Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2008

Connecticut Route 190

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class (open 7 days with 5 supports/4 net supports) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

M-28 (Michigan highway)

M-28 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I think this should go through ACR before FAC

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I see no issues. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support and Comment. I am the GA reviewer. It looks good to me, and looked that way after my comments regarding GAN, but note that FA is not likely to treat michiganhighways.org as a good enough source. —Rob (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm slowing going through and replacing those sources with other references. After the ACR, the plan is to FOIA whatever I can't replace otherwise. It's a slow process I plan to complete before FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've peer reviewed this article with the nominator twice. This article deserves A, probably USRD's 5th FA. Anyway, I have no probs.^Mitch32^contribs 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Skimming the first paragraph of this article is not giving me a good impression. There are more problems, though.
  • What I had just said. Summarise more.

I think I expanded the lead appropriately, but I welcome further suggestions.  Done?

• • MDOT has highlighted five historic bridges along the route of M-28. In Interior Township, Ontonagon County. Done
  • Does the image of the bar along M-28 add much context?

Bars are a big part of the culture in the UP of Michigan, and since M-28 is in the UP of MI, it has a lot of them along its route.

Commented out until a final decision on placement or complete removal is made.  Done

• • Formed 1939 or 1948 sounds unsure. Done commented out for now.
  • The entire highway is listed on the National Highway System, and three sections are part of the Lake Superior Circle Tour.—"three sections" is referring to the NHS here. Done
  • The "Marquette Bypass" portion of M-28 is a four-lane expressway. while other segments are four lanes in Marquette County.—Wikipedia isn't a system of telegrams. Also same problem as above, though "other segments" refers to "four-lane expressway". Done
  • Running north, M-28 passes Sunday Lake heading out of town. In southwestern Ontonagon County, the highway skirts the northern shore of Lake Gogebic, running concurrently with M-64. The highway contains its first portion along the Lake Superior Circle Tour from the western terminus until the eastern junction with M-64 in Bergland.—yet again. Done
  • M-28 picks up the Circle Tour designation again for a second time.—redundancy Done
  • The Seney National Wildlife Refuge is a managed wetland in Schoolcraft County in Michigan. Established in 1935[10], it has an area of 95,212 acres (385 km²).—Two problems, one of which is recurring. The ref needs to be placed after the punctuation mark. Done and second citation added for area.
  • …across the Great Manistique Swamp. It was constructed parallel to the line of the Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic Railway (later the Soo Line Railroad) over the swamp.—the swamp was constructed parallel to the railway??? Done
  • And many more problems. Please give this article a set of fresh eyes to do copyedits, as I am predicting many more grammatical errors like the ones I've spotted. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 02:06, 19 March 2008 (GMT)  Done?
• Support After going through this article and getting the nominator to correct references and MOS erros im happy for this article to be given A-class. Seddon69 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support After asking the nominator to fix a few things, this article is now well-deserving of A-class. A very good article. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why are the refs stripped from the lead? I see material there that is likely to be challenged. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

What in the lead is complex, current or controversial? All facts stated in the lead are repeated and expanded later in the article where the specifics are cited. Under WP:LEAD using citations in the lead is therefore redundant and unnecessary. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Try again, buddy. I can challenge anything that has to do with history, at the very least. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

• The Circle Tour departs M-28 to follow M-123 at Newberry, looping north to the Tahquamenon Falls State Park, containing Tahquamenon Falls and Paradise.—Newberry loops north to the park? And the park contains Tahquamenon Falls and Paradise? Seriously, get a fresh copyeditor on this article; there are still way too many grammatical problems. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

That sentence looks grammatically correct to me. This article is only up for A-Class, not Feature Article. Even so, at this time should the ACR be closed at the 7-day mark in twelve or so hours, it currently enjoys the necessary level of support to be passed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A-class means the article has to be very close to FA. This isn't close to FA. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (GMT)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chickasaw Turnpike (5 net support votes)

The following is an archived roads review. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the review was promote to A-Class. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 37 (4 net support votes)

Interstate 37 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Just recently passed GA and all issues from that review have been addressed.

Nominated by: Holderca1 ^talk 13:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Overall very well done. I only have a few nit-pic items that I'm suggesting.

• History: The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were hard for me to follow. The bulk of these sentences are stating, the freeway was extended to street X, then later extended to street Y. Without a map or familiarity with the area this is tough to visualize. Although this information is in the ELG, perhaps some more info to give context. Suggestions: The freeway was extended 1 mile to street X, the freeway was extended from the northern extents of Corpus Cristi to downtown at street Y, or one final extension to the southern suburbs at street Z. Something like that?
• Route description: Suggest: As I-37 enters the San Antonio city limits, it intersects the northern terminus of US 181. (eliminate the redundant words) Similarly "designated the Lucian Adams Freeway, after the World War II veteran".

Other than that looks good. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not familiar with the area either, but I will see what I can do to clarify things. I took care of the the second bullet. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reworked the second paragraph, let me know if that helps and I will rework the rest of the section. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does help. I'd try to avoid using a milage figure for every extension if you can think of another way to describe it, but even with just the milage it adds context (short extensions, not massive extensions, etc.)Davemeistermoab (talk)

I can't think of another way to describe other than by mileage or cross street. The section I edited is entirely within the Corpus Christi city limits and those have most likely changed from when the freeway was built anyway. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case I'd say continue on with adding the milage's. If that's all the information you have so be it. The only other thing I can think of is if somebody has an archive of historical maps to the area.Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Changing vote to support. My concerns have been addressed.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Seriously. At first glance, I thought the route description section was being under-referenced, but then I realized that entire paragraphs were being properly referenced to a single source. The only issue I can see is actually with a template, not the article (hence it's not affecting my support) – the phrase "Almost-freeway" has got to go from {{San Antonio freeways}}. -- Kéiryn ^talk 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  The template has been fixed. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• • Prior to I-37, the route was served by a combination of State Highway 9 (SH 9) from Corpus Christi to Three Rivers and U.S. Route 281 (US 281) from Three Rivers to San Antonio. - "Route" could mean a few different things - please clarify.
  • Maybe link State Highway System?
  • 1 - Prior to Interstate 37, the routing for which it would follow was covered by SH 9 from Corpus Christi to Three Rivers and US 281 from Three Rivers to San Antonio. - what is "it"?
  • 2 - Three sentences in a row begin with I-37.
  • 2nd par - 2nd sentence - what is "it"?
  • US 77 merges with I-37 as a freeway from the south, the two continue to the north and split after crossing the Nueces River. I-37 continues to the northwest as US 77 continues to the northeast.[4] - run-on
  • May want to put the designation stuff in a separate paragraph.
  • Other than that, no issues - good work! --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

    I think I fixed them all. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Issues have been resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads review. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the review was promote to A-Class. 4 support votes (Kéiryn, Holderca1, Davemeistermoab, Rschen7754), minus 0 oppose votes (none), equals 4 net support votes for promotion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 12 in Washington (4 net support votes)

U.S. Route 12 in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Well-written article IMHO by myself and NE2, fully referenced, and recently featured on Did you know? I've also put it on WP:GAN at the same time. Any and all suggestions welcome, and I'd particularly appreciate any help on perhaps expanding the lead.

Nominated by: Kéiryn ^talk 15:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Holderca1 ^talk 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - There are some glaring issues that I have addressed below.

• The article needs pictures, it currently doesn't have any. The highway passes by some pretty dramatic scenery, it should be depicted in the article.

Agreed, although that's not a problem I personally can solve, possessing neither a car nor a digital camera, and I can't think of any other USRD Wikipedians in Washington.

Actually I have some (although admittedly low-res); I can look if you want. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article seems to jump back and forth between spelling things out, then abbreviating. The route description alone bounces back from U.S. Route 12 to US 12 back to U.S. Route 12 and so forth. The same applies to the other highways, such as I-5 followed a bit later on by Interstate 82 spelled out. The best way to address this would be to spell out the first instance and follow it by the abbreviation in parathesis, for example: U.S. Route 101 (US 101) or Interstate 5 (I-5). Then you can use the abbreviation for the rest of the article.
• There are some referencing issues in the route description. Just looking at the first paragraph, I see that the first sentence is from reference 2, but the rest of that paragraph isn't referenced, where did it come from? There are several instances of this.

I see your point with the first paragraph, and the last which has none. But to what extent should the RD be referenced? Does every sentence need a reference of a different grid of the same map?  Done -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The exit list has several issues:
  • The "West end of freeway" rows should only span the last two columns. That way if the freeway begins/ends within city limits, that can be specified and the mile marker that the freeway begins can be mentioned.
  • What is with the "See I-XX" rows? As a reader, I don't want to go to another article to get the rest of the US 12 exit list. The concurrent segments should be copied over from the other pages.
  • Why does White Pass span 2 columns?

I'll be happy to take care of the first two. White Pass spans two columns because US 12 goes over White Pass (i.e. it's not an intersecting road or destination).  Done -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The references have some issues as well:
  • All references that are from the web need an access date.
  • I am confused by the references that start out "An act providing for..." What are these? Where are they from? I can't tell by looking at it.

Re: the first point, I thought they all did, but I do see a couple that are missing them, I'll get on that ASAP. Re: the second point, they're from the "Session Laws of the State of Washington" from the year and chapter listed. I'll fix that to clarify.  Done -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken a detailed look at the prose yet, the above issued just jumped out at me. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, pictures, very nice indeed, I think all the issues I had have been resolved, but I noticed one more thing as I looked back through it, the very last sentence isn't referenced. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done I was going to reference it, but then I realized that the sentence wasn't particularly relevant so I removed it. The article doesn't make any previous mention of the former SR 12 along the Columbia River, and it's not spectacularly important what happened to the SR 14 designation after it was removed from this roadway. If you disagree, I'll be happy to add it back with a reference. -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - All my issues have been resolved. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 03:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• There's 9 major junctions in the infobox, which is a bit too many. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty sure the limit we agreed to was 10? -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we said 8-10 was the max. I wouldn't oppose over this, but if there's an easy junction to remove, it's probably a good idea - just because we can use 10 doesn't mean that we necessarily should. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. I originally left of SR 123, but when NE2 changed SR 410 to read "near Mount Rainier" saying it was a better location – well, it's not, cuz it's 50 miles away from that junction. So I added in SR 123 so the Mt. Rainier would be included. US 730 could feasibly be removed, the only reason it's included is because it's a US highway, but a pretty useless one IMHO. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The standard I have always used is to include all highways of equal designation or higher and add in any freeways that don't meet that criteria. So for this article, I would include all Interstate and US Highways as well as any other freeways. If that inclusion criteria brings the junctions over 10, I start paring down from junctions with equal designation that just aren't that major of highways. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to include all the interchanges on the I-5, I-82, and I-182 overlaps. --NE2 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  If you could elaborate as to why you don't think it makes sense to include them, it would be helpful. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  Since they're already on the other lists, it's rather redundant, especially given how long the overlaps are. --NE2 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  Although it may seem redundant to us, someone reading this article will not want to go to 3 other articles to complete this article. From the fifth bullet of Wikipedia:The perfect article, "A perfect Wikipedia article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." --Holderca1 ^talk 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  But does someone reading about US 12 really want all the exits on the Interstate overlaps? --NE2 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  I don't know why they wouldn't, it is just as much US 12 as it is I-5 or I-82. For an example of not including them, the reader wouldn't know that US 12 goes through Grandview. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  That could be mentioned in the route description. Right now, the article doesn't say anything about it passing through Dayton, because there are no major intersections there. --NE2 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  The entire exit list could be mentioned in the route description, I just don't understand why we would want to make the article less comprehensive. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  It's not making the article less comprehensive; it's covering the information where it makes the most sense. --NE2 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  Well, anyways, I won't support the promotion of any article that doesn't cover all aspects of the route. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  (indent reset) I see the argument that it makes more sense to cover them in the interstate articles – but not covering them in this article by definition makes it less comprehensive. I'd be willing to work out a compromise where even though it's a freeway section, we continue to list only the state highway junctions instead of a full exit list. I realize it would be against current project standards, but we've made exceptions to standards in the past (i.e. the prose exit list on Kansas Turnpike). Either way, I think it's important for a reader to not have to bounce around between four different articles to get all the information. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few photos:

• tree removal
• bridge in Aberdeen
• old bridge near Clarkston

--NE2 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dave (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It then passes through White Pass at an elevation of 4,500 feet (1,400 m). As the first place in the article with the units of feet and meters, use the |lk=on here.
• This article uses a lot of parentheses, more than any other article I've reviewed. I'm not in a position to state if this is appropriate or not, and would not vote oppose solely on this. However, you may want to have an english major look over it.
• Are the exits numbered on the freeway portions not multiplexes with intestates? I would infer no by the Exit List Guide. If they are a column should be added.
• I second the comment above: this needs some pictures. My own opinion is to try to get a pic of the Lewis-Clarkston bridge. If its important enough to mention in the ELG it should have a picture.
• I second the comment above: the article goes back and forth between U.S. Route 12 and US 12. Your nomination is in the same position as mine about the inconsistency of the infobox (US 12 verses US-12) so I won't hold you to that one.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions, and I'll implement them as soon as I get off wikibreak in a few hours. I'm having a little trouble following a couple of them though. As far as I can tell, I can't see anything in ELG about when it's required to use a column for the exit number. If anything, I would use the opposite logic you're implying here – since the exits are only numbered along concurrencies, we shouldn't have a mostly-empty column for the exit number. That being said, on a second glance at the article, quite a few of the junctions are numbered, so the column wouldn't be that empty, so I don't have much of a problem adding it. Saves wordiness in the notes column at any rate.

Regarding the last one, it's a moot point since I am going to go over the prose with a fine toothed comb to make the abbreviation usage consistent and to weed out unnecessary parentheses, but as far as I can tell, the issue here and with the Utah article are slightly different. Here, the question is when is an abbreviation is used? – but when it's used, it's always US 12 (except maybe the Idaho line in the infobox, which I can fix by bypassing the template). There the question is which abbreviation is used (US 50 vs. U.S. 50 vs. US-50). But again moot point, and either way I'll get around to fixing it shortly. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Idaho line is "US-12" because that's how the Idaho DOT writes it. --NE2 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the first time I read Dave's comments, I couldn't quite understand what he was talking about, but now I do. Since we're talking about two different DOTs, there's no harm in keeping a rogue "US-12". (However, since in the I-70 article, we're only talking about one DOT, then the prose probably should have been changed to US-50 instead of US 50 because that would solve the inconsistency problem.) -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the above concerns – except for the lack of pictures – should be corrected now. -- Kéiryn ^talk 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC) OK let round 2 begin:=-)

• Lead: The lead jumps back and forth between the Washington portion of US 12 and the national portion. I would change the following to be clear: "although portions of it are concurrent" -> although portions of US 12 in Washington are concurrent...
• Lead: Maybe add a sentence or two to better summarize the history section. IMO it's inadequately represented.
• Route description: "US 12 exits itself" should be re-worded, that's confusing to non-roadgeeks.
• "The former secondary State Road 5 was realigned to head not east but north from near Packwood, alongside the Ohanapecosh River to the old McClellan Pass Highway at Cayuse Pass, west of the summit of the Cascades." IMO this sentence needs some work, maybe "The former secondary State Road 5 was realigned starting near Packwood following the Ohanapecosh River to the old McClellan Pass Highway at Cayuse Pass."
• "now included four entrances to the vicinity of Mount Rainier National Park," Shouldn't that be in the vicinity?
• "but was not yet drivable across the Cascades at Chinook Pass" this sounds rough to me, perhaps "but the route across Chinook Pass was not yet finished"?

More to come. Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that's my observations. I still think it needs photos, I hope you can find some. I noticed some of the sub articles have pictures (Chinook pass, etc.) maybe those can work.Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a change of heart regarding the photos... I should be able to get some between Aberdeen and Yakima this Saturday, and some of the Clarkston/Lewiston area the following Saturday. Sniffing around other articles is a brilliant idea as well. I should get around to fixing your prose suggestions either today or tomorrow. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Dave's round two concerns above should be addressed. -- Kéiryn ^talk 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) PHOTOS!!! :-D So ummm.... what else can I do ya for? -- Kéiryn ^talk 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very close. I only have one concern. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article.

• Unlike several other U.S. Highways in the Western United States (notably US 99 and US 66), U.S. Route 12 remained after the Interstate Highway System was established, although portions of it in Washington are concurrent with Interstate 5 (I-5) and Interstate 82.

This statement appears to be original material. I don't see anywhere else where the the article there the decommissioning of US routes due to the formation of interstate highways is discussed. It's also misleading, as per the history section US 12 in WA wasn't fully established until 1967, after the Interstate Highway system was established.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right, that's just something I threw in to pad the lead. Consider it stricken. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this work? The part about it not paralleling interstate highways is easily citable using a map, although it's not currently explicitly stated in the route description section. I suppose I could expand the r.d. a bit to make it so. Hmmm... -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

all of my concerns resolved. However, I second the grammar concerns Rschen has noticed. Fix those, and I'm happy. Dave (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support- All my issues addressed. I still think the article is light on photos. However, I recognize you've done what you could. I encourage you to add one or two more as good quality pics become available.Dave (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple more I could feasibly add, but I think the 4 + 1 historical map currently on the article are sufficient. If I try to shoehorn any more in, it might affect the layout for me – although I tend to view Wikipedia in large windows at high resolution, so the text takes up significantly less room for me than it might for other editors. -- Kéiryn ^talk 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support All issues resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Starting with RD
  • U.S. Route 12 begins in Aberdeen on a pair of one-way streets; Heron Street eastbound and Wishkah Street westbound.[2] - just use a comma
  • US 12 then leaves Aberdeen to the east, paralleling the Chehalis River, mostly on a four-lane divided highway, passing through the towns of Central Park and Montesano.[3] - could improve on that sentence's structure
  • It passes through the town of Mossyrock, intersecting SR 122, then passes by Mossyrock Dam and Riffe Lake. - try to use a different verb the second time around.
  • In the town of Morton, it intersects SR 7 comma which heads north to Tacoma.[8]
  • It then ascends the Cascade Range, passing south of Mount Rainier, and intersects SR 123comma which serves the Stevens Canyon entrance of Mount Rainier National Park.[9]
  • It then... It then... change one of those
  • Descending from the mountains,
  • US 12 then runs concurrent - is it "concurrently" or "concurrent"? Not sure on this one.

    It should be concurrently. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the portion east of the Tri-Cities gets glossed over - having driven on part of this road, there is stuff to write about...
  • More later once the RD concerns have been addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the route description slightly, and hopefully addressed all of the above except...

• Descend can be used as a transitive verb, so this is correct. Ascend is also properly used in its transitive sense in the previous paragraph.
• I'll get to the "east of the Tri-Cities" section tomorrow. :-P

-- Kéiryn ^talk 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. 1,000 apologies for the delay. -- Kéiryn ^talk 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• History - First paragraph - hard to tell how this is connected with US-12. I mean, it leaves the reader to guess.
• This differed from present US 12 between Elma and Naches, in that it followed the route through Olympia and Tacoma rather than along the Cowlitz River. - no comma
• Washington introduced a new system of sign route numbers in 1964 - may want to link to renumbering article if it's not done so already.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This diff shows the changes I made. Does the bit I added to the first paragraph allay your concerns? Or does it need more? -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be good. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note This article has 4 net support votes, but there is an apparent objection, so it is uncertain if this can be closed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result of the discussion was promote to A-class.

Interstate 15 in Arizona

Interstate 15 in Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: It was promoted to GA awhile back and I have expanded a bit more and did some polishing.

