Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/M-17 (Michigan highway)/1

M-17 (Michigan highway)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. The concern was that the article was not factually correct and didn't cover the main points. This concern was not shared by the three editors who responded, and upon examination of the article it appears to meet the appropriate criteria, and is of a similar standard to other GA listed articles on this topic. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Believing that this article may fail two of the Good Article criteria, I recently opened a Good Article review. However, the primary article contributor and I were unable to reach agreement regarding needed changes, so I have closed the individual review and am requesting a community review.

My first concern with this article is that it does not meet Good Article criterion #2 ("Factually accurate and verifiable"). I found a number of factual errors in the "Route description" section, some of which would be obvious simply by looking at a map, and others of which are obvious to anyone who has driven the route. I attempted to correct the errors that I spotted, but I have no references for this. One correction which I attempted to make was reverted without explanation, even after I raised the issue in the individual review. Also, this article is sourced almost entirely to maps. This is not necessarily a problem, but requires that we stick to facts that are actually shown on the map and not interpretations or guesswork.

My second concern is that the article does not meet GAC #3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). The western portion of it, running on Washtenaw Avenue from US-23 to the EMU campus, is a major thoroughfare in the area. A reasonable search will turn up quite a lot that's been written about this stretch of road, including the general character of the road, notable landmarks along it, the history of the developments along the road, and future plans. Similar information (though in less quantity) can be found regarding the eastern portion of it, on Ecorse.

Thank you, cmadler (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Imzadi1979

Regarding Cmadler's points above in brief, he has been encouraged to make any additions or corrections to the article he wants. His issue about sourcing to maps is a bit of a non-starter though, as has been discussed in numerous forums over the last several years. If there are minor errors (I have been known to mix up the words "east" and "west" in a minor form of dyslexia) then they can and should be fixed by anyone, period. I removed a measurement he added to the article because I felt we couldn't support it from the existing sources. We seem to have some disagreement over how to describe where M-17 and BUS US 23 run concurrently, if Cmadler wants to look into that, as the local resident, and help clarify that, then that's welcome.

Second, I have done a search of news media looking for information to add to this article. Cmadler stated in the last GAR, "This is probably the most-written-about, most-discussed roadway in the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti area. Concerns about traffic congestion and non-motorized (pedestrian and cyclist) use of this road appear in major local media on a regular basis." Yet I have not found any articles referencing the roadway except in the context as the location for a crime or the location of a business opening. I've asked Cmadler's help in finding articles and sources to back his statement so that we can include the information. His reply was to close the individual GAR and open this GAR. Imzadi 1979 → 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. GAR is not the GA demotion factory. --Rschen7754 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • My vote still stands, unless it becomes apparent that there's something that actually needs fixing. GAR is not the place to bring articles to be demoted because of vaguely worded concerns that cannot be addressed. --Rschen7754 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be as explicit as possible about my concerns, and will number them for easier discussion.

1. I'm not suggesting that using a map as a source in unsuitable -- I think that's obviously acceptable -- but statements about (for example) roads passing through residential areas, etc. are not adequately supported by the maps. Imzadi1979 has not responded to this, beyond the above comment ("a bit of a non-starter...has been discussed in numerous forums over the last several years"). I have examined the talk page archives of the US Roads WikiProject, and every discussion I found seems to confirm that a map can only be used as a source for information that it actually shows. -- This appears to me to fail GAC 2 (the verifiable requirement).
2. Unless my understanding of the term is wrong (which is possible), I do not think M-17 runs concurrently with BUS US 12 until the Huron Street intersection; the several blocks before (west) that intersection have westbound M-17 on the westbound (southern) lanes and eastbound BUS US 12 on the eastbound (north) lanes, with most of that stretch divided with a median (as a boulevard). I changed this, but Imzadi1979 changed it back without explanation. (Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the idea of concurrency.) -- This appears to me to fail GAC 2 (the factually acurate requirement).
3. I apologize for the delay in providing further sources; I hope to have them this afternoon or this weekend. I've been busy IRL, which is also the reason the individual GAR sat so long. -- This appears to me to fail GAC 3a (requirement to address the main aspects of the topic).

Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• A quick search of a couple major local media outlets turned up the following relevant articles published within just the last year. I'm sure a more in-depth search would turn up many more.
  • Washtenaw Avenue: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
  • Cross Street: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
  • Ecorse Road: [23] [24]
• Obviously many of these discuss individually trivial matters, but they collectively paint a picture of both the present reality and major plans for this road. And again, this was just a few minutes' searching; a more in-depth search could surely turn up much more, including historical information. cmadler (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Further replies from Imzadi1979

1. The map actually shows the information presented. As I stated in the individual GAR, the satellite view in Google Maps does show that information, i.e. it doesn't take a specialist or even a leap of judgement to see that those are residential subdivisions (houses, apartment buildings, etc) near the roadway in question, especially when Google Maps labels individual businesses. That level of interpretation is allowable, and verifiable.
2. We may have had a minor disagreement in in fact based on how the MDOT map inset I consulted makes the one-way street situation in that area appear. Now that 2011 map is out and in my hands, let's update the text as necessary.
3. Thank you for finally answering my question. Let me see what's usable here, because an article that trivially mentions the roadway is useless for our purposes. We can't really take and synthesize ("paint a picture") from minor details scattered across several articles though.

