Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 275 (Michigan)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways | Assessment | A-Class Review

Interstate 275 (Michigan)

edit
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.

Withdrawn. --Rschen7754 01:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Interstate 275 (Michigan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I think this is a high-quality account of a once controversial freeway in the Detroit area worthy of promotion up the scale.
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 04:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 04:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

edit
Review by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough4872 04:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. In the first paragraph of the route description, you use "freeway" in consecutive sentences. One of these should be changed.
  2. In the second paragraph of the route description, you mention Eureka Road and I-94 both provide access to the airport then backtrack to describe the section between those two interchanges then continue on skipping mention of where you pass I-94. I would reword this portion of the route description to keep it in chronological geographical south-to-north order or at least mention where it passes I-94 after mentioning the part of the route between the two interchanges.
  3. In the route description, you mention I-275 "crosses" a number of highways it interchanges with. You should use better wording to indicate that they are interchanges as crosses does not necessarily imply an interchange.
    • The verb "interchanges" would be wrong, since that implies a swap of locations/routings. The current wording is fine, and by being a freeway we already imply that all junctions are interchanges and that all other crossings are grade-separated unless specifically noted. Imzadi 1979 → 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is the history of Michigan Avenue and Ford Road really relevant to the route description of I-275?
  5. Citation needed for "It also crosses over the same CSX line a third time."
  6. How is the I-275 bike path 44 miles while the highway is 35 miles?
  7. The history seems to be missing information on planning, you skip from the Yellow Book in the 1950s to when the freeway started being built in the 1970s.
  8. The history also seems to be missing information about groundbreaking or beginning dates of construction of the segments of the highway.
  9. Why are the inflation costs as of 2012? Shouldn't they be as of the current year?
    • As noted someone in a previous ACR, these adjusted numbers rely on government statistics that are released about 15–18 months after the year ends. Since we're almost halfway through 2014, that means 2012 is the most recent year. If you want 2014 numbers, wait until 2016. Imzadi 1979 → 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The sentence "The original plans for I-96 in the Yellow Book routed that highway along a different routing into downtown Detroit, along a path adjacent to Grand River Avenue." uses "along" twice.
  11. "M-275 would have cut through a state park in Oakland County if completed.", what is the name of the state park? Dough4872 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie

edit

I will review this article shortly. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I will work on a new map that shows Canada.
  2. Do you think it's worth it to replace all the hyphens with &8209;, the non-breaking hyphen? It could be how I have the page set up for reviewing, but I'm getting a lot of I-<br>275.
  3. What do you think of adding the bike trail to the KML?
  4. Something I can't figure out is why there is a length discrepancy between MDOT and FHWA.

This is a pretty good representation of why I typically don't review articles from Michigan. After you write a couple-twenty FAs, you have all the kinks worked out.   –Fredddie™ 16:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: --Rschen7754 03:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Thanks.
  2. I dunno. I'm not opposed, but the last time such a thing was done on an article, someone else reverted it just before the FAC closed. *shrugs*
  3. Also, not opposed there. What should it be colored? Sadly, the WMA doesn't respect the color coding though, so the two lines will show as overlapping blue from the pop-up map.
  4. Simply, FHWA doesn't consider I-275 to overlap I-96, yet MDOT does, and the various cartographers follow MDOT. Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    <voice style=toddler>But why?</voice> Surely there's an article from some time period where MDOT stated that signing I-275 over I-96 was a better navigational aid than not signing it. The only reason I push this is because it's a more interesting answer than looking at maps and saying what you see, which is how the article is now. –Fredddie™ 05:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is also the fact that I-275 was supposed to run further north, and I-96 ran along what is now M-5 until it was rerouted to follow I-275 and the modern routing of the Jeffries. After digging through Newspaperarchive.com and Newspapers.com, all I can find is that I-96/I-275 opens to traffic before I-275 north of the overlap was canceled, even though some planning studies had already started to call that extension M-275. Within months after that first cancelation, the highway was given some new life before being fully reinstated within the next two years. It wasn't until the mid-1980s that it was finally cancelled for good. It seems like MDOT keeps the number in place due to inertia. Imzadi 1979 → 08:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: --Rschen7754 17:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Rschen7754

edit

Please consider reviewing other articles too; we have a significant backlog. --Rschen7754 03:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evad37

edit
Review by Evad37

Lead

  • I-275 crosses several area rivers and rail lines. – what's an "area river"?
  • segment is used in three consecutive sentences, maybe try a synonym for one of them.
  • Right of way has different meanings in other parts of the world, so it should be linked
  • Infobox junctions should use {{Plainlist}} format rather than <br>

Route description

  • Norfolk Southern Railway and Plymouth Township have duplicate links in close proximity
  • Lower Branch ... Middle Branch – are these meant to be proper names? River Rouge (Michigan) uses the common noun forms 'lower branch' and 'middle branch', but I don't know which way is correct.
  • The interchange with the Jeffries Freeway on the border between Plymouth Township and Livonia is where the FHWA considers I-275 to end. – This gave me a bit of a "huh?" moment when I first read it (as the lead states that The FHWA considers I-275 to end at the junction with I-96 and M-14). I think it might read better, especially to someone not familiar to the area, if this (as the first sentence of the paragraph) was consistent with the lead, ie leave mentioning Jeffries Freeway to the next sentence.
  • At the time the freeway ... remained on state transportation priority lists through the mid-1980s. – is it necessary to have this much history in the route description section?

Bike trail

  • About half the section is whitespace on my screen, any chance of playing around with the formatting and/or infobox content?

History

  • Detroit City Council - link?
  • stated the project – should this be 'stated that the project ?
  • more at-grade intersections than a full freeway doesn't sound right, as it implies that a full freeway may have some at-grade intersections

Exit list – no issues that I can see

Otherwise looking good - Evad37 [talk] 01:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: --Rschen7754 04:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally getting some time to work on this. The changes for the lead and history have been applied, although it might be an American-ism to use "area" as an adjective to mean "X in the area", as in "area schoolchildren attend Foobar Elementary School". As for the RD comments, I would say that the River Rouge article is wrong as my maps label it as a proper name.
As for the bit of history in the RD, it ties directly into the "useless concurrency" and part of the why I-275 overlaps I-96. You'll note that a reviewer above has asked for an answer "why" on the overlap, and this is the spot in the article where it fits best to touch on that. I've trimmed it a bit, and once I receive a few MDOT memos, I can actually write a short piece in the History section citing two memos where the department considered, and then rejected, removing the duplicate designation during the 1980s, but it is still RD material to note the intergovernmental conflict over where I-275 ends. Imzadi 1979 → 11:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good - Evad37 [talk] 02:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Interstate_275_(Michigan)&oldid=1142558230"