Wikipedia:Peer review/M-6 (Michigan highway)/archive1

M-6 (Michigan highway)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just passed its ACR under the US Roads project. It could use some non-project feedback before it goes to FAC. On a side note, I'm in discussions with the Michigan Department of Transportation on releasing some aerial photos of the freeway for use in the article. They have given me the photos via e-mail with a non-free license, and I'm awaiting word to see if they'll allow them to be uploaded without the "no derivatives" restriction. I'm also waiting on a research request with the AAA of Michigan for some maps. (They were originally promised "within a few weeks" at the beginning of November, a time table that has been pushed back to January.) These maps would support a paragraph in the history that is currently commented out, awaiting non-SPS verification.

Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 23:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

MDOT released the photos into the public domain, so they've been uploaded and added. Imzadi 1979 → 20:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article is generally well presented, with good images. The two problem areas that I identify concern prose and sources.

Prose

There are a number of issues with the prose. I have only had time to go through the lead in any detail, and I found numerous things needing attention there – I've listed these below. I imagine there will be other issues in the remainder of the text, and it would be a good idea to get the whole thing copyedited, preferably by someone who has worked on road articles before.

• Although "Ottawa" is linked to the county article, my first impression was of a highway beginning in Canada, and although this is easily corrected by a glance at the map,I was momentarily disconcerted. I suggest that you make it Ottawa County.
• I don't like the second sentence beginning "Even after..." - it sounds slightly querulous. Suggest: "Although the freeway is named for the late congressman, local residents and the press continue to use the original name, South Beltline".
• "The freeway connects Interstate 196 (I-196) on the west with I-96 on the east and U.S. Highway 131 (US 131) in the middle while running through the south side of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area in Western Michigan." Not at all easy to understand. With the aid of the map I worked it out, and I think the sentence should run something like this: "The freeway runs through the south side of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area in Western Michigan. Its west and east ends join Interstates 196 and 96 (I-196 and I-96) respectively, and it intersects with U.S. Highway 131 (US 131) midway through its course".
• "Each end is in a more rural area..." would read better as "Each end is in a relatively rural area..." (avoiding the "more than what?" question). And, later in the same sentence, I'd replace "middle" with "central section".
• "From the time that the state authorized funding with the goal of construction to the time of the ribbon cutting that opened the South Beltline to traffic, it took 32 years to approve, plan, finance and build the freeway." This is far too wordy. The vital information is all contained in the last few words, leaving most of the sentence redundant. I suggest you incorporate the important details into the opening sentence, thus: "The freeway was original conceived in the 1960s and its initial funding approved in 1975, although it took a further 32 years to complete it." I'm not sure, incidentally, how the 32 years is worked out. If as you say, funding was approved in 1975 and he freeway was fully open in 2004, that's 29 years.
• "The project cost around $700 million (equivalent to $814 million in 2010) or around $35 million/mi (approximately $22 million/km, equivalent to $41 million/mi or $26 million/km in 2010)." Don't abbreviate to "$35 million/mi", say "$35 million per mile". It is also unnecessary to include present-day values for such a recent project. I strongly advise you to drop these comparisons.
• "The project was built with the first single-point urban interchange in Michigan and a new technique was used to apply the pavement markings, embedding them into the concrete to reduce the chance a snowplow would scrape them off". The "and" connector should not be used to combine unrelated facts into a single sentence.

Sources

• The main issue here is that a majority of the citations (29 in all) are from a single source, Grand Rapids Press. If we exclude the 13 map citations, that's 29 out of 38 - and 6 of these other are to the Consumer Price Index. That does seem rather like over-reliance on a particular source. I realise that a local newspaper will be an inportant source in an article like this, but this extent of near-exclusivity is a bit bothersome. Are there any other possible sources that could be drawn on?
• Ref 29 is missing publisher details. What makes this a reliable source?

I am sorry I don't have more time to work on the prose, but I hope these few comments prove useful. If you want to raise anything with me arising from this review, or would like me to look at it again, please contact me via my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for prose polishing, so while your comments are helpful in that regard, the utility is limited. I've set up a GoCE request, and I'll work with your comments above on the lead. We'll see what happens with the GoCE. As for your sourcing concerns, I completely disagree on the first point. What other sources do you want me to use? Would it matter if I had pulled the same articles from the Press's sister publications like the Holland Sentinel? I just don't see the problem since these articles span from 1982 through 2009 (27 years) and multiple reporters, and presumably different editors and publishers on the staff of the paper. As for reference 29, it is a photo from a personal website. Photos are an exemption to the OR policy, and really reference what is a minor detail in the overall story of the freeway. (It was a catchy detail for a DYK hook and could be removed now.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)