Nominated by: Holderca1 ^talk 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• 1 - The highway has been signed and designated the Veterans Memorial Highway[2]comma a designation which continues into Utah.[3]
• Rest area closure may need a citation.
• I was going to finish reviewing but then some distressing stuff happened. I'll return to this later. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed the comma and you are probably right about the rest area, I will try to dig through the edit history to see when that was added to figure out where it came from. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, I couldn't find a ref for when it was closed, but I did find one for when it was turned over to the BLM in 2002. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Final concern - there are non-existent notes cells in the exit list. Should those be remedied? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    Fixed. --Holderca1 ^talk 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues mentioned below have been resolved to my satisfaction. Dave (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This site [6] has some interesting history tidbits about I-15 in AZ that are not covered in the history section of this article. For example, assuming they are correct, AZ stopped construction of I-15 in protest when federal funds were cut. They had to be persuaded to resume construction by officials in Utah. Utah had already finished the section at the state line and was preparing to shut down the old US-91. IMO, these claims should be investigated, and if true mentioned in the wikipedia article too.Dave (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it, AARoads will sometimes cite their sources, not the case here. Hopefully there will be something out there, it sounds like a good bit of history to include. --Holderca1 ^talk 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I may have found something, but it is in a 40 year old newspaper article that I need to purchase a subscription to get. Does anyone have a subscription to newspaperarchive.com off chance? --Holderca1 ^talk 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For my article that was just in ACR (Interstate 70 in Utah) I had to shell out a few bucks and buy 2 articles from nl.newsbank.com. Newsbank does encourage a subscription, but will sell a single article. I was able to get the relevant information from a 3rd newspaper article to display in the teaser paragraph that is displayed by refining the search terms several times.Dave (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can give me the details I'll fiddle with the search and hopefully extract the needed text. --NE2 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some details here [7], it also appears that Utah gave Arizona some of their highway funds to help build the portion through the gorge. Here is the article I am trying to get: [8]. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 15 in Arizona - I'm not sure if that's the whole article but there's nothing missing from the middle except numbers. --NE2 20:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have found a bit more history, let me know what you think. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I say well done. One final question. The infobox has "1950s" for date formed. IMO either a specific year should be listed, or this should be removed. Also, I don't think this article is a problem, but I have a nomination at FAC and a lot of articles in line before my nom are getting beat up over multiple sources in one sentence, there are two such instances in this article. If you want I'll keep you in the loop if this becomes a problem on my nomination.Dave (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the year, the best year I could find with a reliable source was when the first construction started, so I went with that. I don't really see what is wrong with having multiple sources for a single sentence. Which FAC are you referring to? I looked at the comments for I-70 in Utah and didn't see anything, but maybe I just missed it. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it either. When I first nominated I-70 in UT for FAC, I was checking the comments on the articles in line ahead of my nomination to see what I was in for. For the articles at the end of the queue (since removed) this was a common thing people were getting dinged for. I should probably note that some were extreme, I don't remember which nominations but a few had 4 or even 5 sources listed for a single sentence. It seems to have fizzled, as none of the articles now at the end of the queue are getting dinged for this. This was not a request to change anything, just an offer to keep you in the loop should it come up again. If you're not going for FAC on this article you probably could care less anyways =-)Dave (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. No complaints here, and I do believe that makes four... -- Kéiryn ^talk 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-class. -- Kéiryn ^talk 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

M-35 (Michigan highway) (5 net support votes)

M-35 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promotion to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The first GA produced by MSHP. Other editors have suggested during informal peer reviews that it should be brought to ACR after passing GA

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Support votes

Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kéiryn (talk · contribs) Holderca1 (talk · contribs)

Oppose votes

Resolved issues from Holderca1 ^talk 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I haven't been able to give it a full review yet but on first glance, I have these comments:

• The lead is a bit short for an article of this length, probably should be about twice as long as it is currently. Done
• At the very beginning of the "Route description" section, there is a very short paragraph. This needs to be expanded to a full paragraph. Done
• There are some paragraphs without any citations, you should have at least one citation for each paragraph. Done
• There are some prose issues, I haven't looked at all, but there are some short choppy sentences, for example "The Steel Bridge" section has the following sentences: "The state found an unusual solution." "The bridge is still in place." Done
• In the exit list, you have the concurrencies color coded, you should also but the concurrency in the notes as well, something like "South end of US 41 concurrency" will work Done

I will have more later. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of these suggestions. I appreciate any feedback on them and further suggestions. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I said I would have more, didn't realize it would take this long to get back to it.

• Is there a specific reason you use a slash rather than parenthesis for the distance conversions? The reason I ask is due to the infobox using paranthesis.

The infobox is hard-coded that way, but in the first sentence, the distance is an adjective. The sentence without conversion reads: "M-35 is a 127.99-mile state trunkline...." By adding in the conversion without the slash, the template would produce "M-35 is a 127.99-mile (205.95 km) state trunkline...." Turning on the slash notation pushes both units over to the adjective form. That's why I did it that way.

Umm, okay, but the stuff in parenthesis isn't actually part of the sentence and doesn't need to be in adjective form. All it is stating is that 127.99 miles is 205.95 kilometers. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You fixed this one, but you really didn't have to reword the sentence, using the "sing=on" parameter will hypenate the number and unit. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• What is the "Lake Michigan Circle Tour"?

It's a redlink that doesn't have an article yet which conceivably will in the next few weeks. I will entertain suggestions for fluidly integrating any explanation into the prose. the LMCT is equivalent to the Lake Superior Circle Tour but around Lake Michigan instead.

This one hasn't been resolved. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The redlink has a stub created for it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Spell out the first time you use a new highway designation and follow it with the abbreviation in paranthesis, for example, "U.S. Route 2 (US 2)"

Michigan doesn't call them routes, they're US Highways here (Yes, where spelled out in street address, it's US Highway 41, never US Route 2). I didn't change this yet pending my followup question. Can I use US Highway when the rest of USRD "standardized" on US Route which isn't the MI usage?

You can use whichever you want since both are correct in the real world, US Route is just the standard for article titles. Also remember that it doesn't really matter what Michigan calls them, this is an international encyclopedia. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why do we have templates that abbreviate it I-XX or IH-XX or US XX or US-XX based on state usage in an inconsistent manner? That's why I asked about using the "correct" regional term in use here before I spell that out and get dinged for saying "highway" and not "route". With that settled, that's fixed.

Huh? Not sure what you are arguing here, I said you could use U.S. Highway. U.S. Highway is in widespread enough use that it wouldn't be unclear to use it. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've been dinged enough for using more Michigan-specific terminology in an article on a highway in the state of Michigan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, the first time US 2 and US 41 are linked is about halfway through the route description, but not linked the first three times they are mentioned.
• Spell out Michigan Department of Transportation.

Oopsy, a little reorganization put new "first mentions" ahead of the old ones.  Done on US 2/US 41 and MDOT.

• There are quite a few geographic features in the history section that aren't wikilinked.

No articles exist for those features. The links were removed to reduce the redlinks. Some of these features aren't notable enough to be given articles but still fall along the routing of the trunkline.

What about Huron Mountains and Baraga County among others? --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just had to move the word counties into the wikilink (the word Baraga in the first mention of Baraga County was wikilinked, count(ies) wasn't. Huron Mountains was in the lead as well.  Not done

I'm not talking about the lead, I am talking about the history section, these need linked in the history section as well as well as any other rivers, mountains, cities and counties (all of which are notable enough). --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks only need to be used on first mention, not first mention in each section. Also, most of these rivers are like the county roads in the NY 174 article. They aren't notable on their own to have an article, but they are landmarks along the route worth mentioning. Wikilinking subjects without the notability for an article breeds permanent redlinks, something that would then earn criticism for the article. So I ask, which do you want, a redlink farm or no wikilinks? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review MOS:LINK#Internal links. It doesn't say anything about only linking the first mention. It actually does mention linking at the first mention in a section for readers that may skip to a particular section without reading a prior section. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tons of redundant links added.  Done

• Dead river is linked in "The Steel Bridge" section, but not in the section prior.  Done
• The external link to "Marquette County Road Commission" needs to be changed to an internal link

Link removed. The MCRC isn't notable on its own to have an article.  Done

• "Ford's membership would ultimately come with the cancellation of M-35 in the Huron Mountains" is unreferenced.  Done

*"The proposed highway would not cross much Club property, only two 40-acre/16-hectare parcels. This property would not be enough to ensure the requisite ownership needed to halt road construction." is unreferenced.  Done

• What is BUS M-28? Is that a bus only highway? Okay seriously anyway, should probably be written "what is now M-28 Business" or "what is now a business route of M-28"

BUS M-28 is a state trunkline in the Ishpeming-Negaunee area in Michigan. The street blade signs where not referencing one of the many other street names are signed as BUS M-28. MDOT might use M-28BR in documents, but the common name is BUS M-28. If its spelled out, which is rare, it's Business M-28 or Business Loop M-28. Which form would others prefer here? State trunklines not a part of the Interstate or US Highway systems don't exactly have a long form, they're all just M-##.

If there isn't an official long spelling, than I might recommend "what is now BUS M-28, a business route of M-28, ..."  Done

• There are some strange formatting things going on with the junction list, some of the column headers are centered, but "Mile" isn't and "Notes" isn't.

They are in Safari. What browser are you using? I've never seen the MIinttop template not center the headers.

I think I found the problem, most of the time it will center them properly, but if the cell is stretched wider than what is specified, it still centers it on what is specified. Is there a reason, that the width is specified in {{MIinttop}}? I typically haven't seen the width specified like that. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I didn't make the template, and creating/editing templates is outside of my experience on here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it, it no longer forces a specific width which isn't necessary anyways. The column headers center correctly in all browsers now. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• In junction list, "Very short 286-foot/87-meter concurrency to cross railroad tracks," as opposed to a "Very long 286-foot/87-meter concurrency..." Replace with "A 286-foot..."  Done

Okay, that is all I have following a much overdue full review (I can't promise I won't see something else when I review your changes :) ). --Holderca1 ^talk 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am striking through my comments that have been resolved. Also, do not hide someone elses comments claiming they have been resolved. It is up to the reviewer to determine that. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I honestly thought all issues from the first review (not your second) were resolved and to simplify tracking when I reload the page, I hid them (which didn't erase them.) That's why I used "Round 1" in the template seeing that you did two somewhat separate reviews. Mea culpa Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - All of my above comments have been addressed, remaining neutral pending the resolution of comments from other reviewers. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not sure how I missed this earlier, but refs 15 & 17 both violate Wikipedia:Verifiability as they are self-published sources. I would recommend finding another source that reports this information and removing these sources. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this was brought up below and you mentioned that it may qualify as an exemption to the rule. I have started a discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Michigan Highway website to determine its reliability. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a copy of the Fred Rydholm book from the local library finally. I was able to expand and re-cite the Ford history over to it. I'm left with needing new sources for the 1926 extension of M-35 down US 2/US 41 and over old M-91 in 1926 and the reconnection between the northern and southern segments from 1953 until 1968. Any suggestions? I recently joined the Road Map Collectors Association hoping to find someone with copies of the relevant state maps. If so, then these bits of info can be re-cited as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Good work, took care of the RS issue. Looks good now, looking forward to seeing it at FAC. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Round 1 of Resolved issues from Kéiryn (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of tiny thoughts from me for the moment:

• The two most glaring holes in citations at the moment:
  • "Around the creation of the U.S Highway System in 1926, M-35 was extended southerly along US 2/US 41 from Gladstone to Escanaba." Done
  • The entire first paragraph of #After Ford Done
• In the last paragraph of "Henry Ford and M-35", you have a bare quote – "By 1929, M-35 was dead in its tracks and Henry Ford was a member." I realize it's cited, but it needs something in the article text to say where it came from, and to make it flow better in the text. Done
• Same paragraph: "between US$80-100,000" – technically correct I suppose, but it took me a moment to realize you meant between $80,000 and $100,000.
  • Not sure what to do though. $80,000-100,000 looks worse to me, stylistically. Maybe other reviewers will help out with this?
    • I parsed through the MOS, the closest example I could find is this one (and I realize this is on unit conversion not range of numbers) the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from'. If you want to push it, "ranges" should be a section under numbers in the MOS and I think this is a relatively important omission. The good news is you can't be held to a standard that doesn't exist yet=-)Davemeistermoab (talk)

-- Kéiryn ^talk 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Support all my concerns have been resolvedDavemeistermoab (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues fromDavemeistermoab (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Lead.

• Lead: Suggest "...connecting the cities of Menominee, Escanaba..."  Done
• Route description: M-35 is also listed on the National Highway System along the US 2/US41 concurrency. (Delete "as well")  Done
• Infobox: What's up with the M-35 in the major junctions, this highway has 2 junctions with itself?

This is how we first denoted major concurrencies in the infobox, pre-junction list tables. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lead: Put Upper Peninsula (U.P.) next to the first instance in the lead. You use U.P. a lot in the article without formally defining it for us non-Michiganders.=-)  Done
• Route Description: "Large piles of waste rock". The term I've always heard for this is Overburden. At a minimum link via a piped link if not actually changing the prose.  Done
• Major intersections: I don't think you need "Very short", 286 ft speaks for itself.

More later Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also put in the non-breaking spaces and cleaned up the junction list slightly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues either resolved or restated below from Kéiryn ^talk 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. There are more quotations in this article than I've seen in any other Wikipedia article, especially one about a road. There doesn't seem to be a policy on this, but to me, it doesn't seem like good writing. I take that back – it's very well-written for a college term paper, but when I look in an encyclopedia article, I don't expect to see all these quotations. Maybe that's just me, and I guess since it's not policy or project standards, I'm not supposed to oppose on those grounds. So if you want to use quotes, try to make sure you're using them properly. On second glance, there are a lot of what I called "bare quotes" in my first tiny review. Just throwing a quotation in without any attribution throws off the reader (at least it does if I'm the reader :-P). Also, per WP:MOSQUOTE, "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." And, while it's just an essay, WP:QUOTE says a lot of what I'm trying to say here:

Similarly, quotations should always be introduced in articles as stand alone quotations are not proper paragraphs. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation. Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information.

Where this becomes a particular problem is the blockquote in #The Steel Bridge. I assumed that paragraph was just formatted weirdly accidentally, it wasn't until I looked at the wikicode to try to fix it that I realized it was supposed to be a quote. The only other problem I can see at the moment is the major junctions in the infobox issue Dave pointed out above. If that's the way WP:MISH did concurrencies in the past, okay, but that's the past, and it should probably be fixed now, since M-35 doesn't have a junction with itself. -- Kéiryn ^talk 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was taught that when you can't say the same thing as the author in your own words as simply as the author to quote them, credit them with a parenthetical reference or footnote and move on. Wikipedia articles are more akin to the college term paper in that both use in-line citations (currently favoring footnoting) and a reference list at the end. The typical general-reference encyclopedia does not list sources inline or at the end of each article. Growing up we had a copy of Collier's Encyclopedia on the shelf. As I recall, the sources were listed in the last volume for the whole set.

I stand by my usage of quotations in this article. Quoting Rydholm verbatim and citing him as the source of the quotation precludes any possibility of copyright infringement of what is essentially a list. If you don't like the blockquote, feel free to rewrite it. The quotation is a continuation of the previous paragraph, but since it's more than one sentence, it's more appropriate to set it off as a blockquote. A blockquote is not it's own paragraph, it's just a different way of formatting a long quote. It could be put in traditional " " but I was taught multiple-sentence quotes are done this way. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if you want to keep using quotes, that's fine, and I'm not going to oppose on those grounds – mostly because I can't because it's not against policy/standards/etc. However, if you're going to do so, you need to do so correctly. WP:MOSQUOTE is a guideline, so it needs to be followed when it says to attribute the author of a direct quotation in the article text, not just in a footnote. I wasn't disagreeing with the use of a blockquote – that is being done properly there. I was just saying that there, particularly, you need an attribution like you have with the first blockquote in the route description. Without an attribution, either as part of the blockquote or in the paragraph immediately introducing it, it's not clear that it's a quote, so the reader is just left wondering why it's indented funny. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your comments better now, so I think I have this addressed with a 10-character or so edit. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, MISH is its own wikiproject, so it can set a few protocols for its articles on its own. M-35 junctions with a highway labeled as US 2/US 41/M-35. The infobox and the lead are the cheat sheet for the article. Unless the infobox is changed somehow (and we've been over this before a few times in the past) MISH operating practice has been to use the shields in the infobox to show major concurrencies. This is a piece of info that wouldn't be easily and consistently shown outside of the color-coded junction list table. M-35 isn't the only article that uses this convention in MISH and this convention was settled on over a couple of graphic icons. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MISH can set all the protocols it wants, but this isn't the MISH A-Class review. And I'm not really arguing on USRD standards either, since I don't think USRD specifies anything specific regarding concurrencies in the junction list in the infobox. I am arguing it on the grounds that it's just plain incorrect. M-35 does not junction a highway labeled as US 2/US 41/M-35. It junctions a highway labeled as US 2/US 41, then those highways merge. The only time a highway junctions itself is when it doesn't really, but it splits off a branch that doesn't have a separate designation, or a case like Washington State Route 100, where part but not all of the route forms a loop, so it intersects itself at the "end" of the loop. I suppose you could say a highway also intersects itself when it splits to form a one-way couplet, but M-35 falls into none of these categories, so it doesn't have any junctions with itself. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the working practice that's being used in the Michigan articles established at [9]. Nowhere at USRD's standards contradict this practice. If you disagree with the consensus established a year and a half ago, we can move the discussion to an appropriate forum if you like. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

USRD standards don't contradict this practice, and I never said they did. But M-35 is not a junction on M-35, so you can't list it in a row in the infobox called major junctions. Strongly oppose promoting this article to A-class until incorrect information is removed from the article. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kéiryn, Texas State Highway Loop 323 intersects itself, this highway doesn't. Listing it as a junction of itself implies that it intersects itself, not that there is a concurrency there. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I will ask for the record what is the non-MISH preferred method for denoting major junctions that are major concurrencies in the infobox? Since you both object to a practice followed for nearly two years by a "fully-functioning" Wikiproject, I need to know what to propose then over at the MISH talk pages. I strongly oppose the implications however, that reviewers in a USRD-sponsored forum are overriding MISH when USRD's unwritten scope has been set up to say that except where project assessment standards are concerned each project is free to decide details. While this process is about the promotion in assessment class, these oppositions are about a specific method for showing a specific piece of information in an infobox on the side of an article. We're not even disagreeing with the prose of the article itself! Yes, I could just remove a few bits of text and a shield, and it seems you'd both flip to supports, but then this article falls outside of the MISH consensus. I won't make any change until there's a clear consensus, and I think the best forum for that consensus debate is at MISH, not hear. Setting that aside, do either of you have any other issues/concerns/objections, addressed or not, outside the infobox from your reviews? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've said at least twice, this doesn't have anything to do with USRD standards infringing on your fully functioning project. In fact, very few of the suggestions at this or any of the other reviews have anything to do with project standards. They have to do with clarifying stuff, copyediting, referencing, and just general perfections. The major junctions line in the infobox needs to be clarified, since right now it reads as if M-35 intersects itself when it doesn't. If MISH standards are causing articles to be unclear, then yes, those standards need to be changed.

Interestingly, I can't see where in the talk page archive you linked to earlier it says to list the article route. There's just a rough consensus that says to just list it as a junction, with little specifics as to how to do that. In terms of how other states deal with concurrencies in the infobox, they do exactly that, just list it as a junction. In this case, we'd just list one junction with US 2/US 41 in Escanaba, and a second one in Gladstone. (In other words, yes, just remove M-35, and everything's a-ok.) Now of course, this isn't terribly specific... are there two highway alignments between Escanaba and Gladstone? A concurrency? Is US 2/US 41 discontinuous between there? But that's okay, it's an infobox, it's not supposed to have all the information. As long as everything in the infobox is correct, and it has enough information to give a quick overview of the route, it's all good. It can be clarified exactly what's going on between Escanaba and Gladstone in the article text.

