connector (Michigan highway), M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee), M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan), U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) and the Capitol Loop (I-496 connector).
- In conclusion, there is ample precedent to merge a business route into its parent article unless there is enough content or historical distinction to warrant a separate article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is a grammatical error and should be changed to "mostly through". And about the business route I agree with your point.
- No, it isn't. It's the land that is mostly fields, not the "passing through"; moving the word changes the meaning. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That is a grammatical error and should be changed to "mostly through". And about the business route I agree with your point. I found some more grammatical errors in the article such as:
- "Additional changes during", where "made" should be added before "during". --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done on the second. As for the "mostly through", moving the word changes the meaning, and I can't support the change. Imzadi 1979 → 07:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, as you wish. But before I approve this request, could you just go thoroughly over the whole article and check for any more grammatical errors. And just a note, no need of any pings as I have watchlisted the article.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Bit confused at this request, as this would be Imzadi1979's 159th GA. --Rschen7754 07:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know, but he can make some mistakes.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm confused by it too... since part of the point of having someone else review the article is to find the missing comma for you that you've stared past umpteen times in working on the article. I had a friend of mine who doesn't edit on Wikipedia skim through for me, and I made his changes. Reviewers are even encouraged to make the minor changes rather than hold the article. Imzadi 1979 → 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, that is an error on my part. I will try to fix some errors.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm confused by it too... since part of the point of having someone else review the article is to find the missing comma for you that you've stared past umpteen times in working on the article. I had a friend of mine who doesn't edit on Wikipedia skim through for me, and I made his changes. Reviewers are even encouraged to make the minor changes rather than hold the article. Imzadi 1979 → 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I know, but he can make some mistakes.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Bit confused at this request, as this would be Imzadi1979's 159th GA. --Rschen7754 07:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, as you wish. But before I approve this request, could you just go thoroughly over the whole article and check for any more grammatical errors. And just a note, no need of any pings as I have watchlisted the article.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That is a grammatical error and should be changed to "mostly through". And about the business route I agree with your point. I found some more grammatical errors in the article such as:
- No, it isn't. It's the land that is mostly fields, not the "passing through"; moving the word changes the meaning. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Man, I have done a lot.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have to reverse several of your changes.
- The termini of a road are stationary; they can't "run along" another highway. To imply that M-50's western terminus runs along I-96 is false.
- We don't have "routes" in Michigan. Here, a "route" is the path a highway takes, and not the highway itself.
- You've repeated Lake Michigan in rapid succession when "that Great Lake" (Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario are well-known as the Great Lakes) served as an appropriate reference .
- You've inserted unnecessary prepositions; M-50 runs along Alden Nash Avenue, not "with" it.
- "Junction" isn't a good verb to use with highways, it's best left as a noun.
- MDOT doesn't actually maintain "all" of the state highways; the segment of I-75 that crosses the Mackinac Bridge is under the maintenance of the Mackinac Bridge Authority, ergo we can't say "all" in that sentence.
- Thank you for the review, but be careful in copy editing work because it's easy to change or distort the meaning of the writing. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You know, I am not really related to Roads, Highways and all. So, the type of copy-editing will also differ from topic to topic. Sorry, I introduced those inaccuracies. Actually, that was also another reason why I refrained from making those edits. So, if you have not discovered any more inaccuracies just inform me here.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)