- I will review this article. Dough4872 01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- When mentioning the state line termini in the infobox, you should mention what state line it is located at.
- This doesn't apply since I didn't (and typically don't) mention the state endpoints in the infobox
- In the first paragraph of the lead, you should mention what state the route comes in from the south and leaves to the north to give more geographical context.
- "Immediately upon landing in Iowa,", the word "landing" sounds awkward here, I would use "entering" instead.
- I used the verb land because the road already entered Iowa on the bridge.
- "US 75 enters Iowa on the Sergeant Floyd Memorial Bridge, which also carries I-129 and US 20, over the Missouri River.", you should mention the route enters Iowa from Nebraska.
- Again, would use "entering" instead of "landing".
- Again, I think it's fine.
- "an interchange with Iowa 3 helps direct more traffic to the downtown area.", "more" seems superfluous here and should be removed.
- The previous interchange was with the Le Mars business route; it's implied that the business route directs traffic to downtown.
- You should add a little more detail about the physical surroundings to the route description. Specifically, you should mention what kind of development the highway passes in Sioux City and what the surroundings are like in the rural areas. Also you should mention where the road leaves Sioux City and heads into rural areas.
- There's really nothing to describe. Northwestern Iowa gives the rest of the state a bad reputation of being flat cornfields.
- All that needs to be added here is that when the route leaves Sioux City is that it heads into farmland. Maybe add just one sentence that says "Upon leaving Sioux City, US 75 passes through farmland for most of the remainder of its route." or something similar. I think ignoring this leaves out a piece of the route description as the reader may be curious what the areas US 75 passes through in northwestern Iowa are like and some readers may be unfamiliar with the geography of Iowa and cannot assume it passes through farmland on the stretches outside of cities. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Disagree
- I would disagree here too. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In the route description, you should add a web mapping source such as Google Maps or Bing Maps to supplement the Iowa DOT map as I doubt the Iowa DOT map can source some of the information in the route description.
- Like what, specifically?
- For example, in the sentence "In Hinton, the highway and railroads separate the residential western half of the town from the eastern half's grain elevator operation.", I don't think the Iowa DOT map can back up the claim that the road separates residential areas from the grain elevators. Usually, I would use both an official DOT map and a web mapping source to source the whole route description in order to accurately be able to back up all the claims presented in the route description as neither can do it alone. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cited only this example to Google Maps. Otherwise, it would just appear like I lazily tacked on Google Maps refs. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In the last paragraph of the route description, I doubt the Google Maps of the state line section change is supposed to be the source for the sentences before the state line.
- Did you click the link? You can clearly see a pavement change and a MnDOT sign. Spin the view around 180 degrees and there's an Iowa welcome sign.
- I understand that the three sentences starting with the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." can be backed up with the Google Maps ref of the state line, but its the sentences before that in the same paragraph that can't be backed up by that reference, such as "North of US 18, US 75 continues on its due-north course.", which describes a section of road well south of the state line. Again, refer to my comment above on how you should use both a DOT map and a web mapping source to source the entire route description in order to avoid these issues. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to avoid this. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add a reference to the Iowa DOT map after the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." as not to imply the Minnesota map is citing that information about the portion of the road south of the state line. Dough487210th 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed the History has a lot of short subsections. May want to merge or eliminate the subsections.
- Nope. Each subsection is a separate topic. Some things have more to talk about than others.
- Is it necessary to spell out U.S. Highway 75 in the History given that you defined it in the lead?
- You could have fixed that one.
- "At Court Street, they diverged; US 20 and Iowa 141 continued west along 4th and US 75 turned north onto Court", should add "Street" after 4th and Court.
- If I do that, I'll have said Street four times in two sentences.
- Is it possible for the inflation conversions be updated for 2016?
- This is handled automatically by the template.
- Again, don't need to spell out Interstate 29 since you defined the abbreviation in the lead.
- You could have fixed that one, too.
- What year did US 30 Alternate replace US 30? I would add a specific year as opposed to saying "years ago".
- I don't think this detail is important, US 75 is the subject of the article, not US 30 Alternate.
- I think it may help in order to provide a little historical context. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree
- If you're not going to give the year, I would remove "years ago" - without the number it's redundant, and also "US 30 years ago" could be confusing. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "and onto the abandoned US 73 corridor", I would use "former" over "abandoned" as the highway wasn't actually abandoned.
- I think it's fine.
- I still think the word choice here is poor as a reader may think the former US 73 was abandoned to the point where cars were no longer allowed to drive on it and it was no longer being maintained. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree
- I do think "former" is better than "abandoned" here. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Abandonment is the meaning that I wanted to convey, so I've rephrased that part of the sentence. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Now a much shorter highway,", I would add "within Iowa" after that to specify that the length was shorter in Iowa as the actual total length of US 75 didn't change much with the shift into Nebraska.
- Why was the highway north of Sioux City growing? Dough4872 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the rest of the paragraph.
- Any specific reasons why US 75 was improved to a four-lane divided highway north of Sioux City? Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Y I still need to answer this one. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I finally answered this better.
- I've either corrected the issue or disputed it above. –Fredddie™ 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fredddie and Dough4872: I'm finding it hard to follow what's happening here. Does this need further input to resolve a disagreement, or is this simply inactive? --Rschen7754 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A little of both. I've marked the ones on which I'd like some extra input with. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have everything covered. –Fredddie™ 20:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues 8 and 9, both regarding sourcing in the route description, still need to be addressed. Dough4872 21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dough4872: --Rschen7754 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- One more reply above and we should be good. Dough487210th 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fredddie: --Rschen7754 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dough4872 and Rschen7754: I don't know what I'm supposed to look over. I thought I had it all figured out the last time. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fredddie: Issue 9 still needs to be addressed, see my last comment there. Dough4872 23:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fredddie and Dough4872: I've made the change myself since it was so minor: [1] Is this good for the both of you? --Rschen7754 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
_map.svg){kind=link}