As for other issues, well yeah. You haven't even really begun to touch the quotes. Adding the words "From MDOT" before the blockquote is a tiny, tiny step. I'm curious as to why you think that's enough for that blockquote, but the other blockquote gets a full sentence beforehand ("MDOT's press release states") and a pretty little attribution underneath. Plus, all the inline quotes still need a similar attribution. -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All except the bridge block quote (which doesn't have the cute little attribution that the other blockquote gets since the page isn't signed) have been reworked/eliminated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral awaiting the results of the RS discussion.

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now because I've found some serious problems in the first few sentences.
  • Convert templates should be used in the first sentence.

It is.

Well you shouldn't use a slash there...

Rewrote the sentence since no one seems to like a perfectly acceptable version of the convert template so that it isn't a numerical adjective.

• • State trunkline?

The official term, as used on road signs is "state trunkline". All highways under MDOT's jurisdiction are trunklines as explained at Michigan highway system.

I think what he is getting at is that it should say state highway since it is in fact a state highway. Using state trunkline is getting a little jargonish. So if you want to use state trunkline, you probably need to have it say "M-28 is a state trunkline, a state highway in the U.S. state of Michigan, ..." to help explain to the reader what exactly a state trunkline is. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you quoted the lead of an article that passed ACR in the ACR for another article. Anyway road signs in Michigan use the "trunkline" terminology and have for 80 years. Anyone interested in what a "state trunkline" is can simply click the link like any other term (including state highway) for an explanation. That's standard Wikipedia practice. The lead should define what it is in the best terminology and for 80 years in Michigan, that's "trunkline". In the article on a Ford Thunderbird, we don't define the word automobile in the lead, do we? We wikilink to an article on automobiles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But people know what an automobile is. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you make valid points. IMHO, the version as is is okay, but if someone thinks it should be clarified, it worth considering doing so. I think Holderca's suggestion is a great way to make that clarification – and I don't think it's remotely funny to quote another A-class article here. If anything it's common sense, "Here's what's worked in the past to get articles to A-class, maybe we should apply the same thing here." That being said, if Holderca's suggestion seems a bit wordy, maybe a good compromise would be to just change it to "state trunkline highway"? -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

State trunkline is just not a common term that everyone is familiar with. I had never heard of it before reading through a few Michigan highway articles. State highway isn't technically incorrect so I am not understanding the big reluctance to change it. The article is even included in the Category:State highways in Michigan. It doesn't make sense to force a reader to jump to another article to figure out what a term is when a another word can be used that is understood by just about everyone. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that's not how M-28 is/was worded. Both M-28 and M-35 are worded the same. As to the category argument, there are categories for US Routes in Michigan even though Michiganians call them highways.

M-28 isn't being review, M-35 is. You can't use what another article does as a valid arguement since you have different reviewers from one review to the next. I didn't participate in the M-28 review, neither did Rschen7754 or Kéiryn. Even if we did, it doesn't mean that we catch everything and it doesn't mean that M-28 is currently perfect since it passed through ACR. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• • overall north-south direction comma connecting the cities of...

I don't think a comma is correct there.

I probably would use a comma there, but it's definitely optional. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Final sentence on first paragraph - needs punctuation to make it clearer - now it's a run-on.

Yup, the comma should have been a semi-colon. Fixed.

• • M-35 is an original state trunkline that was first designated on 1 July 1919,  Done
  • Automobile pioneer Henry Ford helped stop this construction to get into the exclusive Huron Mountain Club. - sentence is not clear

Fixed.

• • That's just in the lead - I'll continue reviewing when the lead is fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed what needs fixing and commented on the rest for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Section 1 (RD) - except the section concurrent with US Highway 2/US Highway 41 (US 2/US 41). - what a mess. Say U.S. Route 2 and U.S. Route 41.

It was requested that I spell out the names. In Michigan, it's US Highway ##. We don't do "routes" here unless talking about Route 66. Per comments from holderca1 above, it didn't matter which version to use, both are correct, so I chose the local vernacular. Street addresses would be either #### US 2/US 41 or #### US Highway 2(/US Highway 41) etc.

• The first three sentences are a bit choppy.

I gave them another go 'round with the keyboard. Any better? Any other suggestions? (Yes, I know the UP of the US state of MI isn't the best flowing, but when you have a state physically divided in two and this being an international project...)

No, I meant the first few sentences of the RD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Worked through them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• City of M - city probably shouldn't be capitalized?

It should if you are differentiating from the Township of Negaunee/Negaunee Township. The two municipalities are politically independent.

So the "City of" should be part of the wikilink then. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And so it is now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1.1 - M-35 is the shorter highway routing - as opposed to what?
• On the south side of Escanaba, M-35 runs into town on Lake Shore Drive comma passing the Delta County Airport before turning onto Lincoln Road.
• E-W and N-S axes - spell out - may want to explain what this is a little more
• Here, M-35 joins the National Highway System.[4] - maybe "From here to _"?
• 1.2 - malformed link
• Inside Gwinn, the highway follows Pine Street northwest comma' passing through the downtown of the community and out to residential areas along Pine and Iron streets.
• Third paragraph - try combining the first 2 sentences.
• 2.1 - In 1919, the State Department of Highways, forerunner to today's MDOT comma determined a scenic shoreline trunkline to run north from Negaunee to Big Bay and then turn towards Skanee and L'Anse. - also, shouldn't it be "designated"?
• 2nd par - clarify what "this" is.
• 2.2 - This bridge is known to locals as "The Steel Bridge". - period in the quotes
• Plans are in the works by the Marquette County Road Commission to bypass the Steel Bridge with a modern replacement, but leave the existing bridge as a foot or bike path.[24] The "but leave the..." phrase seems a bit odd to me.
• 2.3 - Only an attorney-general's opinion that if two-thirds of the property owners over which the road would pass objected, the road would be stopped. - poorly written sentence
• 2.4 - This left a discontinuous routing for 13 years. - 13 supposed to be spelled out?
• 2nd paragraph - try combining first two sentences
• 3rd paragraph - odd way of starting the first sentence.
• 2nd sentence - I had to reread it a few times to understand it. Maybe it should be rephrased...
• 4th paragraph - sentences a bit choppy

Source issues per Holderca1.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton

Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

• Mostly minor stuff, but here goes:
• Can you change the first word of the second sentence of the lead to "travels" or something instead of "runs"? "Runs" is already used at the end of the first sentence, and I'd just like to see some varying word choice.
• The southern portion of M-35 in Menominee and Delta counties carries additional designations as a portion of the Lake Michigan Circle Tour and the U.P. Hidden Coast Recreational Heritage Trail, part of the Michigan Heritage Routes system. "...counties carries..." would sound better as "...counties carry".
  • The subject of that sentence is "southern portion", so the subject-verb agreement is correct. But perhaps the sentence could be reworded to make it sound better? -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it is the right subject-verb, but yea, I think it could be reworded better. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Automobile pioneer Henry Ford helped stop this construction to get membership in the exclusive Huron Mountain Club. Would "Gain membership..." be better?
• On 2007-08-26, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) announced that this 64-mile/103-kilometer section... but then later in the section, ...taking US 41 results in a distance of 65 miles (105 km) versus 55 miles (89 km) along M-35. Try to make the metric conversion structure consistent.

Okay, I've mentioned this before up above. The first quote you have uses the distance as what I call a numerical/unit adjective. I'm sure there's another term in use for it. Both the number and the unit together modify the word "section". It's not just a section, it's a 64-mile section. Now when we're doing Wikipedia, we need the metric. The convert template should be fixed so that when the adj=on modifier is used (to produce 64-mile instead of 64 miles) that the conversion in parentheses would also be "(103-kilometer)". The only way to force the convert template to make the change on the metric is to use the slash notation. Of course the easy way out would be to force the slash notation elsewhere so we'd have "65 miles/105 km" etc, but then the infobox doesn't match. I hate to rewrite every sentence so that no distance is a numerical/unit adjective though. That makes the prose too... similar and boring. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this issue that's come up a number of times before, the correct way to do things like the first case is the default {{convert}} with adj=on. In other words, "this 64-mile (103 km) section..." This is because (1) per WP:MOSNUM, the converted units should be abbreviated – even on first mention – and (2) per WP:HYPHEN, when you're abbreviating units, "103 km" without the hyphen is the adjectival form. I hope that clarifies things.

(FWIW, I do agree that it'd be great if there were an easy way to force it to spell out both units and use parentheses though.) -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Can you link to Escanaba?

Where is the link missing? The first mention in the second sentence of the lead has it linked. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see it in the body of the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Tons of redundant wikilinks added

• M-35 turns northwesterly. Possibly M-35 turns northwestward?

Both are correct though, and my preference is sometimes northwesterly. Both versions are in use throughout the article to mix it up though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just as well. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have more for the history later, but that should be good for the time being. Good work, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues delineated by Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC) resolved

Request — After reading through all of the comments and arguments and counter-arguments, let me see if I can distill the remaining issues to a list.

1. The infobox junctions list. This will likely not be fixed before this ACR is completed. I will not make an edit contrary to MISH practices until MISH changes practices. This is not the correct forum for that debate. Instead that debate needs to happen at wither WT:MISH (preferable) or WT:USRD. If any other editor in good faith makes that edit, I will not revert however.
2. Usage of quotations. I think this issue has been cleared up. If it hasn't, please cite specific instances with reasoning why. Simply saying look at WP:QUOTE is not useful.
3. Trunklines. M-35 is a state trunklline. A Ford Thunderbird is an automobile. (This is the example used in WP:LEAD, btw.) WP doesn't advocate inclusion of a specific definition of the word "automobile" in the lead of the article on Thunderbirds. Why should this article be any different. The proposed example above produces inelegant prose that would be reverted for that reason. I will entertain other suggestions that produce clear, concise prose without sacrificing the definition used for 80+ years in Michigan, which is "trunkline".
4. Wikilinking. Unless I missed a specific example, all notable geographic locations have wikilinks on first mention in every section. Are there any specific links that should be added, and why?
5. Conversion template usage. These should all be fixed by now be rewriting the prose to avoid using cases best served by the slash notation.

Did I miss any? I grow weary and want to start wrapping this up soon. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But automobile is not jargon and thus, not in violation of a WP guideline. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt and honest, your attitude kinda sucks. We're all here trying to help improve this article, and you came here asking for our help. There's a message at the bottom of the edit window saying, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it." Perhaps we need one here saying, "If you don't want your writing to be reviewed mercilessly, do not submit it." I've got other things I could be doing with my wikitime (and, frankly, IRL too), but I'm here trying to improve articles, not to give you grief or make you weary.

1. All right, fine. I made a good faith edit because I thought it improved the article. This was the correct forum to at least start discussion, since the purpose of these sorts of reviews is to get a broader set of eyes to an article to catch things others may have missed. In this case, people who weren't members of MISH realized that that particular standard made the article somewhat unclear. Continuing to complain about how this wasn't the proper forum is beating a dead horse, since the topic was dropped here and moved to WT:MISH/WT:USRD.
2. I'm actually offended by this remark. I never simply said to look at WP:QUOTE. Every time I mentioned quotations, I did so in a full paragraph expressing my opinion, and quoted the exact portions of WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:QUOTE that applied.
3. Another clear, concise suggestion was provided. Just add the word "highway", as in "state trunkline highway", which is how it's used in a number of state law and MDOT sources.
4. Your responses to the wikilink issue above almost had me posting a remark regarding your attitude before you posted your numbered list rant. Clearly if Holderca1's comment is backed up my WP:MOSLINK, then those weren't "tons of redundant links".
5. I'm pretty sure that here I explained how to fix the {{convert}} usage without rewording your sentences – again citing the Manual of Style. So I'm really not sure why you felt the need to fix them, and then decide, "No, I'm going to reword the sentence anyway." This sentence no longer makes sense. And given that the Manual of Style prescribes a certain way, no, those cases are not better served by a slash notation.

I do apologize for responding to attitude with attitude. I too am growing weary of this review, but I will stick it out as long as you do. Note that even though I've fixed the infobox, my oppose vote stands. I've noticed a couple of other things, and I'll post a thorough re-review tomorrow. -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No one from NYSR complained when the colors were removed from the junction list on NY 174 against current project standards; instead, the issue was taken to NYSR and USRD after the ACR...where it generated no real responses except for some random irrelevant comments. One day I'll probably just disable the colors in the NY template call ({{NYint}}) and see if anyone notices. Anyway, A-Class review is supposed to be a FAC-like process in which we find things that FAC may not accept, and through this process it may be necessary to change project standards as necessary (that is partially how the "community box" phaseout began in NY, because it was removed from an article as part of an ACR). – TMF 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Kéiryn ^talk 13:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Hid my comments above; here's what's still bugging me now that the infobox has been fixed.

• Upper Peninsula – the first time you mention it, you put "UP" in parentheses. However in the remainder of the article text, you spell it out twice, abbreviate it as "UP" once, and as "U.P." twice. Personally, I would probably spell that out every time, since it's not used often enough to be repetitive, but at the very least, be consistent about which abbreviation you're using.

  Ok, I can understand this. The area is usually just called the UP (no periods) in everyday speech around the northern part of Michigan, but MDOT inserted the periods in the official name of the heritage route designation. I'll pull the periods from the prose, but the MDOT source titles I'll leave alone though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Here M-35 is the closest trunkline to the Lake Michigan shoreline while on the northern section..." – northern section of what?

  Easy fix and good catch. Stray ";" removed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  That sentence still isn't clear to me. It probably needs a comma before "while", but I think the bigger problem is that it's not exactly clear what "here" refers to. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. "Along the southern section..." instead of "Here...". I think that fixes it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "M-35 is primarily a two-lane roadway..." – citing these lane configurations would be great.

  Map citation added. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Large piles of waste rock from the mining operations tower like mountains over the roadway." – kudos on the nice imagery, but it's not encyclopedic tone.

  Removed "like mountains" from the sentence. How's that sound now? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm still not liking "tower over the roadway" – the artistic language seems more like you're trying to write a book about the highway than an encyclopedia article – but this isn't really something I'd oppose over. Personally I'd just go with "line the roadway". -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "M-35 on paper was shown as continuing north and looping to L'Anse." – "On paper" to me seems like jargon, there may be a way to reword this for a wider audience. Something as simple as "It was planned to continue north..." should suffice I'd think.

  Well, it was on maps such as the 1932 map shown in the article. I changed it to "M-35 on maps was shown..." If not, well, I'll entertain another idea. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Local Upper Peninsula historian Fred Rydolm offers up..." – "offers up" also seems like a tone issue to me.

  Fixed? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The state found an unusual solution in a bridge two states away." – tone?

  Hmm... not sure how to rework this one. MI wasn't in the habit of buying up other state's bridges. I guess until I find a better variation (and I'll gladly take some suggestions here) I'll comment it out for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  I was going to post a solution here, but then I realized my proposal was just rewording the first sentence of the quote following it. It's probably fine without the sentence you commented out, since the quote calls the bridge "rare" – although it's not particularly clear if that means rare in Michigan, or rare in Pennsylvania as well. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Added a sentence cited to the Hyde book. It's a common PA design of the time, but rare in MI. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The description of the bridge from MDOT:" – The attribution should form a complete sentence (i.e. with a subject and a verb), otherwise it doesn't serve the purpose of making the quote flow with the text. For example, with the other blockquote, "MDOT's press release states..."

  Thanks for explaining this better. Now I see what your exact point is, and I think I have a solution. Let me know if this works better. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  Looks good, although personally I would cut off the attribution at the word "says", add a comma, and restore the words "This bridge is" to the quote. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion taken and integrated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's not enough for me to oppose here, just a note for you because you'll get killed for it if you want to take this to FAC in the future. Michigan Highways (ref 15) probably isn't a reliable source.

  We actually might be able to use the site under the SPS exception. That site has been references 4 times in Michigan newspapers (thrice in the Detroit Free Press and once in the Traverse City Record Eagle). The author also adds to his credentials as the cartographer for a map of Mackinac Island cited in the M-185 article. He works in transportation and planning in the Grand Rapids area. I'm not going to say for certain, but at some point when this and the M-28 article go up for FACs we may just try for a RS opinion on the site. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  Good to know. Good luck with that when the time comes. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably all for now. Good luck! -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the followups. Let me know how I did. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty darn well I'd say. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional suggestions. Any others? Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Everything's been done that I can think of. Just as a note, I may have been mistaken earlier. It's possibly supposed to be a colon before that second blockquote instead of a comma – or it could be that both are acceptable. I can't find anything in the MOS one way or the other. -- Kéiryn ^talk 13:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'll be out of town and only online sporadically this weekend. It might be that I won't be able to follow up on any comments until Sunday 2008-04-27 even though I'll see them before then. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support All of my above comments have been addressed, and I don't see anything that should prevent this from reaching A-class. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 9km, use 9 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 9 km.^[?]

• • I find this one a little curious. Of all the measurements given, I thought all of them used the {{convert}} template which does that automatically. I'm puzzled. Any ideas where there's a faulty measurement that would trip up the script?

    I went through it and couldn't find anything either, not sure what it is picking up. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    I found what it was catching, the units in reference 3. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Good catch, and fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]

• • Good idea, but it's not just a steel bridge, it's The Steel Bridge in the local vernacular. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I agree, ignore this. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]

• • Suggestions on rewriting the headings? Personally I think they are fine and would sound funny as "In the Huron Mountains" (ok, not that bad) or "Henry Ford and the highway" Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    You could just simply put "Henry Ford". I think what this is getting at is that it is a given that everything in the article is about M-35, so a section heading titled "Henry Ford" would imply a section about him in relation to M-35. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Holderca1 ^talk 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed headings and that one reference without the non-breaking spaces. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not promote. Three weeks have gone by and there have been no supports, and there are no prospects of getting any since no pictures have been added. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 21 (-1 net support votes)

New York State Route 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: I'm hoping to get this to A-class with a little bit of work, while aiming for a future FAC.

Nominated by: Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, has no pictures of NY 21 itself and is really unillustrated as a whole. I don't live close enough to NY 21 where I could take a quick trip out there and I really don't know when or if I will use NY 21 as a through route at any time in the near future. Anyway, I can't justify promoting an article to A-Class when it doesn't have a single image of the physical road itself. – TMF 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know a source where I could find such images? I, too, live nowhere close. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comrade Yamamoto (C.C. Slater) has a Flickr feed where he posts snaps every few weeks. You could also do a Flickr-wide search for freely licensed Creative Commons images. Other than that, though, there really aren't many good sources (now if we're talking roads in Monroe County and points west...different story, due to my personal photo collection). – TMF 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already checked Flickr with no luck. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with TMF, I can't support an article to A-class without a picture of the route. Is this being actively worked? If not, we should close this out and it can be resubmitted once photos are made available. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on getting a better picture. In the mean time, could you give me some comments regarding the article itself? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments There isn't a whole lot of prose problems with this article. A few sentences here and there could be combined to make it flow better. One thing I am not sure of however is the date in the third paragraph of the history - is that how it's supposed to be done? Again in the fourth paragraph as well. However, I can't support since there is no picture of the road. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result of discussion was promote to A-class with 4 net support votes and no oppose votes. --Polaron | Talk 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 175

New York State Route 175 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: NY 175 is the twin to the Featured Article, New York State Route 174, and I'm trying to get this article up to the same condition as 174. I know some of the prose is horrible, and probably will need some kind of expansion, but the article was put together well and it could have the same possibility as NY 174.