Imzadi 1979 → 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to #1, I believe Google Maps is sufficient enough to source this. I personally don't refer to this sort of thing in my articles, but I won't object to anyone who does. (I have objected to articles that have way too many references to the surrounding land, because when articles become a meaningless repetition of "The highway passes through X County, where it goes by some homes. Following this, it goes through farmland before passing by some random business. Then there's some more homes" it puts the reader to sleep. I don't see that here.) --Rschen7754 16:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I will wait for your further comments regarding points 2 & 3. Regarding the first point, prior to my first edit, the article contained the statement "Along the sides of the highway are many subdivisions of houses and schools" cited to Google maps. This was an untrue statement, and the fact that you believe such a statement could be cited to Google maps highlights my concern about this. I changed the statement to read "Although there are many residential areas near M-17, particularly to the south, the road itself is dominated by commercial development, including numerous restaurants." The first portion of this might be citeable to the satelite view on Google maps, but the rest of it is not, and is currently uncited. Another uncited and possibly incorrect statement is that M-17 begins "on the Ann Arbor – Pittsfield Township border." Although it is certainly near the border, I am dubious that it is actually on the border, which is near (but not at) the western end of the Washtenaw Avenue/US-23 interchange. cmadler (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have limited time the rest of this afternoon, but concerning the terminus point, I will comment for the moment. The following is all cited to the Detroit Area inset of the 2008 map:

M-17 begins at exit 37 along US Highway 23 (US 23) on the Ann Arbor – Pittsfield Township border. West of this cloverleaf interchange, Washtenaw Avenue is Business Loop Interstate 94 (BL I-94) and Business US 23 (BUS US 23). M-17 follows Washtenaw Avenue east of this interchange through Pittsfield Township and Ypsilanti Township.

Breaking those three sentence down, clause by clause, if necessary:

1. US 23 runs along the border. The political boundary jogs westward so that the interchange ramps are in the township, but the freeway runs along the boundary. The printed map has change in shading for the two municipalities obscured by the interchange.
2. The second sentence sets up what is the westward continuation of M-17 since Washtenaw Avenue does not terminate where M-17 terminates.
3. The third sentence sets up where M-17 initially runs from its terminal point.

All three facts are verifiable from the MDOT map inset, and cited to it. (No policy or guideline around here requires consecutive sentences to carry redundant citations except in a biography.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• According to Washtenaw County GIS (I apologize, I can't figure out how to link to a specific view, but it's pretty simple to navigate), not only is the entire interchange within Pittsfield Township, but there is a narrow strip of Pittsfield Township extending into Ann Arbor, encompassing the full width of Washtenaw Avenue all the way to the Pittsfield Boulevard intersection. If M-17 terminates at US-23 (including any part of the interchange), the terminus is fully within Pittsfield Township. cmadler (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Did you read what I said? Your map shows the US 23 freeway running along, but slightly east of, the boundary, with the city line diverging west around the interchange ramps. The MDOT Physical Reference Finder Application, shows most of, but not all of the interchange in the township with ramps crossing in and out of the city. The 2011 Official State Map's Detroit Area inset (online version of that part of the inset) shows the change in the color of the shading between the city and the township changing at the freeway. The text of the article states that the terminus is at the interchange with the US 23 freeway, and the freeway runs along the border. Your map does not contradict that. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The map I linked shows the entire interchange within Pittsfield Township. If it is within the Township, it is not on the border. The 2011 Official MDOT map, while broadly correct, lacks the accuracy to correctly describe this (note that it also shows this interchange crossing Hogback/Carpenter Roads, which satelite images show to be incorrect). As for the MDOT PR finder, since it agrees as to the roads but disagrees as to the position of the border, it becomes a question of which source is more reliable as to the position of borders of Washtenaw County subdivisions: Washtenaw County or the Michigan Department of Transportation. cmadler (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is broad in describing what the road is like along with its history. It does not need excess detail describing every single point of interest along the road. In addition, maps are acceptable as sources in road articles. Dough4872 02:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the grounds for delisting. There are two claims - one that the description of the route is not accurate, though the source used bears out the description. The other is that it is not broad enough as it doesn't go into enough detail about the character of the road - though the article follows the level of detail of other GA listed road articles. It's worth keeping this GAR open for a week to see if there is any support for the issues raised, though I would be looking to close at that point if there is no support. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)