This nomination has been stale for a while now. Since there is no opposition, and FLC does not require a source spotcheck, I will invoke WP:IAR on the normal ACR procedure and promote our first A-Class list, with a suggestion to revisit our source spotcheck requirement for lists. -happy5214 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: In discussions earlier about this year's project goals, I had offered to be a guinea pig for the FLC goal. In order to do that, I present to you the first list that I think is ready to be evaluated for AL-Class and promotion to FL. It is also a keystone to a future GT on Michigan's highway system.
I will look it over in the coming days. –Fredddie™ 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some preliminary questions and comments:
First of all, I am reviewing this as if USRD's featured lists don't exist. Didn't we begin this push to create featured lists because the ones we have are not that good. Anyway, since MILHIST has A-Class lists, I will be taking cues from that project.
Do you think the second and third paragraphs of the lead be better split out as a history section and then re-summarized for the lead? I'm leaning that way, but I'd like your opinion and that of anyone else who plans on chiming in.
I think each section could use an introductory paragraph. Since we're talking about the system in Michigan as a whole, I think we have a good opportunity to explain why routes were built where they were with respect to the system.
More to come... –Fredddie™ 22:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started with List of Interstate Highways in Texas as a starting template. Granted, that list was promoted several years ago, and undoubtedly FLC expectations have heightened over the years just as FAC expectations have.
One thing that concerns me is too much redundancy between the history of the state's highway system in Michigan State Trunkline Highway System and the lead here. By my way of thinking, this list's tables would be in that other article if it weren't for space considerations; in other words, this is the subarticle. There's probably some room to expand on the content, but I would hope that doesn't result in writing a "History of the Interstate Highways in Michigan" that has tables below it. Imzadi 1979→ 02:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. I think this list (and all FL-wannabes) should answer a few questions for the casual reader:
What is an Interstate Highway?
Where are the IHs in Michigan?
Why were they built there?
When were they built?
How are Interstates funded? (construction and maintenance)
I'm not asking for verbatim copy/pastes from the SHS article or even detailed analysis of the construction of each highway, but I think some explanation without relying on going to the individual articles is needed. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of which should be addressed now with the expanded prose sections. Imzadi 1979→ 03:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After the prose additions, I feel better about this list going forward. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will review once Fredddie is done. Dough4872 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
You should probably mention the total mileage of the Interstate Highway System in Michigan in the lead.
In the Description section, you should maybe add a sentence briefly describing the standards of the Interstate highway (Granted, you have a link to the standards article, but a brief mention here would help too.)
Maybe you should clarify the Mackinac Bridge is the only part of the Interstate Highway System in Michigan not maintained by MDOT.
In the description, maybe you should mention the numbering scheme and how it applies to the Interstates in Michigan, giving examples.
Which section of I-75 was the first to get signage and when was it built?
Maybe you should mention why MDOT cancelled studies on I-73.
In the tables, I noticed inconsistency with mentioning the names of the Interstates. You appear to mention all the names of I-75 but leave out the current names of I-96. You should be consistent in either including all of the names or none of them. Also, is it really necessary to mention the names of the Interstates? I can see if one name applies to the entire length, but it gets unwieldy for highways such as I-75.
Why aren't the names of I-94 cited?
Why do I-496 and I-696 have completion dates in the table but none of the other 3di or the 2di don't? I would again be consistent here in including or all or none or would mention the significance of including the completion dates for these two Interstates.
I noticed the proposed interstates don't have highways at the termini listed. Is this because the exact termini were unknown? But if they were known to terminate at a route I would include the route they were proposed to terminate at.
There are some uncited statements in the notes of the business routes table.
I noticed for some of the business routes you mention the city of town it serves in the table. Shouldn't you do this for all of them for consistency? I would do it based on the fact business loops or spurs are typically identified with a specific community. Dough4872 02:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
Added.
Added, but I reserve the right to remove it later; I want to sleep on it to see if I like the way it flows there.
Added.
No, that's what Interstate Highway System is for. Since there are currently only four mainlines, at two of each north–south and east–west, it would be hard to give examples without duplicating the table. As for the 3dIs, it could take too much to explain why I-196 has an odd first digit even though it is not a true spur.
Added.
Added.
Added. The trouble is that the 2dIs have been carved up into separate named segments, some of which (like the Fisher vs. the Chrysler on I-75) have distinct physical boundaries.
Already done, per Evad's comments below before I read yours.
Let me think over how to deal with this... At one time, before the templates were developed, I think there was a "completion" column, but it should be easy enough to add the others' years where they differ from the "formed". (I-296 was first designated when it was completed, so it's formation and completion dates are the same.)
Given their proposed nature, I didn't think we needed to be so specific, especially since the locations are already rounded off because exact corridors were never really established.
Those were all taken care of already before I saw that you saved your comments.