Nominated by: ^Mitch32^contribs 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Get a ref for the citation needed, expand the lead, copyedit the history. This is at first glance. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 yards, use 100 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100 yards.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Holderca1 ^talk 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for now, as long as no other issues are brought up. Prose suffices but may need a bit of brushing up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • You keep saying "Route 175" - isn't it SR 175?
  • 1.1 - "which ends at the town of Marcellus a while ahead." - can you be more precise?
  • What are "off-streets"? Probably not a good term to use.
  • Can you wikilink to the public school?
  • I'll stop there for now. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1.2 - West Seneca Turnpike supposed to be italicized?
  • "builtup" doesn't show up in Wikitionary. Is it a word?
  • Can you link Cards Corners?
  • "entering" the town line? I'd choose another verb.
  • Check MOS on this - it supposed to be 0.2 miles?
  • More once these issues are addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1.3 - italics again - not sure if they should be there
  • In the hospital name="Of" shouldn't be capitalized.
  • Cemetery shouldn't be linked. Either link to the cemetery itself or remove it.
  • last sentence is a bit strange.
  • --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 2 - Maybe link "maintenance company"?
  • The first and last sentence of the first paragraph seem to contradict each other. Do you mean that NY 175 runs parallel to the original alignment of the Seneca Turnpike?
  • Last paragraph - a few of the sentences are choppy.
  • --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support *In the lead, Marcellus is wikilinked twice, de-link the 2nd instance.

• the phrase "unsigned county route" is overused IMO. To me unsigned also means un-notable. I'd prefer to see these mentioned by street name or other instead.
• Imo only Marcellus should be wikilinked, not "the town of". (be consistent with the other mentions)
• The highway then leaves Wellington Corner uneventfully. Uneventfully sounds of WP:OR.

*"Forests begin to return along the highway, with many of them surrounding it." When "them" are they? Suggest, The highway then enteres forested area, at times surrounded by trees" or something like that.

• De-wikilink city, this is overlinking.
• IMO de-wikilink maintenance company.
• Comma splice in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the history section.
• Last sentence of history section, Some people at FAC are picky about the order of sources, i didn't get bit by it but others did. To be safe you should re-order the sources used in numerical order.

Dave (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: linking of Marcellus. The first instance is for the Town of Marcellus while the second is for the Village of Marcellus. Because the names are the same, it is in my opinion more useful to clarify whether one is talking about the town vs. the village. --Polaron | Talk 01:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for the explanation. In that case I would change my suggestion to have the first instance of each wikilinked as "the town of Marcellus" and the "village of Marcellus".Dave (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All done. Thanks!^Mitch32^contribs 18:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops I did miss one that has been fixed.^Mitch32^contribs 10:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. Improved greatly since the ACR started. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I concur with JC on this. It's much improved since the ACR was opened. There's always room for improvement, but I say this merits A-Class. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result of discussion was promote to A-class with 4 net support votes and no oppose votes. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 343 (4 net support votes)

New York State Route 343 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: NY 343 has been a group project between User:Polaron, User:Juliancolton, and I. I feel this article is ready for A-class, but a good review wouldn't hurt. Any comments are welcome, so thanks!

Nominated by: ^Mitch32^contribs 18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Okay, here's my concerns:

• Map: This map is probably too far zoomed in to be appropriate for the infobox; experiment with a state- or county-level zoom to see how that looks. This map would probably be better off as a supplemental map in the route description page or a Commons gallery. Also, the background color doesn't match the MTF standard. Bonus points for using an inset, but it appears to have been rendered with QGIS's default projection, which stretches stuff out E–W. Try using a different projection like Lambert Conformal Conic. Are the long, straight lines roads or township lines?
  • • Partly done;Map requested.^Mitch32^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • A new map has been uploaded image:NY 343 map2.png. The background color was yellow instead of the usual off white as I had added all the "towns" to the map. I removed the towns and stuck with the county name instead. I also adjusted the projection to Lambert. Due to a glitch with my data, I have to make the inset map for New England and not just NY. Hope this helps! 25or6to4 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• The merge of CT-343 into this article is, erm, interesting. While I'd never do that sort of thing myself, I don't oppose it, but I believe that the switch between the NY and CT-343 portions needs to be treated more prominently, with an RD subheading at the least. Since this article covers both NY and CT-343, consider treating CT-343 on an equal level with NY-343 by moving the shield into the infobox. A retitle may be in order...perhaps "State Route 343 (New York-Connecticut)"? (Hey, he just suggested a P2 title! Kill him!) The map should also cover the route of CT-343.
  • • Done.^Mitch32^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Route description:
  • While it's worth noting that Beekman Park is accessed via 343, is the fact that the park used to have a lake really important to NY 343? (Unless it was a major recreation destination that 343 was heavily used to access, in the manner of Oklahoma State Highway 9 and Lake Thunderbird, ditch the lake mention.)
    • Done.^Mitch32^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The shield photo needs a better caption. Where is this shield located?
    • Done.^Mitch32^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• History:
  • Too many links to Connecticut.
    • Done.^Mitch32^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Major intersections list: Needs shields.
  • • Done.^Mitch32^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall this is an interesting article. The history section is uncommonly good, with the well-researched predesignation history. Fixing the above issues shouldn't be too much of a problem, so I anticipate being able to support this article in the future. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, that's a good map. :o Wow. Since all my concerns are addressed: Support. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Overall very well done, I only have some minor suggestions, but at least one that must be fixed before I can vote support.

• Almost the entire route description is sourced with google maps, including the paragraph containing this statement "(cosigned as U.S. Route 44 until 2008)". I don't think google maps is sufficient to source that. You would need a pre-2008 map and a post 2008 map, or an article or resolution mentioning the change.
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• generalGeorge Washington. Though I've not seen it in the wikipedia MOS, I have seen other style guides that disapprove of this (two wikilinked terms next to each other) as it can give the appearance of one linked term. My preference to solve this is to de-link general. The term should be explained or linked on the article for George W. anyways.
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• speaking of which, it is implied this corridor was important during the revolutionary war. I would like to see more information on this, perhaps mention of a specific battle or something where this route played a part. But that's my taste, I wouldn't hold the nomination up for this.Dave (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Not Done. No information was found about the area.Mitch32^(UP) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bait you with "oh yeah, and do this" but I found more issues, some serious.

• Books are cited without an ISBN or OCLC code. Include one or the other.
  • • Done. A few don't have either at all. So I added the ones that did.Mitch32^(UP) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• The Mohawk.net source appears to be an WP:SPS. Please include justificaion on the reliability of this source.
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• There are some WP:Peacock Terms in the article "major landmarks" Dave (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support concerns resolved to my satisfaction Dave (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support — addressed my suggestions I mentioned on IRC with the junction table and lack of an infobox for CT 343. I support it's passage. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result of discussion was demote. There's no reason this article can't come back to ACR in the near future though once there are active editors working on it again. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

California State Route 37 (-2 net support votes)

California State Route 37 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article was a FAC that failed. It is also an A-class article that is pre-ACR. As activity on this article has ceased, I'd like to see what remains before sending it to FAC and to see if it should remain at A-class.

Nominated by: Rschen7754 (T C) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I have found quite a few problems and I haven't completely reviewed the article yet, I will take another look once these have been addressed.

• Opening sentence doesn't really say what it is. I would recommend "State Route 37 (SR 37) is a state highway in the northern..."
  • Fixed.
• Check for redundancies...just in the lead "currently" and "the whole of" needs to be removed.
  • Fixed those two... I'm probably going to have to copyedit the article.
• 2nd paragraph of lead "turned parts of the land," make parts singular, sounds awkward as is.
  • Corrected.
• 2nd paragraph of lead change "home of endangered" to "home to endangered"
  • Corrected.
• Not sure where we stand on bolding, so not sure if "Blood Alley" should be bolded or not.
  • Replaced with quotes... not sure if that's correct.
• The last paragraph/sentence of the lead is referenced twice and these references aren't used in the body. Ensure this information appears in the body and not just the lead. Also, may want to either expand this paragraph or incorporate it elsewhere; one sentence paragraphs aren't a good thing. Also, ensure all citations appear after the punctuation, not before as ref 4 currently does.
  • See below.

I haven't checked the prose of the rest, but here are some general observations of the rest of the article:

• Route description
  • 1st paragraph is unreferenced
  • Last sentence of second paragraph is unreferenced
• History
  • 1st paragraph is unreferenced
  • Any reason why reference 6 appears in the middle of the sentence? The rest of that paragraph is unreferenced.
  • The last sentence of the article stuck me as odd "The project was completed in the summer of 2005,[8] and fully open to traffic on August 20, 2005.[11]" Isn't August 20, 2005 also in the summer of 2005? Do you have a more exact time period for the first part? June of 2005 or something similar?
• The "Other Names" section should be incorporated into the "Route description". That section title is a MoS problem in of itself.

**Incorporated into lead... is that ok? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Just read your note above... apparently not. Moved the state law and the other names to RD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• References
  • All online sources need an access date and the ones that have them are inconsistent, some have "accessed February 2008", some have "Retrieved on March 2, 2007."
  • Refs 3 and 4 need more to them
  • Do the newspaper articles have published dates?
  • I would recommend using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} to ensure the referencing is consistent.
    • I just noticed that ref #6 is no longer available online... what do I do about that? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • http://web.archive.org/web/20061121055808/http://www.timesheraldonline.com/roadwork/ci_2843072 is a webarchive link to it] see {{Internet Archive}} as well. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Updated. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Sorry about the delay. I do plan to address these over the weekend. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

After today I will be traveling to Europe and will be unable to work on this until mid-June. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I see some things that I don't like in the prose. I freely admit that these are my take on the MOS and other people may have different interpretations. however, I have to vote oppose until sourcing issues are addressed.

• IMO Blood Parkway should not be bolded (colloquial name) already bolded below as a section heading. Also I don't think putting a section heading in quotes is appropriate. I wouldn't bold any nickname that's not notable enough to be mentioned in the lead, but I know there's some diehards in this group that take a different view on that one.
• Overuse and misuse of parenthesis. I'd change to commas or make separate sentences.
• Sourcing issues: Some sources are missing publisher information, also cahighways.org may be an WP:SPS.
• The linkchecker they use at FAC (and many people use at GAC) is rejecting two links as dead. This will have to be addressed. Also I challenge the validity of using the highway conditions website (whose content can change hourly) as a source. Dave (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• It needs more early history on the toll road. --NE2 11:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Due to time constraints I am unable to work on this until late September. What should we do about this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it with the glacial pace of the A class review process right now, nobody will probably even notice.Dave (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the consensus here is that it should be demoted, but it should definitely be brought back here once someone's willing to work on it actively. I'll probably close this out after this weekend if no one objects. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result is no action taken. Article was promoted to Featured Article status.

New York State Route 308 (1 net support votes)

New York State Route 308 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: Seems to meet the criteria...

Nominated by: Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments There are a lot of nit-pick grammar errors in this article, some I've noticed include:

• "Modern-NY 308" what's the dash for?
• "Beekman Arms Inn, a notable featured that NY 308 passes" -feature.
• I was told to turn off links for common units in prose (ft, m, etc.) my lone time through FAC. At a minimum, only the first instance should be linked, ft and m are linked multiple times.
• Overlinking: De link U.S. in route description. If somebody hasn't figured out what the U.S. means by this point in the article, there's trouble afoot =-)
• Underlinking =-): The second instance of Ulster and Delaware Turnpike is wikilinked, but not the first.

Sourcing issues:

• Source 8 (waterfronts.org) as currently attributed this sounds like a self published source. Try to find out who publishes waterfronts.org, as this will raise eyebrows at FAC.
• Several book citations are missing an ISBN or OCLC code. Try to find one or the other, as this will cause grief at FAC.
• Source 6 (Marist) is missing publisher information.

Friendly suggestions:

• Salisbury Turnpike. Though most in the USRD community disagree with me, I don't like bolded terms outside of the lead. If I understand the article correctly this is a colloquial name for part of the Ulster and Delware Turnpike, which is mentioned in the lead. I'd work an "or Salsbury Turnpike" in the lead and have the bolded instance be there. As I know I'm in the minority, I won't vote oppose if you tell me to buzz off.

All in all, it's impressive you could write an article that long on a 6 mile long route. Congrats.Dave (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I think I got everything. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away for a few weeks, so I'm afraid I won't be able to work on this for a while. And yes, I think I squeezed every last bit of information out of the route. :-) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support FWIW my concerns resolved. But as you have this at FAC, I doubt it matters. I still think nywaterfronts.org needs publisher information, but if it passed the reviewers at FAC so be it. Dave (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-class. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Utah State Route 128 (4 net support votes)

Utah State Route 128 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A class

Nominator's comments: Making this page was a lot of fun, and with the contributions NE2, myself and Rob have made, I think this may be FA worthy. We'll see.....

Nominated by: Dave (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'd move the "Dewey Bridge fire" section into the description, or into a separate "Dewey Bridge" section. It doesn't really relate to the history of SR-128 any more than the other bridge information does. --NE2 07:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed, the more I look at it, this shouldn't be its own section. As I suspect this won't be the only feedback, I'll move when I'm making the next round of fixes. Thanks. Dave (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  I think there's actually enough to support a separate article on the bridge. --NE2 11:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• We should determine what the legislature meant in 1931 by "Castleton". --NE2 11:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Castleton is a ghost town at the south end of Castle Valley. It appears on detailed maps of the area. The book Grand Memories (already used as a source in this article) has a one page writeup on it. Most locals now just consider the area part of Castle Valley. I'd say for now pipe link or redirect.

Creating a separate article for the bridge is on my get around to it list (among many others). However, I'm aware of some other documents that exist that I'm trying to get my hands on first.Dave (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the NRHP nomination, the NPS will mail a copy for free: [10] --NE2 19:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Shouldn't the lead be broken into two paragraphs? CL — 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how did I miss that. Thanks. I also just noticed that three consecutive sentences start with "The bridge..." I'll get on all of the above suggestions.Dave (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me now. I just think the last sentence in the 2nd lead paragraph sticks out a little, but thtat's just me. Good job with the article - CL — 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Polaron

• Comments
  • I went through the article and made some grammatical fixes, particularly in the area of comma usage. You may want to go through or have someone else go through the article again since I'm sure I missed some of them. Look at my edits for examples.
  • There is currently no designation history in the introduction. I think it should be mentioned there.
  • Refs 2 and 4 appear to be referencing the same fact, i.e. that it is called "River Road". Is there a reason why two separate references are needed in different spots?
  • The fire in the introduction should probably be cited, particularly as a cause of the fire is mentioned.
  • The Dewey Bridge section in the Route description seems inappropriate. It's basically a mini-article of the bridge. Perhaps a separate bridge article should be made. Otherwise, a current description of the bridge is sufficient for the route description and move the rest to the history section.
  • The abbreviation "SR-128" should be mentioned in the first sentence.
  • Use words when writing out small numbers, e.g. "two runs of seven cables" rather than "2 runs of 7 cables".
  • The phrase "...the nerve it took to cross..." sounds awkward. Maybe reword it to something like "...their nervousness/anxiety in crossing..." or something to that effect.
  • Was the highway formed in 1931 or 1933? I believe the formed date for most state highway articles is when the current designation was applied to the road. Based on the text in the history, it appears that 1933 is this date.
• That's all I could find for now. I think I fixed most of my other minor concerns. --Polaron

• The issues I raised have been addressed so I am now giving my support. --Polaron | Talk 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written, images freely licensed on commons, external links check out. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - The article has great images and reliable sources. This article is now an official A-Class article since I there are 4 net support votes. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result was nominator withdrew nomination. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Route 531 (-1 net support votes)

Washington State Route 531 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article has recently passed GA and is very well written and is illistrated by a map, and 2 photos, each with no copyright problems. All references are reliable and most are from WSDOT, the State's DOT.

Nominated by: --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments: All external ref links are in working order. Images should be moved to Commons. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am moving the images to Commons right now. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 16:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted local copies of images now that they are on commons. Highwaygeek.com is a unreliable source. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed Highwaygeek and replaced it with a reference for the Arlington extension from the City of Marysville's official newsletter, the Marysville Messenger. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose is really choppy. The history section includes details of US 99 and I-5, which have nothing to do with SR 531. Does it really need three maps that show basically the same thing? There's no source for "many traffic improvement projects are currently in planning stages". What was the road before it became SR 531? --NE2 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The section involving US 99 does relate to SR 531 because SR 531 intersects Smokey Point Boulevard, which is a segment of the former route of US 99. I will fix that phrase later on and yes, we need 3 maps, one (infobox) comparing SR 531 to other local roads, another (history) showing an satillite image (or arieal) of SR 531 before it was a highway, and another (description) to show detail. Also, the road was really just the road names (E. Lake Goodwin Road, Lakewood Road, and 172nd Street) before SR 531. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So SR 531 intersects old US 99. You don't need two paragraphs detailing the history of US 99, just one or two sentences in the route description. If the road was the same before 1992, why do you need an aerial showing it before then? And it wasn't always the same - settlers didn't come to Washington and find all these paved roads ready to drive on. --NE2 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support-I was the GA reviewer of the article, this article had many prose issues before the GA Review, which was addressed by the nominator, before it would not meet A-standards. Though, after those many issues in the GA review had been addressed, I find the article to meet these new standards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SRX (talk • contribs) 13:53, July 15, 2008
• NE2, there is no information about the orgin of the road that is SR 531 today. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by that? --NE2 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dave (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments A good article, IMO this is close but needs some work. My thoughts:

• The 2nd paragraph of the history section seems out of place. This paragraph seems more appropriate for the history section of either the article on US 99, I-5 or list of state highways in Washington. Suggest removing or revising to show the connection to SR-531.
• The 2nd map does not match the 1st and 3rd. My opinion is to remove it, I don't see the need for 3 maps.
• The Road Extension and Road names sections are short and probably should be expanded or combined. Also the Road Extensions should be either expanded or combined into a single paragraph. Also should be "Road extensions" per the WP:MOS.
• I doubt wikimapia is an acceptable source, as it is user generated content. Most other sites of this nature (Wikipedia, blogs, etc.) are not allowed as sources on FA class articles.
• The County entry for the Major intersections table does not look like it has the right number of columns set. But this may be an issue with my computer too.

Good luck. Dave (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed everything, Dave and here are some answers to your questions:

• I only used Wikimapia to find the lengths with their Distance measuring tool.
• The County entry for the Major intersections table is actually set right. It may be your browser. What browser do you use? --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 15:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Better, but I still have some concerns

• The heading "Road Extensions and names" should be "Road extensions and names" or just "Extensions and names".
• I still don't see how the 2nd paragraph of the history section is related to SR-531. Again, this paragraph seems more appropriate for another article. Perhaps shorten this to a single sentence "The intersection of Smokey Point Boulevard and SR 531 is the historical crossing of U.S. Route 99 before that route was eliminated in 1968." (with a reference for the date).
• The column span of the county field is set incorrectly, change cspan=20 to cspan=10 and it now displays correctly on my monitor.Dave (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed everything, I changed the title to "Extensions and names," I made the paragraph into a sentence, and I fixe the county field to cspan=10. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 16:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: I see some minor prose issues, which I will attempt to fix.

• "Interstate 5" is fully spelled in the 3rd mention (in the history section) but abbreviated in the first two mentions. Usually, the first mention should be fully spelled and/or linked, and the later mentions abbreviated with no links.
• There are some words that could be considered Peacock terms, that I will remove.
• The MOS:SYL recommends that only specific and relevant dates should be wikilinked. Where dates are vague (i.e. late 2008) are not usually wikilinked.

