Talk:M-5 (Michigan highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 23:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The sentence "Along this part of the trunkline, access to the road is limited to the major intersection making the highway an expressway." sounds awkward.

   Tweaked, and I would suggest in the future that you specify why you think something is awkward, or make a suggestion for improvement rather than just issue a blanked "sounds awkward", ok? Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Is there a source that specifically backs the claim that Fenkell Street would be 6 Mile Road?

   Added. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • "A different highway was previously designated M-5 in another area of the state in the 1930s.", perhaps mention where it was located?
     • I don't think that's particularly needed given that the first M-5 is given a total of two sentences of the body of the article and one sentence of the lead in an article that's almost 2600 words long. You risk restating the sum total of that subsection in the lead, which isn't a good summary then. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
   • "Grand River Avenue continues from this location as an unsigned highway all the way into downtown." Does it have a route number? If not, I would change to unnumbered highway.
     • All unsigned highways in Michigan have numbers, rarely a Connector number and usually an OLD I/US/M/BL/BS/BUS US/BUS M number. In this case, it's the OLD BS I-96 in the Related trunklines section. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
   • Can the number of lanes the highway have be mentioned in the route description?
     • That's pushing the WP:OR line, I think. I can add it, but should I? Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
       • Satellite imagery from Google can be used to verify the number of lanes. Dough4872 01:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
   • The history section doesn't make it clear when I-96 was removed from the short stretch of M-5 freeway.
     • Well, there's a whole paragraph on the disposition of the former I-96 in 1977. It starts with the removal of I-96 from the freeway in Farmington to I-275 and the Jeffries Freeway, what happened to both business routes, and ends with how the stub freeway was added to M-102. I added a little to the front of that paragraph, so it should be clearer now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
   • I do not see how the former business routes of I-96 are related to M-5 as they were never part of M-5. They would be better covered in the business route list of I-96.
     • Well, let's see:
       1. OLD BL I-96 is the former section of US 16 that terminates on the M-5 freeway at both ends
       2. The former BS I-96 north of I-96 is now M-5, and south of it, OLD BS I-96 is the unsigned continuation of M-5 into downtown.
     • A related highway doesn't have to have the same number or base number to be related. Those two unsigned highways have histories that are intertwined with the modern M-5 as segments of the Grand River Road/Avenue, M-16, US 16 and I-96 predecessors to M-5. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   I would suggest adding images from here.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will place the article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 23:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Replies above. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I will now pass the article. Dough4872 01:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)