I indicated them in the notes only when the termini are outside of the specific cities. The BL I-69 for Lansing, for instance, starts in Delta Township in Eaton County, run through Lansing and East Lansing in Ingham County before terminating in Bath Township in Clinton County.
For now, pending any addition of a completion column, I've added all of the completion dates to the notes where they aren't the same as the formation date. (Some 3dIs were built and opened in one segment.) Imzadi 1979→ 00:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I feel that this list is thorough, well-formatted, and sets a good example for what future USRD lists should look like. Hopefully, consideration can be made for adding a completion column listing the completion dates of the Interstates. Dough4872 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a full review, just a point that I think needs some discussion: Should all the notes in the note columns have at least 1 reference at the end of the note? Isn't a note without any references as much of a verifiability issue as a sentence or two at the end of a paragraph without any references? For example, where's the source(s) for I-94 having "one section named the Detroit Industrial Freeway, another named Edsel Ford Freeway"? Or that BL I-75 "Follows Woodward Avenue through downtown Pontiac", or that BS I-375 is "Unsigned along Jefferson Avenue"? - Evad37[talk] 03:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are two ways to look at this. All of the various locations, street names and most of the freeway names are all listed in MDOT's Physical Reference Finder Application, which is the citation for all of the lengths. We typically do not require redundant citations for notes on highway junction/exit lists if the information can be found in the source for the mileposts, so I'm not sure why the same principle wouldn't hold true here. (As for the BS I-375 notes, see note c below the article where that information is cited.) Imzadi 1979→ 03:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: I'm not opposed to making changes. In many ways, this ACR is a test case, and whatever we do here will be validated or not when this goes to FLC after this review closes. There hasn't been a FLC out of the various highway projects in several years, and we're testing new templates and the standards for lists USRD set up. I know that the AL-Class assessment will be provisional for a while, but the biggest test will probably be this first list. Also, in the past, FL-related comments have indicated to me that they prefer to have a references column on the far right that hold all of the footnotes for everything in a row., something the templates don't do yet, which would simplify when a single footnote handles information from multiple cells. Imzadi 1979→ 02:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you were saying earlier earlier about the top footnote in the length column referencing the info that's not specifically cited, but I don't think it looks good for some notes to have a ref at the end and others not having one, or only having one in the middle of the note - it just makes it look like its unfinished. I think that's the main difference between these lists and RJLs, which would typically only have a ref at the top of the table – but I can't really think of a good way around having "redundant citations". I'm not sure if this would actually be a problem at FLC or not, but the previous reference discussions [1][2] may have to be revisited. - Evad37[talk] 02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW, anyone else reading this is welcome to comment in this subsection... I don't know if I'm the only one with these concerns...? - Evad37[talk] 02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I see that all the notes now have refs, so I am marking this as resolved - Evad37[talk] 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Evad37
More comments and questions to turn this into a full review:
Lead
Feels like there should be a comma before "while the highways in Michigan..."
"50 to 70 miles per hour (80 to 113 km/h) (depending on type of terrain)" – suggest rephrasing or altering punctuation two avoid a double set of brackets
abbreviations of organisations is not consistent – all four have full name and abbreviation in the lead, but in this paragraph there's MDOT, FHWA abbreviated, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Mackinac Bridge Authority in full
"(A fourth, the privately owned Ambassador Bridge connects I-75 and I-96 in Detroit to Canada.)" – are the brackets needed? Would seem to read just as well without.
History
"Seizing the opportunity brought by a 1957 state law" – which law? (if specified by source)
Tables
There doesn't seem much point in the Removed column being sortable in the Primary Interstates table
There should be a in "Highway 402"
Should there be a color key for the dark grey background color at the end of the tables (like {{Jctbtm}} does for RJLs)?
Images
Have you considered using <gallery mode=packed>, which centres the gallery and wastes less space around each image (more info/options at Help:Gallery tag) - Evad37[talk] 05:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: all of the above are done that I can do by myself. I just double checked, but the 1957 state law has no title listed in the source. A quick check of the relevant statute that codifies the modern state trunkline highway system (McNitt Act, Public Act 51 of 1951) does show that it was amended in 1957 by PA 262, but that's getting into minor details. {{Routelist bottom}} is being updated to insert the key, which is something I've nagged about on IRC in the past. Since {{routelist top}} would have to be modified to switch sorting on and off for that one column, I'm not sure that is something that needs to be done, unless it comes up as an issue in the FLC. As for the gallery, I'm not sure I like that option, so I'm leaving it for now and will revisit during the FLC if necessary. Imzadi 1979→ 06:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: sorry if you get pinged twice, but I wasn't sure if the first one would go through. In any case, {{routelist bottom}} now has the capability to display the appropriate color keys. Imzadi 1979→ 07:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looking good. I don't think it would be difficult to add parameters to {{routelist top}} to turn off sorting, but we'll see what happens at FLC. - Evad37[talk] 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I only got one ping, probably because the system didn't detect a new signature with the first edit - Evad37[talk] 13:17, 11 May 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.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}