If I messed anything up, revert. Also, other maps support distance computing, including Google Maps or Mapquest. I still advise to change to one of them, as I suspect wikimapia will be determined to be not acceptable at FAC. Dave (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I finished all the things you asked and I changed the Wikimapia references to Google Maps. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I also added a reference to WSDOT's official state highway map for 2008/2009, bringing the total count of references to 21. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Here are the most glaring issues (IMHO) at present:
  • "The highway's alignment has not changed since it was established." – Ref 3 (the state law) doesn't say that the alignment never changed. It means that it was never truncated or extended, but I'm pretty sure that bypasses and the like can be built without changing the state law.
  • "45 Road also runs southeast and serves as an alternative to the SR 531–Interstate 5 interchange, which is roughly 2.3 miles (3.7 km) east." – I'm not sure what's meant here by it being an alternative to the interchange. Looking at a map [11] of the other end of 45 Road, there's no easy access from there to either I-5 or back to SR 531. What is 45 Road an alternate route for? (As an aside, the use of the word "alternative" seems awkward to me, and the word "also" at the beginning of the sentence seems incorrect, since you don't mention anything else running southeast.)
  • "The intersection of Smokey Point Boulevard and SR 531 is the historical crossing of U.S. Route 99 before that route was eliminated in 1968." – Neither of the two references given mention Smokey Point Boulevard being the former alignment of US 99, or give 1968 for the date.
  • "With the development of Lakewood Crossing, many traffic improvement projects are currently in planning stages." – {{fact}}
• I saw this article when it started trying to move up the ladder, and it's definitely getting much closer to where it needs to be, but not quite there yet. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the comments on 45 Road, the intersection, and the phrase about Lakewood Crossing and other projects. I also added better map references that show the route of SR 531 (using the Directions tool).--CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that Image:I-5 from WA-531.jpg is irrelevant in this article. Sure, the bridge carries SR 531, but we don't get any view of the road or the bridge itself - just I-5. This would belong more in the I-5 article than SR 531, just my opinion. CL — 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I will try to get a good image of SR 531 east from the intersection with Smokey Point Boulevard to replace the image. Hopefully, I can do it by the end of this month or in early August. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Here are a few issues I found in just the first skimming of the article
  • There are misspelled words in the article. The word "highlighted" is misspelled in a caption.
  • There is an inconsistent application of date auto-formatting in the article.
  • While other articles use it, and {{infobox road}} supports it, the correct location for the commons cat is in the external links section. This was mentioned at the NY 32 FAC, and I've changed this usage on the M-35 and M-28 articles myself.
  • The I-5 photo does little to add to the article. In fact it should be removed since the article is about SR-531 and not I-5. I agree with CL about removing it from the article.
  • While not an MOS issue per se, but the Google Maps citations should be formatted using {{cite map}} and not {{cite web}} as they are maps.
  • The lead mentions that this is a "vital artery". This sounds like a point of view. This is also only mentioned in the lead and nowhere in the text of the article. I'd strike that description or find a source for that opinion and add that to the body of the article.
  • The route description prose could use a copy edit. While it does seem to accurately describe the routing, it reads as very dry to me, like the text just gives a turn by turn set of map directions. There's very little description of the terrain and the roadway's surroundings. A suggestion would be to add traffic count data for the roadway, maybe just mention where traffic counts peak and fall.
  • Another suggestion based on a personal preference of mine is to add a mini-lead summarizing the route description a little bit. I say this because you have the RD heading and then immediately after is a subheading. Maybe this would be a good location for some infomation about the highway as a whole before delving into specifics along the segments in the subheadings?
  • Per WP:MOSDATE, years alone should not be linked. 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011 are all linked incorrectly in the history section. Also the word "of" is redundant and unnecessary under the MOS in "June of 2006".

For these reasons alone, I can't support promoting the article at this time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw this nomination. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result -- Promote to A Class. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 254 (4 net support votes)

New York State Route 254 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article got a nice rewrite today after becoming a GA months ago. Now I feel it is ready for a peer review & for A-class. Any comments are helpful as usual.

Nominated by: Mitch32^(UP) 01:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments — Here is my review of the article, broken down by section:
  • Lead/infobox
    • Missing maintenance tag in the infobox. I assume this wasn't added because it is both state- and county-maintained, but I think it should still be added all the same.
      • done. It wasn't added because the article was made before that :D.
  • Route description
    • Just some minor copy editing for readability and clarity is what I'd suggest. It reads well in general, but a few sentences seem awkward to me.
    • The prose calls it the Adirondack Northway, but not I-87. I'd add that to the reference in the RD.
      • done.
  • History — reads well to me.
  • Everything else looks good. I'd suggest just a little overall copy edit for some extra polish and those minor changes to support it as another A-Class. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support — all suggestions and concerns addressed to my satisfaction. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • Main body: in the RD "The highway heads eastward, crossing the Northway and entering parts of Queensbury." reads funny; maybe reword it?
    • • done.
  • Images: Freely licensed, loaded on commons.
  • Shield/Map: Looks good
  • After taking a second look at the RD, I will have no issue supporting this as an A-Class article. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 16:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Great article. Another New York state route FA? ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 15:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support I just had a couple quick comments that were fixed via IRC, and it looks good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 491 (4 net support votes)

U.S. Route 491 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The motivating factor for me to work on this article is to request this to be the featured article for April Fools Day. I don't know the probability occurring, but any help to achieve this goal would be most greatly appriciated.

Nominated by: Dave (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article on US 491 is very well-written and very informal. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh, don't we want encyclopedia articles to be formal? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I mean the "giving information" defenition of informal. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Then you mean "informative." "Informal" does not mean "giving information." --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So are we here to review an article or argue about the english language? =-) Dave (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Thanks Computerguy for the vote Dave (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - A well-written article, Dave, definitely. Just a few very small questions, though:
  • Shouldn't "US 491" be in parentheses in the lead, so it reads "U.S. Route 491 (US 491)"? I saw it in parentheses on the I-70 in Utah article, that's why I'm not sure about it
    • That's fixed. Dabby (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the route description, under New Mexico, 9th street should be capitalized (I'll fix that if you don't mind)
  • In the route description, under Colorado, should there be a comma after "In Colorado US 491 proceeds diagonally..."? There is a similar situation in the Utah subsection. I'm not sure what the exact rules are dictating this.
  • And I've always wondered about this: why is there the "Utah Code Annotated §72-4-137(11)" but not anything of the sort in other subsections? I've seen this legal mumbo jumbo in other Utah subsections about cross-country routes, but I was never sure why it was there.

All in all, a great article. This is well on its way to FA. CL — 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar fixes. I'm not good a spotting grammar errors like that. As to your question. Most states do not define route numbers by law. Most states the numbers are assigned by the department of transportation without intervention from the legislature. The states that do have route numbers set by law are Utah, California and there's 2 or 3 more. You bring up a bigger point. There's a very real chance that when this article goes for FAC someone will ask the same question. If anybody has ideas on how to reword that sentence to eliminate the question, please speak up.Dave (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• When was the "Devil's Highway" nickname given? It seems that, unless there are earlier sources, the history of that should be moved to "Elimination and renumbering of US 666". --NE2 03:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anybody would be able to find a single event where some notable person christened the name "Devil's Highway". Almost certainly it gained the nickname over time. The more I think about it the best way to handle that is to reword the introduction to say "Over time the route was given the nickname the "Devil's Highway." From my personal research I do know those who have been in the trucking industry since the early 1950's who have known the road by this name ever since they can remember. I will amend that sentence, if you have further concerns, please advise. Dave (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that should be there; it relates to the renumbering. That section also needs more about the roadway before it became US 666, since there are no state-detail articles. --NE2 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I've been debating to include is the connection of this route to the Old Spanish Trail. I have avoided doing this so far as that connection is rather loose and vague. However, sources do exist, and I could add a paragraph. I'll try to get to this later this week.Dave (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent). I've been trying to see if I can find a citation for "oldest cited incidence" of the name Devil's Highway. The Salt Lake Tribune article used as a source provides some clues but I can't find a specific date. In the article:

• A disgruntled business owner in Dove Creek, CO with Devil's Highway as part of the business name stated :"I've been here 22 years and uh-uh, I'm not changing it. (22 years ~ 1981).
• Waitress at a coffee shop in Cortez, CO "It's been the 'Devil's Highway' for a long, long time, and I don't think they should change it."
• An 83 year old business owner in Dove Creek "The devil still runs up and down here," he said motioning to the roadway. "You can recognize him by his tail."

So... not the best source to establish when the nickname became firmly entrenched, but is enough to show it was not a recent occurrence as the renumbering was being considered. Will try to work this in as well as the promised Old Spanish Trail mentioned. Please advise if you still have objections.

I have added more about the early state routes. My logic in the order is as follows, It is the content about the satanic connotations are what would make this article interesting (hopefully) to a general audience. Most of the details about extensions and resolutions, etc. would only be interesting to roadgeeks. IMO the ordering as is is a compromise to get the "general interest" stuff as close to the front of the article as I can without breaking chronological flow too bad. IMO a good article should be one that both an enthusiast audience and a general audience would agree is good. Please advise if you disagree with this reasoning and feel a different order is appropriate.Dave (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Ref #18 (Linthicum, Leslie (31 July 2003). "It's Now U.S. 491, Not U.S. 666", Albuquerque Journal.) redirects to a website which requires a registration, can we find an alternate source? Otherwise, all other ref's check out, images on commons with free license. Fix this and I will support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Some content would have to be removed if I did not use this newspaper article as a source. For example, this is the only "trustworthy" source I've found so far with the words to the blessing to remove the "curse". The Salt Lake Tribune article also used mentions the blessing took place, but does not give any text from it. I would prefer instead to negotiate a compromise with you. This is a citation to a newspaper, not a website. The newspaper's website currently gives two options to view archives, registration or viewing a 30 second commercial. Someone who refused to register or view the ad could also verify this citation via public library or on-line newspaper archiving service. As it is now, this is how somebody who wanted to verify the Salt Lake Tribune article would have to do this, or pay as the SL tribune charges for archive access. For cites to newspapers, the author, title and publication date are sufficient, so I could just delete the URL. However I think it's better to include it for those who want to verify the citation now and are willing to accept the sites conditions. How'd I do for a convincing argument? Dave (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was easy. I'll have to try that while asking my boss for a raise tomorrow =-). Thanks. Dave (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) The more I look at this, the more I think that the media and pop culture section should be massaged into another section, it's too short for a level 2 heading. I'm going to re-arrange some content. If this will affect your vote, please advise Dave (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Provisional Support — I have a few little comments before I make it a full support here.

• • I know the Utah section isn't very long, but is there anything more that can be said about it to round out the paragraph a bit more?

I've tried to milk a little more out of the Utah and Colorado sections. Unfortunately (or fortunately) most of my research in to *notable* items along the highway lead me to expand sections that didn't need expanding =-)

• • I've see in other multistate routes a table listing the individual state mileages. While I'm not up on US Highway articles, is this still done?
    • I don't know but FWIW that is not a requirement on the project page. Also it would be redundant with the Major intersections table which has state mileages.
  • I've seen both US-491 and US 491 in the prose. I know that the different DOTs abbreviate it differently, but can we pick one version and stick with it throughout (templates notwithstanding)?

This has plagued this page with the 3 states each having different conventions. I THINK I've got them all, now. Please advise if there's more.

• • In the History section, what's "Modern Road 32" Is there a "State" missing in that phrase?

Fixed

• • I didn't know that it had "US Highway status". I thought they had a "US Highway designation". Just an interesting word choice there.

Fixed.

• • The last sentence in the History has an extra comma in the date.

Fixed.

• • The word mileage is misspelled in ref 1.

My spell checker accepts either spelling, but changed to the more common one.

Otherwise another fine, top-notch effort, Dave. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have addressed all of your comments, I hope.Dave (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. A couple of minor things that should be easily and quickly fixed, but just barely enough to oppose IMHO.
  • The "Utah" subsection of the route description section seems too short to warrant a separate subsection in my book (3 or 4 sentences?). Your options I think are to merge it into a "Colorado and Utah" subsection, get rid of the third-level headers entirely, or IMHO the best option, expand! I know it's only 17 miles long, and presumable goes through a whole lot of nothing, but there's got to be something else to say. Is there anything of note nearby in Monticello? The route description says it ends at the intersection of Main and Central (Main Street and Central Avenue? Main Avenue and Central Street? Main Road and Central Boulevard?), but the infobox and junction list say it ends at US 191. Which highway is Main and which is Central?

I have expanded the Utah and Colorado sections a little. I honestly think I've milked what I can for the Utah section. There is a one building village called "Ucolo" (portameau of Utah and Colorado) that is kinda near this route that other roadgeek sites focus on. But I chose not to, because It's not really along US-491 just kinda near it, and b. it really isn't notable, just a name curiosity. However, if you and Imzadi feel it merits a mention (as you both feel the Utah section needs more, I'll throw a mention in.

• • The use of abbreviations is inconsistent. I don't necessarily have a problem with jumping back and forth between "U.S. Route 491" and "US 491" – it seems the strategy is to spell it out when linking it on the first mention, which IMHO is a fine rule of thumb. However, in the article text, I've caught at least one of each US 491, U.S. 491, and US-491. I understand the use of "US-191" in the infobox/junction list is mandated by the templates (although this can be bypassed), but one abbreviation should be used consistently in the article text to avoid havng to list all three in the lead and explaining the difference between the three.
  • Also with regards to abbreviations, SR xx and SH xx are used in the history section without mentioning what they stand for.

Yes, with UT, CO and NM having different conventions this has been an issue with this page since day 1. I think I've got everything down to a single standard. Please advise if you see more.

• • "Modern State Road 32 is part of the original route that was not used by US 666." – original route of what? Before I reached the end of the sentence, I assumed it was going to mean part of the original route of 666 that's not used by 491, now I think it means original route of SR 32, but this isn't clear.

reworded- please advise if you still have objections.

• • "The dedication of the "new" highway was postponed until July 30, 2003, to coincide with the start of construction projects to improve safety on the highway.[23][20]" – Whenever you have two footnotes right next to each other, you always want to make sure they appear in numerical order. FAC loves to dock an inappropriately large number of points for this.

Yeah I know, believe me I know. Thanks, nice catch.

• • The major cities box doesn't render properly on my browser (Safari). The major towns header appears in its own cell off to the right of the "table", with a big blank spot above the list of towns. This is easily fixed by removing float:right; from the code for that row.

I have removed the offending code. I don't normally use Safari but opened the page in Safari to see for myself. Yes I can confirm the page renders odd in Safari. I strongly encourage you to raise this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Highways as this code is taken verbatim from the structure section of the project page. So, in theory by making this change I'm in violation of project standards (not the first time I've been branded a rebel =-) ) and every US highway article has this offending code in it.Dave (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See this diff. I tweaked the wording of the Utah subsection a bit. I also removed the sentence about NM 32 that I had questions about, since it was really only tangentially related to US 491/666, and I bluelinked NM 32 and put it there instead. (Plus, I'm not entirely sure current NM 32 is actually related to the NM 32 that became US 666. The 1926 map doesn't show current 32, and old 32 appears to head east from Gallup instead of south.) Once you reply and say that you approve my changes, I'll be happy to switch over to support and close this out. (I realize I'm probably not supposed to close it since I participated, but this certainly has plenty of support even if you discount my !vote. ) -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, hold on... The Utah subsection of the route description makes a lot of statements – it ascends a mountain range, pinto farming is still visible, it follows one street and intersects another – but the only reference is for the state law, which I'm assuming doesn't say anything about any of that... -- Kéiryn (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fixing these should be more than enough to garner a support from me. Good luck! -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with the changes you made. However as I noted on your talk page per WP:OVERLINK common units of measure should not be linked, feet and meters are specifically mentioned as not requiring a link. Also, I'm not an expert on NM highways, but from looking at the maps, It appears there has always been a NM32 in this corner of New Mexico, just that the termini keep creeping south, so I do stand by the statement as written (for now =-) ). Dave (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Support with minor comments: You might want to place a citation tag next to the note in the lead about fatality rates going down. I see it's cited later in the article, but you might want to make that clear the first time it's mentioned. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Crap, I didn't see your suggestion. I'll add this the next time the article is open, sorry. As I'm going for FAC eventually I'll have plenty of opportunities to revise this further =-). Thanks for the vote. Dave (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Maryland Route 36 (4 net support votes)

Maryland Route 36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article recently became a GA, and comments on how to improve it further would be very helpful.

Nominated by: Algorerhythms (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Come back with more references. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 02:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a valid reason to oppose. What specifically in the article still needs to be referenced? -- Kéiryn (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Support - I looked the article over a second time. Now it convinced me to support. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Commons images, references valid, overall good article. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments — I gave some feedback the other evening on IRC, but I'm here to do a full review tonight.
  • I'm not sure the exact guideline here, but I was under the impression that only redirected article titles should be bolded in the lead. WP:LEAD doesn't seem clear to me on this, but I think the extra bolding should be removed.
    • Changed. "Mount Savage Road" and "Georges Creek Road" are no longer bolded.
  • The instructions for {{infobox road}} say only to use an alternate name if the highway has one for the entire route. (Also, I know that the Maryland roads project prescribes a different template, unless there's a specific reason not to use it, {{infobox road}} probably should be used for consistency with other projects. )
    • I've switched it to infobox road, since infobox Maryland highway apparently doesn't support the counties option.
      • Infobox Maryland highway now supports the counties option, so since the MDRD editing guide specifies that template, I'll leave it as Infobox Maryland highway.
  • Nice paring of the junctions in the infobox.
  • I'm not sure that {{infobox Maryland highway}} supports it, but there are no county listings in the infobox like other USRD FAs/As.
    • The county listing has been added.
  • This is a personal preference of mine, but when putting together an article, I've always felt it looks better if there's some text between a second and third level heading. That way it isn't the heading for "Route description" immediately followed by the first subheading. Maybe a few lines that summarize the whole section, like a mini-lead? Nothing I'd oppose promotion over, just a stylistic preference I have.

• • • I added a bit of text so that the headings are separated.

• • The referencing looks good after our IRC discussion on it. Good Job.
  • You might want to abbreviate the linked text for other highway articles. Once you introduce a reader to the Maryland Route 36 (MD 36) convention, you can use that convention on all further references, much like newsstories use a person's last name on second and subsequent mentions. After all, they are all abbreviated that way in the junction list.
  • In the Junction list, you abbreviate it as Alt US 40, but above in the text, it's always typed out as U.S. Route 40 Alternate. Once again, I'd abbreviate that in the prose for consistency.
  • The coal mining explanation could be summarized a bit more. While it explains the Scenic Byway designation, it breaks up the flow of the article a bit too much.
    • It does break up the flow of the article. One thing I am considering is switching the first and second paragraphs in the history section, as the first paragraph is more closely related to the third paragraph than to the second paragraph, but I'll wait to see what you think of that before doing that.
      • Actually, you could move the coal mining stuff up into the route description. Yes, it is of an historical nature, but the name is a feature of the roadway. That would tie the historical stuff together better by eliminating the break in flow. (Also, I'd make a mention of MDSHA someplace up in the lead if it can be worked in so that the mention of MDSHA in that paragraph could be abbreviated. If not, at least put (MDSHA) after the mention so that the abbreviation in the infobox makes more sense.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • I added a mention of MDSHA in the lead. I looked at moving the coal mining stuff into the route description, but it just didn't seem to fit.

• • MD 831A and MD 831C are wikilinked in the junction list, but not in the prose above it like the other Maryland routes. Is there a reason? If not, they should be wikilinked in the prose as well.
    • I've changed this, though I'm considering changing it back, as it may be overlinking, since both the MD 831A and MD 831C links go to the MD 831 entry in the list of minor routes.
      • It wouldn't be overlinking exactly since if you're linking other highways, you should consistently link them all on first mention. If you're worried about the article looking like a "sea of blue", abbreviate the highways names. "Maryland" is a fairly long word to be repeated in every highway link every time when all of the highways mentioned are in the same state. Shortening them all to [[Maryland Route 831A|MD 831A]] will only produce MD 831A or equivalent for each link visually decreasing the amount of blue used in the text without breaking the links. You've already introduced the reader to that abbreviation convention up in the first sentence of the lead. It's like AP news stories using a person's last name on second and later mentions to save space.Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • I've abbreviated "Maryland Route 831A" to "Route 831A" (and similarly for 831C). I'm sort of conflicted about using the "MD X" abbreviation in the text, as "Route X" seems to flow better in text. At the same time, MDSHA itself tends to prefer the "MD X" abbreviation, using it often on signs, which would lead to preference toward that abbreviation.

I look forward to seeing these really minor changes made and the promotion of this article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are a couple things in your comments I haven't gotten to yet, but I'll wait until tomorrow to do so, since it's getting late. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a few followup comments and suggestions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Support — There are still some minor improvements I'd like to see made, like consistency in abbreviating routes. The county line in the infobox doesn't need the word "County" in the link. These are minor concerns, but the former will need to be cleared up before this article is taken to FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Bolded text in the lead is generally used for alternate titles of the article that redirect to this page. As these are local names, not alternate titles, IMO, these should be italicized not bolded. see MOS:BOLD
  • Changed.
• There is some overlinking. As a rule of thumb, only link the first instance of a term, or in a long article only link the first instance of each section. U.S. 40 Alternate is wikilinked on almost every instance, Cumberland is also wikilinked multiple times in the same paragraph.
  • I've removed some overlinking.
    • There's more, in the lead MDSHA is wikilinked twice. Georges Creek Valley is wikilinked twice in the Route description section. Also, Georges Creek Road is wikilinked on the 2nd mention in the Route description.
• Ensure that phrases like "this is an old alignment of Route 36" and speed limit changes are sourced. Some of these are in paragraphs with one source at the end, ensure that source covers this information or include an additional source.
• Cite 10 (examinar.com) is missing necessary information newspaper citations {{cite news}} should have name of publication and date of publication.
  • Changed.
• "joins U.S. Route 40 Alternate" two adjacent terms are wikilinked, this is generally discouraged. Re-write the sentence to avoid this situation, or de-link one of the terms.
• Changed. I de-lined "joins".
• "(though the route remains marked north/south)" I think this is a misuse of parenthesis, I think this should be with commas or dashes. But I'm not an english major, consider consulting a more competent editor.
  • Changed.
• "which connects it to Pennsylvania Route 160" sounds rough, suggest instead "which connects with Penn...."
  • Changed.
• "intersection,[6]," remove one of the commas.
  • Changed.

Minor issues, easily fixable. More than happy to support once addressed. Dave (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there is still some overlinking, which I've mentioned inline. Other than that looks good. One question, I was under the impression that the See Also section was for related articles not already linked in prose. Georges Creek Valley is linked in prose, is this appropriate? (I don't know, asking for others to chime in).Dave (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the overlinking you mentioned above, and I reworded the sentence where Georges Creek Road was wikilinked to make it clear that the link points to the article on the creek, not the road. - Algorerhythms (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Issues resolved to my satasfaction Dave (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class. CL — 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Brockway Mountain Drive (4 net support votes)

Brockway Mountain Drive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Currently one of the few county-roads to be rated as a GA. I think it could do well as an A-Class article.

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written, all refs check out, images are on commons and are freely licensed. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This article is very informative, has good images, and may be the next FA for USRD. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• The phrase "scenic highway" in the lead should have a source at the end of the sentence. It appears there are already several in the article already that would work, it's just to ensure nobody accuses you of using Peacock terms in the lead.
• Per WP:MOS common units such as feet and meters should not be linked.
• "scenic loop off of M-26" sounds kinds odd. Maybe "scenic alternative to M-26" or "scenic loop connecting to M-26"
• wikilink first instance of hairpin turn
• first paragraph of Rout description needs a source. The 2nd paragraph could use one for the last sentences too.
• Major intersections: Some state projects where a route only passes through a single county or city remove that column from the table and just have a note that the entire route is in foo county. What is the standard for the Michigan project?

All in all a good article, these are minor suggestions. Dave (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Just a disclosure here, I didn't write the article. Stratosphere did. I nominated it as the best candidate in the MSHP pool for A-Class at the moment. Anyways, the links in the measurements have been removed. Michigan has few examples of single-county roads articles so far. The freeways didn't have a template series for creating the exit lists and omitted the county column in the hand-coding, but the surface routes have included all the columns like all other routes for consistency. Otherwise the table would have to be rebuilt with hand coding to eliminate the templates. I've updated references to include Google Maps where appropriate as well.Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment, the Awards and Recognition section is short. Consider merging with the History section, which is also short? Dave (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the two sections are just dissimilar enough to remain separate, even if they are short. Otherwise, all other comments should be addressed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think they should be merged, but this is not a strong enough objection to merit an oppose vote. Also for some reason linking above sea level looks odd, but I can't put my finger on why, nor do I have any recommended way to change it, so an oppose on that basis wouldn't' be fair. So I will vote Support Dave (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support with minor nitpick: Well written article overall, though "The road was not paved until starting in 1938, with the entire route being completely paved by 1946." is somewhat awkwardly worded. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sentence reworded. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class. Mitch32^(UP) 00:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Route 531 (4 net support votes)

Washington State Route 531 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I would like to renominate this article after the last review was held, the is article went under a copyedit from User:Finetooth and a peer review by User:Admrboltz.

Nominated by: ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, per the PR that I assisted CG with, as well as my resolved comments from the last A-Class review --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments — My comments from the previous review are as follows, with corrected items struck.
  • There are misspelled words in the article. The word "highlighted" is misspelled in a caption.
  • There is an inconsistent application of date auto-formatting in the article.
  • While other articles use it, and {{infobox road}} supports it, the correct location for the commons cat is in the external links section. This was mentioned at the NY 32 FAC, and I've changed this usage on the M-35 and M-28 articles myself.
  • The I-5 photo does little to add to the article. In fact it should be removed since the article is about SR-531 and not I-5. I agree with CL about removing it from the article.
  • While not an MOS issue per se, but the Google Maps citations should be formatted using {{cite map}} and not {{cite web}} as they are maps.
  • The lead mentions that this is a "vital artery". This sounds like a point of view. This is also only mentioned in the lead and nowhere in the text of the article. I'd strike that description or find a source for that opinion and add that to the body of the article.
  • The route description prose could use a copy edit. While it does seem to accurately describe the routing, it reads as very dry to me, like the text just gives a turn by turn set of map directions. There's very little description of the terrain and the roadway's surroundings. A suggestion would be to add traffic count data for the roadway, maybe just mention where traffic counts peak and fall.
  • Another suggestion based on a personal preference of mine is to add a mini-lead summarizing the route description a little bit. I say this because you have the RD heading and then immediately after is a subheading. Maybe this would be a good location for some infomation about the highway as a whole before delving into specifics along the segments in the subheadings?
  • Per WP:MOSDATE, years alone should not be linked. 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011 are all linked incorrectly in the history section. Also the word "of" is redundant and unnecessary under the MOS in "June of 2006".

• New comments:
  • "At the intersection with 11th Avenue, SR 531 becomes the northern boundary of Lakewood High School, the only high school in the Lakewood area." This sentence reads funny to me. I know that the road itself isn't the edge of the building, but maybe that should be reworded to the northern boundary of the LHS complex/property? Maybe I'm just reading it wrong tonight?
  • The RD is still a little dry, but much better.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the sentence about Lakewood High School. It now reads "At the intersection with 11th Avenue, SR 531 becomes the northern boundary of Lakewood High School's campus, and Lakewood High School the only high school in the Lakewood area." I am going to have someone copyedit the RD sometime soon. I already added information of the surroundings, but I can't find the traffic data or a reference to back it up. There is no source from WSDOT that I could find. Also, who do you suggest I have to copyedit the article's RD? ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 01:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles reaching this caliber of quality are almost ready for Feature Article status. FAs should have "brilliant prose" according to the guidelines. Now my FACs I've had outsiders copyedit, but the idea is that to at this level of quality, the prose should be engaging and, frankly, this isn't quite there. It's pretty good, but a little polish just to keep it from sounding like a written set of map directions would be a good thing. It's almost there, so don't get discouraged. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Finetooth is on a wikibreak until Friday, but I have requested that User:RC-0722 copyedit the route description, because he is a former member of the Leauge of Copyeditors. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I requested that User:Scott5114 copyedit the RD because RC-0722 recommended that I get another active editor to copyedit. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 01:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The overlinking needs to be fixed. One other little nit-pick keeping me from supporting passage to A-Class at this time concerns the precision of length data. The infobox gives the length at 9.88 miles, but all references in the prose are 9.9 miles, except the milepost on the last line of the junction table. You should pick a length, and stick to it. Since the 9.88-mile figure is the one supported by references, you shouldn't round it off in the text. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The fixes Dave and I applied remove my last issues with the article, so I Support at this time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Support This is very close. IMO there is a bit of WP:overlinking, but not enough to merit an oppose vote. Some examples:

• high school - This is linked after mentioning 3 high schools by name with links. If somebody didn't know what high school meant they most likely would have clicked on one of the high schools to find out before reaching this point in the article.
• Weston High School is linked twice in the Route description section, only need to link once per major section.

Aside from that I think you're there. Congrats, I know you've worked hard on this article and taken some beatings =-) Dave (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Computerguy, I just noticed some things that are set apart with () that probably should use commas... If you want I can fix those. Dave (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay... ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made the above mentioned changes. This looks good to me. One question, the infobox claims that SR-531 is a spur of I-5. Is it really? I'm not familiar with washington, but the states I am familiar with don't do things that way. Dave (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Techinically, SR 531 is a child route of I-5. Usually in Washington, child routes take the first 2 numbers of their parent and add another number to form their designation. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads {{subst:#if:A-class review|A-class review|debate}}. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class.Mitch32^(UP) 00:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

M-107 (Michigan highway) (4 net support votes)

M-107 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The next nomination for MSHP

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. The RD looks very good with the pictures. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) (02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
  • WP:OVERLINK: please delink the units of measurement in the lead
  • Images check out
  • External links check out
    • Links pulled. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Almost there, a couple of nit-pics

• Question: shouldn't "Main article: Lake of the Clouds (Michigan)" use a pipe link to eliminate the (Michigan)? (I don't know, I'm asking an honest question)
• Peacock terms: "virgin wilderness and stunning vistas" In the US there is a legal definition of wilderness, that basically means undisturbed land, protected from all development so it remains so in perpetuity. So if it's legally declared wilderness, the word virgin is redundant. If it's not legally declared wilderness, maybe change to something like "wilderness grade" or just virgin land or pristine land, etc. etc. Then "stunning vistas" How about describing the vista instead of just saying stunning I.E. "vistas of Lake Superior, wildlife such as deer and eagles, and old growth forests"...
• Gap in history? Twenty years passed from when the designation was created to when the highway was dedicated? Do you know why the delay? if so explain.

Dave (talk)

• • Not sure why the gap in time. The book doesn't say either. I edited that paragraph from the LotC article. I found out how to pipe trick that template as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support issues resolved to my satisfaction Dave (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well-referenced and interesting article, and Imzadi addressed my main concern about it on IRC. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is an archived roads A-class review. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result of discussion was promote to A-class with 4 net support votes and no oppose votes. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Utah State Route 68 (4 net support votes)

Utah State Route 68 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: SR 68 has recently passed its good article, and I would like to see this as the projects next FA

Nominated by: Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments As a fellow Utahn who has driven this road from end to end a couple of times, my apologies for being tougher on you than I would on most. =-)

• IMO at least a couple of sentences should mention Point of the Mountain, which is currently not mentioned in either the SR-68 or I-15 articles. This road runs on the more gentler western slope of the Jordan River than used by the more well known I-15 through PotM. I have wondered if there is historical significance to the route of redwood road through the area, but I doubt it. The right-of-way directly paralleling the Jordan River (i.e. most likely used by travelers in the horse and wagon era) is the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad tracks. But it is notable that all the "good" ROW is in use by the railroad and Redwood road, and I-15 uses land higher up the cliff as a result, while crossing Point of the Mountain.

Also the article mentions Becks, Utah. Other than "beck street" I'm not familiar with this. Perhaps an explanation or removing it? According to my Benchmark atlas it's the name of the railroad siding at the north end of the Union Pacific Freight terminal in North Salt Lake, right at the Beck Street/I-15 interchange. If you want to just go with that the citation text would be Utah Road and Recreation Atlas (Map). 1:250000. Benchmark Maps. 2002. p. 43. § F8. ISBN 0-929591-74-7.</ref> Dave (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your right, there does need to be something on the Point of the Mountain, how ever, I am not familiar with the area. Regarding Becks, it appears we got that from [12] which lists it as a "city" near Beck road, in south North Salt Lake / north Salt Lake City. I'd say just remove it, but I am open to suggestions. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just remove. In all likelihood, it only exists as some designation on some USGS map that was drawn up years ago. The vast majority of locals have no idea that any such designation exists. DeFaultRyan (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed Becks > North Salt Lake. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Becks was named after Beck's Hot Springs, the northern terminus of the Great Salt Lake and Hot Springs Railway. --NE2 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But does that make it a notable location? It may have been notable in past days, but it is almost completely unheard of today. There isn't even a WP entry for the location, and I haven't found any other web sites that reference it, apart from sites like hometownreport.com, onlineutah.com, and other places that appear to have parsed some list of USGS or census designated locations to produce a catalog of pages. Just because it's written down on some piece of paper in some filing cabinet, does that mean the location, for all intents and purposes, exists? DeFaultRyan (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability does not expire; once something is notable, it always is. --NE2 22:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Becks, Utah ever notable to begin with? Or was it just a record-keeping oddity? The designation has only ever existed as a rail siding - not a town, nor a village, nor a community. It doesn't show up on addresses, zip codes, phone books, precincts, etc. Are all the USGS quadrangle names notable in any context outside of USGS maps? Would we ever refer to "Agate, Utah" as a location? How about "Ant Knoll, Utah"? DeFaultRyan (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The hot springs seems to have been notable. --NE2 09:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "Becks" is technically in Salt Lake City and I've never heard that area being referred to as North Salt Lake, just to get that cleared up. Anyway, I would change Becks to "northern Salt Lake City" or something similar because I have never, ever, ever heard that area being called Becks. The area around 21st South and Redwood Road used to be called "Redwood" but that fell from popularity. There are a lot of obsolete neighborhood names in Salt Lake City, so why are we calling it Becks? CL — 23:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ... uh, what Ryan said above :) CL — 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I add my vote to the ones of "how is a rail siding notable". However, I'm ok with the current wording of the article too. My personal preference would be if the name "Becks" is going to stay, why not incorporate NE2's statement for context, rather than the location. How about something like "The road extended to Becks, a railroad siding and junction named for Beck's Hot Springs, the northern terminus of the Great Salt Lake and Hot Springs Railway." IMO that is more interesting than clarifying which side of the county line it's on.

On to the other point, I can try to work Point of the Mountain in if you'd like. Problem is I'm unaware of a formal definition for it. Most everybody who has spent any time in Utah has heard of Point of the Mountain, but I've never seen a formal definition. I'll try to dig up something. If It's ok with you I'll add it in. Dave (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of the Mountain is the "point" of the Traverse Mountains formed by the water gap of the Jordan River. There's a similar one at Lake Point west of SLC. --NE2 09:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's about all I can find from reliable sources on the net. I'm going to give this a shot. Admrboltz, just revert if you don't like it. For the record, according to the book "Utah Ghost Rails" (which hasn't let me down yet =-) ) the situation with the terminus at Becks was very temporary. It has two single line mentions.

First mention: Page 33, Chapter titled "Bamberger Railroad", "He (Simon Bamberger) organized the Great Salt Lake & Hot Springs Railway in 1890, and a year later had steam-drawn trains operating to Beck's Hot Springs, four miles north of the city limits. .... This initial venture was rather heady to Mr. Bamburger and he then proceed with the next phase of his plan..."

Second mention, page 58, chapter titled "Utah Light and Traction Company" "The year 1890 brought new troubles for the fledgling electrical operation in the form of competition. The Salt Lake Rapid Transit Company was ... offered a franchise for .... Beck's Hot Springs..." I've actually cut a lot out from these quotes, just enough for necessary context. Dave (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's more than just the rail terminus; [13] and [14] should have enough. --NE2 04:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I'm arguing details, not problems with the article. As such, this discussion can probably be moved to article talk page. The article itself is good. Dave (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments — Here are the comments from my review of the article.
  • The first mention of each highway type should be accompanied by the abbreviation used. This is done in the lead sentence with "State Route 68 (ST-68)…" but not for Interstate or US highways.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think we misunderstood each other on this one. You don't need to do the full name (abbreviation) thing every time, just for the first state route, US Highway and Interstate Highway. That way the abbreviation convention is used once with the full name of each type of highway, ideally that's something that would naturally pop up in the lead. (It's kinda like how the AP specifies a person's first and last name are used on first mention and last name only on subsequent mentions.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • D'uh! Fixed. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I know the route description is supposed to be written south to north, but the common phrasing is a "north–south highway". Just a suggested change.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the lead should be expanded or merged into the first.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "The southwestern shore of Utah Lake appears to the right as the road briefly turns northeast." You shouldn't use left/right directions in the RD. Please use compass directions.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of "soons" in the prose of the RD. I would suggest a little bit of a copy edit for some variety in phrasing.
    • I only see two instances of soon... clarify? --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest breaking the history section into more than one paragraph, maybe just two
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is an extra space before a comma in the sentence: "Becks is the name of a rail siding, 4 miles (6.4 km) north of downtown Salt Lake , that briefly served as the terminus of a commuter rail line to Beck's Hot Springs.[6][7]" This sentence also has a mismatch in the decimal precision of the length conversion. Both measurements should have the same number of decimal places, and no more or less than the original measurement.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see an introductory sentence before the Major intersection table. See what I did with M-28 (Michigan highway) or M-35 (Michigan highway) for what I mean.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a minor quibble, but in the Major intersections table the street names have the directions capitalized, but the few highway directions are in lowercase, i.e. " SR-140 east (14400 South)". It's my personal preference to always capitalize the first letter of a highway direction in these tables.
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Commonscat should be moved out of the infobox and to the External links section where it belongs according to Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. (This has been mentioned at FACs.)
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The article overall is very good, but any article can always be improved. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm ready to Support promotion pending that one little note above on route abbreviations. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia's preference to not capitalize directions; 14400 South is, on the other hand, like South Main Street - South is part of the name of the road. --NE2 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And I could argue that the direction is part of the intersection name. It just looks very odd to me to have one but not the other capitalized when the new MUTCD-compliant signs have the initial letter larger/capitalized on the direction plates.Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Part of the intersection name"? As far as I know, the only named intersection here is Parkin Junction. --NE2 00:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Why do we need that note above the jct list? It's a bit redundant and not needed, provided you've read the whole article before it. None of the FAs such as I-70 in Utah, US-491, and all the NYSRs have this note above the jct list. CL — 01:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Sometimes a note is necessary, when there is a confusing or unusual situation with the road. But that's not the case here. If the note must stay IMO it reads better with "other state highways." Dave (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing. Probably jumping the gun here, but it's not any part of the USRD standards. IMO the section header "Major junctions" is sufficient. CL — 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Pretty good overall, a few things that can be improved:
  • In the lead: "linking U.S. Route 6 (US-6) to all of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area's major freeways and expressways and to US-89." The "and to US-89" part seems to not fit in well with the rest of the sentence. You may want to reword this.
    •  Done per convo on IRC --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the route description is a bit dry, though this may just be the fact it's describing the road in a very rural area of Utah.
    • Its just dry... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You may want to add a citation to the third paragraph in the route description. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Problems I gave over days on IRC have been solved. Good luck!Mitch32^(UP) 01:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• More comments - Alright, don't shoot me for these -
  • No refs in the lead.
  • That said, some of the stuff in there should be moved to their respective sections (the AADT and traffic stuff, and the construction info. Those should be moved to the RD and history, respectively)
  • I don't see how the I-215 image pertains to this article; sure, it's the Redwood Road exit, but that's about it. We don't see any part of that road; all we get is a sign with the SR-68 shield.
  • Refs are always, always past the punctuation mark. I'll fix this last one. CL — 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing; do we need the subheaders in the RD? Two of them only have one paragraph in them. I find em unnecessary, but that's just me - CL — 04:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

discussion moot, WikiProject New York State Routes is no longer part of U.S. Roads. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 273 (3 net support votes)

New York State Route 273 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article has to be one of my best when it comes to decommissioned highways. I have brought it to A-class review for the sake of getting it ready for FA. This is sort of a twin of New York State Route 254, but is a little longer and has more info as such.

Nominated by: Mitch32^(UP) 10:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Very nice. You may want a reference for the lead and another for the route description such as an old state highway map. Otherwise, the article looks good. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 01:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) (01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
  • WP:OVERLINK: the units of measurement in the lead
  • In the "Designation and decommissioning" section, the references are out of order (9 then 2)  Done
  • Ref 4 should be using the {{cite map}} template
  • What is the significance of the image of the Campbell Hotel?
  • Images check out, freely licensed, commons based.
  • External links check out

• I just fixed these and the Campbell Hotel is acorrding to reserach, a historic landmark in the area. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I still dont see the need for the Campbell House Hotel; If it is significant, something needs to be added to the prose. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support after changes made --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OpposeComment The prose needs some work. The 2nd paragraph of the Old roads section needs to be re-written. For example:, 800 shares of $20 to... 800 shares valued at $20 each?

• • Done - Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO there's some wordy sentences that should be shortened. Here's what I found:

• This sentence needs to be re-written "The route, as mentioned, began"
  • Done - Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• IMO unbold "Washington County Route 18, Greenfield Lane, and Washington County Route 18A" and "Hampton and Whitehall Turnpike." IMO bolded words should be limited to alternate titles that redirect to the article.
  • • All are related to NY 273 and are allowed to be bolded - they will be redirected.Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Not far after the intersection." Just, "After the intersection" Out west anything closer than 200 miles is "not far" so for a 7 mile route, not far is obvious =-). This appears a couple of times in prose.
• Ore Red Hill, a mountain outside of Whitehal (most people know Hill = Mountain)
  • Done - Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• progressed even farther
• "intersected with a local road". Doesn't pass the sniff test, if the road isn't notable enough to mention by name, does it merit mention?
  • Does the ref show a name? I think not.Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Route 273 intersected with New York State Route 22A and becomes concurrent for a short distance." Reword, tense change in mid sentence. "for a short distance" the highway's only 7 miles long, IMO that's obvious. =-)
  • Done - Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• The highway left 22A quickly abruptly? after a short distance?
  • Done - Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• which as the names suggest, followed the routing of Route 273 from Whitehall to Hampton. How about, "named for the cities it connected"
  • Done - Mitch32^(UP) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

These are all easily fixable, and I'm willing to change to support once addressed.Dave (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I no longer oppose promotion. However, I'd like a 2nd opinion on the prose before voting support. I'm not sure if it really is an issue or just we have different styles, but IMO could still use a copyedit. Let me sit on it for a day or two. Dave (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support the big issues are fixed. However, I still think this article is wordy. I'd recommend a copyedit before submitting to FAC.

• Support - All my concerns have been solved. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 21:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion moot, WikiProject New York State Routes is no longer part of U.S. Roads. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 210 (2 net support votes)

New York State Route 210 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: NY 210 would be the first route to take the cake for an A-class below 5 miles long. I have done major work onto the article and now I feel it is ready for A-class and a future FAC. As a little background for possible confusion: Route 210 was signed in the 1930 renumbering along its current alignment + the 20-mile extension to Rockland County's town of Stony Point. The route was slowly truncated in the 1980s, ending at NY 17A by 1985. Route 210 was replaced by two CRs east of NY 17.

Nominated by: Mitch32^(UP) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - taking offline references in good faith. Image checks out (commons, freely licensed), no major prose issues I see. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per Admrbltz. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted to A-Class. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

M-28 Business (Ishpeming-Negaunee, Michigan) (4 net support votes)

M-28 Business (Ishpeming-Negaunee, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Looking for feedback for a potential future FAC on this article. The title does need to be moved to a version with an en dash in it, but there's an issue with redirects that will need to be solved at the same time. This will be done in the middle of this review.

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Page title moved. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great article, route description is very detailed of surroundings, images are already at Commons. Comment - The image in the Major intersections list is a little blurry to the left. Could you request a touch-up from the Graphics Lab? This could improved the article's path to becoming FA. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Since I'm 6 blocks from that photo, I just took a new version of it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Much better. ~~ ĈĠ890100^{Review me!} 15:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well-written article. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Only a couple of comments, not worthy of opposing. But I do think you should address them, especially if you're going for FAC.
  • The attitude about liking dates has recently changed, and linking dates is now discouraged unless the date is directly relevant to the article. Suggest de-linking
  • It's debatable if junction "To a county route" is notable enough to mention in the infobox. For example I used to have Navajo 42 in the infobox on U.S. Route 163 it was voted down.
  • The caption of the 2nd photo needs work "This is a rare sign assembly for a county road used on a state highway. In this case,...." doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Suggest re-wording or sourcing.

Dave (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • Dates are delinked and I've e-mailed my source at MDOT for documentation that MDOT doesn't use the local county road markers on trunklines, only the blue pentagons used in the CDH program. (CR 480 isn't a CDH.) I'll see if I can grab a copy of the MDOT Truck Operators Map tomorrow and see if it lists what I know to be true that trunkline lines and certain county roads have to be open to semi-truck traffic. I know the City of Negaunee passed an ordinance to designate that city truck route to provide a signed connector between the trunkline (BUS M-28) and the primary county road (CR 480), which is why I made it a "major junction" here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me :) --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Decision on ACR - Withdraw --Admrboltz (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Interstate 82 (1 net support votes)

Interstate 82 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article is long, and very well written. I have only worked on it for a few days, but I managed to get this to GA status and this article has had a copyedit. If successful, this article will be WP:ORSH's first A-Class article, WP:WASH's third, and WP:IH's third.

Nominated by: ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Admrb♉ltz (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support now after changes have been made --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:LEAD - The lead should not introduce new information that is not otherwise in the body. Can you move the AADT info and possibly write a new 2nd paragraph for the lead?
  • In the RD "where the highway intersects SR 14 and leaves Washington on the Umatilla Bridge over the Columbia River heading into Oregon" your references are out of order, [29][21][30] should be 21 29 30.
  • In the template, where is the Maintained by section for WSDOT and ODOT?
  • Can you cite the SR 168 proposal?
  • Can you cite the completion date of the highway 20 September 1988?
  • Replies to comments from Admrb♉ltz (talk)
    • Y Done - I changed it to information about the Fred G. Redmon Bridge and about the 1999 plan to extend I-82 into Oregon.
      • Yes, but you didn't re add the AADT info which I liked. Find a spot for it somewhere in the main prose. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
        • A new section called "Traffic"?
          • Maybe before the bulk of the RD, before it talks about Washington, so it goes header, aadt, washington. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Y Done ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Y Done - Fixed.
    • Y Done - Added it in.
    • Y Done - RCW.
    • Y Done - Removed.

~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments — just a few comments for now.
  • I edited the AADT section of the RD. First off, I added a link to the article annual average daily traffic to help readers understand the concept of where these figures come from. Also, a measurement is not complete without a unit, as my high school chemistry teacher would remind us daily in class. I added a non-breaking space and the work vehicles after all the numbers to complete the measurements with a unit of measurement. Having done that though, this information could be presented better. Otherwise it is just a list converted into a really long sentence. Maybe you could build a table and drop the litany of numbers from the paragraph? I didn't see what I-82's AADT count was in there, so that does need to be added.
    • Y Done
  • You've also inconsistently not abbreviated a few of the highways linked in that section as well. All highways should be abbreviated after the first mention of one of that class. Aka since the very first sentence spells out "Interstate 82" with "(I-82)" after it, you can use I-# for all other insterstates on first and all mentions, but the first mention of a US highway is abbreviated when it should also be spelled out in full with the abbreviation in parentheses. The same goes with state routes.
    • Y Done
  • While it isn't a requirement of the MOS, you should be using non-breaking spaces <nonwiki> </nonwiki> betweeen US and 97, SR and 24, etc.
    • N Not done
    • FYI, I'm getting dinged almost every time at FAC for not having non-breaking spaces. Some people that review FAC's really check for this. I would advise you to add them also. Dave (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a bit of WP:OVERLINKing here. I would suggest on an article of this length not relinking in each section. The RD isn't long enough that you need to relink place names in the History, IMHO.
    • Y Done
      • More overlinking in the references. The first time you cite a source published by a specific source, you can wikilink to it, but after that, don't. There's around a dozen links in the References section to WSDOT and ODOT each, just for starters. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is all for now. I'll continue my review in greater depth later. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Dave

• I'll give you the same feedback I gave the previous nomination. It appears like this route passes through some interesting geography. I'd like to see some geographical references in the route description, rather than just the highways crossed.
  • N Not Done
    • Why not? this would be simple to do and would add to the article. It's pretty obvious from a map the highway loosely follows the Columbia River between it's eastern terminus and Kennewick. From Kennewick I-82 very closely follows a tributary, Yakima River, from Kennewick to Saleh, then follows the eastern rim of a canyon created by this same river for the rest of the highway. (does this canyon have a name? does the mountain range crossed by this canyon have a range?) IMO the route description is not complete unless this is mentioned. There's a reason why the state DOT's built this highway on such a curvy path, and that reason is a body of water carved the path for them.
• As a personal note not related to the quality of your nomination, there is a massive concrete arch bridge under construction for Interstate 580 (Nevada) that will be the longest concrete arch bridge in Nevada, and the longest bridge wholly inside Nevada (i.e. to exclude the Hoover Dam bridge partially in Arizona) =-). sign, one day I'll upload pics. It looks pretty good right now with all the falsework up =-)
• If possible, I'd pick a different color for the extension of I-82 in the map. The pink is fairly close to the red and took me a while to figure out which was which.
  • Y Done - Changed to green.
    • Much better, now you need to change caption to match, it still says "pink". =-)
• The history section should mention the renumbering of I-80N to I-84 and how I-82 is now in violation of numbering standards. The lead mentions this, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, this needs to be mentioned in more detail outside the lead.
  • Y Done
• There is a stray quotation mark in the last paragraph of the History section.
  • Y Done - Removed.
• There is an issue with the major intersections table, the table appers with a glitch on my browser in the row corresponding to the bridge and state line.
  • Y Done
    • It's still there. Look at the row separator above the city of Umatilla.
• Speaking of this row. I would just say Washington/Oregon state line. The bridge is covered in the route description.
  • Y Done
• WP:OVERLINK in the History section. California, Tri-cities, etc are linked multiple times in the same paragraph. The general rule is to only link the first instance, or first instance in each level 2 section for long articles.
  • Y Done

Dave (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• One more, sorry. Currently the Auxiliary routes section is redundant. It has a bulleted list to the routes, then a navigation box with the exact same information. My advise would be to delete the section and move the navigation box with the rest at the bottom of the article. Dave (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have corrected everything both of you have requested to be fixed except for the non-breaking spaces. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose MoS and comprehensiveness.
• Way too many citations in the lead. The lead should summarize information already in the main article, and if that's the case, the main article should provide references and cites.
• Make sure there are no spaces between block references.
• Don't force image size.
• Route description should be expanded.
• History should be expanded.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I withdraw this nomination. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Can we help to clear up something so you don't need to withdraw? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly, CG, don't give up just because some of the feedback is critical. Everybody here wants to help, or we would not have left comments in the first place.Dave (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your willingness, but I am caught up in schoolwork and volunteering, so I am putting the improvements onto the article ASAP, and then renominate after another peer review. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Support promotion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan (4 net support votes)

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: A future FAC, I hope.

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

SupportComments

Menominee to Rapid River, 2nd paragraph: This paragraph insinuates there either was some political football over the route of US-41, or M-35 has some issues that make it unsuitable for heavy traffic. It begs the question, why did MDOT use this routing for US-41 not M-35. I'd like to see the article answer that question, if you can find out.

I don't have an official source/RS, but for 82 years, MDOT has planned on running US 41 from Powers due north to Gwinn and over what's now M-553 to Marquette, removing it from the US 2 concurrency. M-35 is built to the same specs as US 41, and would be suitable to be replaced by US 41 south of Escanaba should MDOT ever decide to re-route the highways. In fact most of the Escanaba–Menominee traffic is figured to drive that way anyway instead of running inland on US 41.... Now if you can help me rework this paragraph at all, let me know. It's a copy out of the M-35 article as well.

If you don't have the sources, well I guess that's all you can do. If you can find something, I'd love to help you with the document.

wikilink One-way pair in the first instance in the Covington to Copper Harbor section.

Done.

Linked to the wrong article, One-way is a redirect, One-way pair is the article you want, fixed =-)

Past the park entrance, US 41 ends at a cul-de-sac, marked by a large wooden sign. A mileage sign in Copper Harbor gives the distance down US 41 to Miami, Florida as 1,990 miles (3,203 km). — IMO this is kinda a cool detail, if you can work the mention of the sign and 1990 miles to Miami in the lead, I'd say go for it.

I think I worked it in ok, let me know if you like it.

the previous 1929 structure

In the bridge section wikilink the following terms: Mackinaw Bridge, Warren truss and steel arch bridge

Did that and fixed the misspelling to Mackinac Bridge (yes, it's amazing we can keep track of the two spellings/usages for the name.)

The striking bridge, WP:Peacock term, describe what makes the bridge stunning rather than just saying stunning.

The bridge has remained in continuous service essentially unaltered. -> I'd merge this with the lead sentence of the paragraph to say "The bridge, still in service, was completed in 1948 as a steel arch bridge to span the river as part of a reconstruction project of US 41 between Ishpeming and L'Anse."

Nice suggestion. I used it.

I'll give you my standard disclaimer that I don't like the color coding in the major intersections table, and I expect you to tell me, yeah but this is how the Michigan wikiproject does things. =-) I'm still going to state it for the record. =-)

Well, I guess I don't have to say anything since you said it.

Dave (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per Davemeistermoab. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 18:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see no issues --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support with a minor nitpick. In the lead: "It is a rural two-lane highway, urbanized four-lane divided expressway and the Copper Country Trail National Scenic Byway." This sentence may need to be reworded to make it clear that it's a rural two-lane highway and an urbanized four-lane divided expressway in different locations. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Reworded it a little. Let me know if that's good by you. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That works. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Someone needs to close this ACR. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) (4 net support votes)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Promoted by Mitch32^(UP) at 11:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC).

U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The other business loop in Marquette County.

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good! ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support I don't see any issues with it. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support One minor concern - Washington and Front streets - should streets be capitalized? (not sure) Otherwise, good work. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The way I was taught in school was that in proper names normally, yes, but if plural, no. Aka in "President Clinton went to New York today," yes but not in "Today presidents Bush and Clinton visited New Orleans." Keiryn and I looked for clarification previously and came up that either capitalized or not is considered correct on WP. Imzadi1979 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - History should be in some chronological order, not starting in 2005 and then going backwards.Mitch32^(UP) 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Paragraphs flipped. Imzadi1979 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, though a picture of the route would be nice. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result was promote to A-class. --Polaron | Talk 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

M-185 (Michigan highway) (4 net support votes)

M-185 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The next MSHP ACR nomination for a truly unique roadway. I'm also looking for any assistance in expanding the article. There are other sources out there for information, but Bessert isn't going to cut it, so... if you have suggestions on what can be added without overly duplicating the other three Mackinac Island articles )city of, the physical island and the state park) I'm all ears.

Nominated by: Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Very interesting route. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Admrboltz (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Comments

• • Is there a way to move the image down a bit to get it between the infobox and the exit list, as on my res, the infobox and image squeeze the text between them
  • The beltway city item in the infobox could be used as well.
  • Even though "the only state highway in the country that does not allow cars." is a direct quote, this is factually inaccurate... is there any way we could signify that?
  • MDOT doesn't need to be wikilinked in every reference, just the first.
  • Is the commons cat really needed with just the image listed in the article as the only image in the cat?
    • I don't know that I'd count this as a beltway of Mackinac Island, Michigan. It is the only state highway without cars. A certain editor is claiming otherwise, but his proof is a ferry, not a highway. Ferry!=highway; ferry=boat. The references are an easy fix we can do after expansion so that which ever one comes first gets the link, lest we have to fuss around as the text gets expanded and rearranged during this ACR. The commons cat is for future expansion as we find other photos and upload them/retag them on commons.Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Not sure, but I'd think that for such a unique road, it would be possible to find more information about it. Other than that, it's a well-written article. - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Support - Looks good. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There may not be much else from RSs we can add, but that's part of the reason I've brought this article here too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - Without a doubt one of the more unusual road articles in the USRD project. I would like to see more history and more commentary on the island. For example, from the lone picture it appears this island is mostly affluent residential, any notable mansions or residents? Is it purely developed, or are there undeveloped parts of the island, any industry? Speaking of photos, MORE, MORE, MORE, this is an interesting setup that few of use will actually be able to see, so the more the better. Here as some specific recommendations:

• "as MDOT does not erect the standard M-route signs itself" As written implies that MDOT doesn't sign any highways. I'm sure that's not what you meant.
• I'd remove the legend in the major intersections table, as none of those codes are actually used in the table.
• The lead mentions the island is accessed by ferry, but this is not mentioned in the article. Lead shouldn't have new material.
• If you have a source for the width, I'd recommend giving the width of the roadway. However, I'm guilty of the same, I recently nominated UT-128 calling it a "narrow" road without specifying (couldn't find a source).

Dave (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) 'Support with the recent changes. Dave (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Does Washington State Route 339 count as a route not allowing cars? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • True... but WA 339 is on a passenger ferry, and M-185 is an actual road. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comments: Route 185 should have a turn-by-turn route description, not a summary. I feel that with such a short highway, that this should be possible. Give this article some more info, and you should be good. Also look into the history of Macinac Island if you want an FACable article.Mitch32^(UP) 23:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Route 185? Do I need to get out the trout? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the additions to the RD, but a few comments. Mackinaw City is the Village on the LP mainland. Mackinac Island is a City encompassing the whole of the island of that name and adjacent Round Island. So if you're on the island, you never leave the city limits, you just enter and exit the state park territory. Something else to add would be some brief info on the history of the name for British Landing. IIRC, that's where the British landed during the Battle of Mackinac Island, the first battle of the War of 1812. Also even though it's not directly on the trunkline, some mention of the Grand Hotel should be added as well. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Infobox - would "Beltway" be better? The current setup for the terminii is misleading.

• USRD standards aren't clear as to how to handle this situation. This should be addressed before FAC - however, I won't make this an objection for ACR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• RD doesn't name the highway.

• Fixed.Mitch32^(UP) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1.1 - lost a space b/t sentence 1 and 2

• Fixed.Mitch32^(UP) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• At the zero mile marker, M-185 head - add s to heads

• Fixed.Mitch32^(UP) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't use heads twice in same sentence

• Fixed.Mitch32^(UP) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• rephrase last sentence of 1.1 - a bit hard to understand - would probably be better to merge that into sentence before it

• Fixed.Mitch32^(UP) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Differing precision in the jct table

• Fixed.Mitch32^(UP) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Article seems a bit underlinked - can this be fixed? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Most are done, I'll let Imzadi to deal with the last one.Mitch32^(UP) 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Issues addressed, support. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result was promote to A-class. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 73 (4 net support votes)

New York State Route 73 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Since I am an apparent horrible article writer, I'm taking the article here before FAC.

Nominated by: Mitch32^(UP) 23:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nicely done. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - issues resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

finding a whole bunch of errors in the lead.

• • It heads through some of the mountains in the Adirondack Region, crossing bases of some of the tallest mountains in the state, including Porter and Lower Wolfjaw Mountains - crossing the bases, wikilink the ranges
    • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead par 2 - rephrase=a bit of repetition (sentence 1-3)
    • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ever-growing?
    • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Route vs. State Route - shouldn't SR be used?
    • Not done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • par. 3 - "route north of that" - find another way to say that. It could be another route paralleling...
    • Did you really mean paralleling to the north? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 3rd sentence a bit choppy - combine with another sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 1 - first paragraph, - 3rd and 4th sentences could be combined.
    • DoneMitch32^(UP) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Route 73 begins to descend in elevation, while County Route 51 splits off and merges in. - I don't understand. May want to merge with next sentence as well.
    • DoneMitch32^(UP) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • End of that paragraph - it, not its.
    • DoneMitch32^(UP) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • last paragraph - first two sentences could be combined. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • DoneMitch32^(UP) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be in queens today, so any more replies will be slow.Mitch32^(UP) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • 2- However, exporting the items made by these industries were hard as there was a lack of transportation in the area. - verb should be singular
  • popping up all over the area - too colloquial
  • 4th and 5th sentences could be combined of 2nd paragraph 2.1. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • "The route quickly turns to the southeast." - you may want to rephrase this sentence, as I'm not sure "quickly" describes it well.
    • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Route 73 now longs along the East Branch, intersecting with county and local roads as its heads southward." - I don't quite understand the first part of this sentence. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments Got some grammar errors:

• "with U.S. Route 9 1 mile (1.6 km) of Underwood." is missing a word, maybe NORTH of Underwood?
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• West Branch of the Ausable River, is this the proper name? In the western US it's rare to see "of the" in there, just checking.
  • That is the proper name.
• However, this is not accessible via NY 73 except from the intersection with CR 35. This sounds rough.
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• The abbreviation NY 73 is never explained
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• The abbreviation CR is explained on the second instance, not the first.
  • • Not Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• "The area had been big with the lumber and iron industries." The use of "big" is a non-standard use of the word. Try to avoid that, for non-native speakers.
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• "However, exporting the stuff made" Surely there is a better word to use on a FA candidate than "stuff".
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• See Also -- this section is used to link articles not already linked in prose. Keene, New York is already linked multiple times.
  • • Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• There is an unacceptable level of WP:Overlink violations. Overlap, Lake Champlain, Keene etc. etc. are all linked multiple times in the same paragraph.

Dave (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • All Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• "The area had been powerful with the lumber and iron industries." The word powerful doesn't quite fit, try to re-word this sentence. Pending this change, I support promotion.Dave (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done - :) Mitch32^(UP) 10:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support then. Dave (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Withdrawn by nominator. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Route 527 (0 net support votes)

Washington State Route 527 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This is another Washington GA that has potential for FA. This highway has a longer history than SR 531, and may be FACed in 2009. Comments?

Nominated by: ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 00:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Considering that this article made it to GA by the mercies of a copyeditor, this is a bad idea. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Just taking a look through, the article is a mess. If you don't take the time to clean the article up *without* dumping the work on somebody else, then I don't see why I have to take the time to review it. This is insulting. --Rschen7754 (T C) 11:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I don't think this should be promoted, but this isn't exactly actionable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Close, could use a couple of tweaks

• The first mentions of I-405, SR 524, SR 96, I-5, SR 99, SR 526 should be linked and not abbriviated.
• "expanding the SR 527/SR 96 intersection dramatically" the word dramatically sounds too, well dramatic, for a road article. Perhaps find a word that isn't as strong?

Dave (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw this nomination. ~~ ComputerGuy 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not promoted. Objections were not responded to within 7 days; the nominator is encouraged to renominate once they have the time to address concerns. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) (2 net support votes)

State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: This article has failed a FAC under the NY 74 header. It got moved and is in the middle of a copyedit as I speak. I'd like some comments if anyone could.

Nominated by:Mitch32^(UP) 00:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nice. Just a quick comment, you may want to merge the Vermont Route 74 category on Commons with the main category. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 00:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Review of NY section of route description only (more to come as time permits). --Polaron | Talk 01:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(reads like a laundry list, grammar)

The pond is quickly left behind, with Paradox Lake coming to an end soon after. Bumbo Pond comes soon after, where the highway enters the hamlet of Paradox.

Done. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(redundant - local homes?, grammar)

There is not much of civilization in Paradox, excluding a few local roads and a few local homes.

Done. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(grammar - highway flows into lake?)

A creek begins to appear on the southern side of the highway, which soon flows into Eagle Lake.

Done. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The current wording is still not so great. It is good practice to make the topic the same as the subject of the sentence. This makes it easier to follow. Suggestion: "The highway then approaches a creek that flows into Eagle Lake."

(grammar)

Eagle Lake comes to an end, and the highway intersects with County Route 2, the first numbered highway since to meet 74 since US 9.

Done. Durova^Charge! 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Current wording still awkward. Suggest "...first numbered highway that NY 74 encounters after US 9"

("high" unneeded; "the [route] shows the ridges"?)

The northern part of Route 74 shows the ridges leading up to Keeney Mountain, which peaks at 1,400 feet (430 m) high.

Done. Durova^Charge! 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(village has a specific meaning in NY law - please use appropriate term as there is no incorporated village known as Ticonderoga)

...leaving the mountainous region for the village of Ticonderoga.

(where is the intersection?)

The highway intersects with New York State Route 9N and New York State Route 22.

Done. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Still unclear. Just state that the intersection is within the hamlet.

(subject is unclear)

There is an intersection with County Route 49, before it turns to the southeast.

Done. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Current wording is awkward. How about "intersects" rather than "meets an intersection with"

(is the use of "downtown" appropriate here? - not typically used for hamlets)

Route 74 and Route 22 head to the south towards downtown Ticonderoga.

("soon after" is unneeded)

The highway passes the entrance to Fort Ticonderoga and soon after, the Ticonderoga Amtrak station.

(awkward construction - merge into a single sentence; unneeded bolding)

Route 74 passes a parking lot and terminates at the ferry landing for Vermont across Lake Champlain. Across Lake Champlain is Vermont Route 74.

• Review of VT route description only. --Polaron | Talk 15:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

("small bits of civilization" should be formalized)

The highway goes shortly to the north, passing small bits of civilization.

("about" is unneeded if you're quoting an exact figure)

About 0.49 miles (0.79 km) in, Route 74 intersects with Route 73...

(please don't overuse "civilization"; awkward construction)

At the Barnum Hill intersection, Route 74 passes some civilization, turning northwards in the process.

(grammar - a patch of forests; typo)

At Smith Street, it turns to the northeast, winding through a patch of forests. Route 74 thrn climbs a hill and intersects with Harrington Hill Road...

The initial issue has been fixed. However, there are new but minor ones now. Note that there is a typo: "VT" instead of "VT 74" or maybe even "Route 74" for consistency with the rest of the sentences in the paragraph. The following sentence should begin as "Afterwards, ..."

(clarify location)

Fields and forests surround this thinly populated stretch of highway.

Still unclear.

("downtown" is not appropriate - use Shoreham center or the main settlement of Shoreham; "does enter"? - these two sentences may be better merged as a single compound sentence)

At the intersection with Blue Harbor Road, Route 74 turns east, heading for downtown Shoreham. Route 74 does enter downtown Shoreham, becoming known as Main Street.

Not completely fixed. Don't use the word "downtown" as this is not an urban area.

(awkward construction; "however" is not needed; use "densely" rather than "highly")

Not far after, the highway intersects with Route 22A and becomes concurrent. However, this stretch of Main Street is highly populated compared to most of the highway.

Mostly fixed, but be sure to insert a comma between "Shoreham" and "the concurrency ends"

(what is a "short, populated distance"? why is the beginning of the overlap mentioned again here?)

The route begins its concurrency with Route 22A in Shoreham, heading only a short, populated distance before turning off Route 22A for a northeastern route to Cornwall.

("beginning" is probably confusing here as it may imply the beginning of the route; are you sure it's moderately populated?)

The beginning segment of Route 74 after the concurrency is moderately populated, heading eastward once again

Mostly fixed but please insert a comman between "countryside" and "it bends".

(the entire route is classified functionally as rural, i.e. it is always technically rural; what do you mean by "continues following this"?)

However, the highway becomes rural, and turns once again to the northeast. Route 74 then continues following this for most of the distance to Cornwall.

Mostly fixed but please insert a comma between "highway" and "winds through"

("patch of Route 74"?; entire sentence doesn't read well)

This patch of Route 74 is mainly forests, with fields also in the area.

(this should be "straighter"; also it's not so clear what you mean here)

The highway edges more straight to the northeast...

Initial issue is fixed but it would read better if you combine the two sentences "VT 74 straightens..." and "A connector road..." into a single compound sentence.

("Straighter" is used here again - where did the road become straight? "its stretch to Cornwall" is awkward)

Route 74 becomes much straighter around the intersection with Elmendorf Road, as it continues its stretch to Cornwall.

Sentence is still awkward. "winds again for a stretch and straightens a second time"?

(here is "straight" for a third consecutive sentence; use "town" rather than "township")

After Doolittle Road, the highway becomes straight, intersecting with several township highways.

Use "town" rather than "township"

(Note that the road is technically in the town of Cornwall at this point - reword accordingly)

The highway then passes through fields and homes afterwards as it gets closer to Cornwall.

(You should probably say "Cornwall center" or "the main village of Cornwall" rather than "Cornwall area")

...becoming more populated as it enters the Cornwall area

(the terminus is in Cornwall center - it can't be mostly forest here)

At Clark Road, it turns to the northeast once again, passing through more forests before terminating at Route 30 in Cornwall.

This is mostly a residential area near the terminus. Also, use "Cornwall center" instead of "Cornwall" for clarity in this and the preceding sentence.

• Review of ferry section of route description. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

General comment: The section contains a lot of ferry history. It makes more sense to remove ferry history from ferry description for better readability and move it to a ferry section in the history. Describe the current characteristics and operation of the ferry only.

(Move to History section; cite needed for these facts)

The Ticonderoga–Larrabees Point Ferry is the oldest and southernmost ferry on Lake Champlain. It has operated on an informal basis since 1759 and it gained official status in 1799.

(Move this entire section to History)

The earliest ferries were probably rowboats... ...cable guidance system in 1946.

(Rewrite this entire section and use only this as in the Route Description)

An improved cable system remains in use today... ...runs during daylight hours.

(Move this entire section to history; should be reconciled with early history in Vermont)

John S. Larrabee of Vermont established... ...granted a franchise to the ferry in 1918.

(This sentence can be retained in the Route Description section)

The United States Coast Guard inspects the ferry because Lake Champlain is a federal waterway.

• Review of first two subsections of history. --Polaron | Talk 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(You appear to be using the word "annex" incorrectly - please rewrite)

The town of Schroon was annexed from the town of Crown Point on March 20, 1804. Minvera was eventually created when annexed from the town in March 1817. The town eventually was annexed even further back to Crown Point in 1840.

You should mention when Crown Point was established and how the first settlers manage to travel before the creation of the "old state road". Otherwise the point of these sentences is lost.

(This needs further expansion. As an early state road, there should be an enabling law, which you should probably cite. Can you specify what places this state road was designed to connect and when the state road was authorized?)

The town eventually built what they called the "old state road", which passed through the Schroon Valley.

Still needs expansion. See comment directly above as well. Are you certain it was the town which built the "old state road"?

(What do you mean by "big"? Please formalize and specify why it is considered "big". You gloss over the "another" state road - please add more detail; do not use the awkward construction of "1810s, 20s, 30s, 40s")

This state road, along with another that makes up most of eventual NY 74, were big in the 1810s, 20s, 30s and 40s.

(Non-sequitur - what does the continued growth of Schroon have to do with the current designations of the two early state roads?)

Schroon has continued to grow, with the "old state road" now part of U.S. Route 9 and the other state road being part of NY 74 and County Route 84.

(This sentence does not make sense being here. Move it somewhere else or remove it)

Today, the Adirondack Northway heads through Schroon as well, passing some of the more rural regions of the Adirondacks.

Overall comment on "Old roads" subsection: A little additional background information would be helpful here. Why was the turnpike built? How long did construction take place? What was the economic impact of the turnpike after it opened? When and why did it close down?

(Sentence is unclear - what do you mean "built to a stretch of highway"?)

...was built to a stretch of highway from the two towns.

(grammar; awkward construction)

...but the charter stated that there could be another toll gate approximately every ten miles completed highway.

Current wording is better but there is a missing "of" before "completed highway"

• Review of Designation section of History. --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(where is the length figure from? If this is an estimate, it may be better to round off to the nearest whole and add a note indicating how the estimate was derived)

...which ran for 17.05 miles (27.44 km) from Schroon to Ticonderoga...

("However" is not needed here; wrong usage of "truncated" - "removed from the state highway system" might be more appropriate, or just rephrase)

However, the length from Schroon to Newcomb was truncated by 1936.

(unclear that what is going on - you should mention more specifically the route of the original NY 73 a couple of sentences above; at what highway is the terminus by this time? Also, is this the same truncation in the third paragraph [In the early 1970s...]? If so, then this sentence should be removed from the first paragraph)

The concurrency with U.S. Route 9 was eliminated from Schroon to North Hudson for a terminus in Schroon.

(do you know approximately when this happened? did it not coincide with the elimination of this segment from the state highway system? If date is completely unknown, just reword to something like "...is currently designated as CR 84...")

The stretch from North Hudson to Tawahus was redesignated later as County Route 84, beginning at NY 28N in Tawahus and ending at US 9 in North Hudson.

(replace "on then" with "at what was then")

From there, Route F-9 continued northeast to Shoreham center on then Vermont Route 30A (modern VT 22A).

(this sentence is out of place here - might make more sense to move it to the beginning of the next paragraph)

By 1935, a spur connecting NY 22 to the ferry for Larrabees Point was designated as New York State Route 347.[18]

(move sentence about establishment of NY 347 before this sentence)

In 1950, New York extended NY 73 using former NY 347 (via Wicker and Montcalm Streets) and the ferry into Vermont...

(when was this?)

The opening of the Adirondack Northway also resulted in a slight shift of the western terminus of NY 74 from US 9 to the I-87.

• • Done from the designation section, NY 74 section, and ferry section.Mitch32^(UP) 10:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Pretty well written article. One question I have while reading it, How many instances are there of NY/VT routes using the same number across state lines? Is this the only occurrence, or is this common? Dave (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Except for NY 7 which becomes VT 9, I think that is it, all the others are repeated numbers.Mitch32^(UP) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that if this remains inactive for a week more or so, it will probably be closed out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving this 24 hours; if there is no attempt to address objections, this will be archived. I apologize in advance, but we need to keep things moving here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not promoted. Stale for 7 days. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, NV – Wendover, UT) (0 net support votes)

Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, NV – Wendover, UT) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Looking for an A-class Interstate BL and another Utah (and Nevada) A-Class.

Nominated by: Admrboltz (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps just lop off the major junction of Alt US-93 in the infobox; it's already listed in the terminus, so perhaps for the sake of redundancy you should remove it. Also, maybe change abbreviating Alt US-93 from "US-93 Alt." to "US-93A". What do you think of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CountyLemonade (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 October 2008
  • Why should we change the abbreviation? The correct abbreviation is US 93 Alt accd to NDOT, but I have a dash in there right now to keep it consistent with the rest of the article. I left 93 Alt in the major junctions as, well it is a junction, with BL-80, just cause it continues along with I-80 doesn't mean its not a junction. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Eh, I guess just because I prefer it better. US-93A looks better to me than US-93 Alt., but we are Wikipedia so if NDOT uses this abbreviation then we should too :) CL — 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

These are real quick comments, I'll give a more thorough review as soon as I can.

• While I've seen both abbreviations used interchangeably, the official logo for the DOT in Nevada uses "Nevada DOT", not NDOT, see [15].
  • Will update. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• IIRC the Utah portion of it is dual signed as SR-56, shouldn't the UT-56 shield be used as an alternate image, rather than a major junction? (e.g. as done with Utah State Route 19)
  • That would be the case if the entire route was in Utah, but the Nevada section isn't signed as Utah SR-56 --Admrboltz (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Dave (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's the more thorough review I promised.

• Part of the Nevada section is cosigned as U.S. Route 93 Alternate (US-93 Alt), and was formerly Nevada State Route 224 while the entirety of the route in Utah is cosigned as Utah State Route 58 (SR-58). This sentence either needs additional punctuation or be broken into two.
• The time zone boundary at the state line should be mentioned in prose.
• The bolded terms at the state line entry of the major intersections table should be de-linked. If somebody hasn't figured out what Nevada and Utah are by this point in the article, there's trouble in paradise, and again the time zone should be mentioned in prose. =-)
• It's a good article if that's the most dirt I can pick out, congrats =-) Dave (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, and actually its not the border the border has been moved to the western border of West Wendover... removed time zone references. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - Issues resolved to my satafaction. for the record I would still prefer SR-58 an an alternate shield, not a junction, but it's not that big of deal.Dave (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Wait, the article does contain one factual error, Exit 407 in NV is not that new. I don't know when it was built but can confirm it's been there for a few years. From my collection of NV maps it does show in the 2005 map, not on the 1986, so somewhere in between. Dave (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Why wasn't it in the 2008 SM book? --Admrboltz (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The SM book is hit and miss, not the first time it's led me astray. For now I'd say just remove the mention of exit 407 it doesn't really add much to the article anyways, and is technically past the end of the route. I still support promotion pending the fixing of this issue.Dave (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, made an interim change to the infobox (I didn't want to make the shield that prominent as it's not cosigned with SR-58 the entire time). As I said, this is only temporary and if we went through with it we would have to effectively remove all mention of SR-58 in the infobox and major junctions section. What do you think? CL — 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a tough call. Since SR-58 redirects here, I'm not exactly sure what to do with its shield. This could be a good compromise. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I can live with the small SR-58 shield as its listed in teh infobox, but no bigger. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, how about now? I completed the change, so now SR-58 isn't listed as a "junction," per se. CL — 05:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
      • But SR-58 is still a junction. The title of the article is BL I-80, which junctions with and merges into SR-58. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Not exactly. All that dictates the beginning of SR-58 and the overlap is the border between the two states, not a merge. It's not a junction by any means, at least what I'm thinking. CL — 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, BL I-80 is routed along in NV, hits the border and ______ with SR-58. Fill in that blank with a work. I use junctions/merges. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Perhaps, BL-80 is routed along in NV and an overlap with SR-58 begins when BL-80 enters Utah, something along the lines of that. This is tough to describe. CL — 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
            • ... and becomes SR-58.....? Dave (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
            • ... and becomes concurrent with SR-58? --Admrboltz (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
              • and US 41 becomes concurrent with M-28 in Covington (or Harvey), but it still is listed as a junction... Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - a few issues, most minor, but a few major...
  • Lead - what departments of transportation?
  • You use cosigned 3 times in 2 sentences.
  • Blvd = Boulevard
  • RD - ex- should probably not be used.
  • How are you sourcing the locations of the businesses?
  • However comma to access...
  • You suddenly switch to mentioning SR 58 in the second half of the RD. That is a bit confusing.
  • History is hard to follow - maybe I'm just tired but it is hard to connect how SR 58 relates with the rest of it. Of course, one could look at the lead again, but that's a pain.
  • You mention SR 224 in the lead, and it is never mentioned in the history.
  • Please consider combining the Google Maps cites.
  • Not that I necessarily agree with this, but an advisory that a FAC reviewer could criticize sourcing using photographs as OR. Just a warning. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.