Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Route 131

[edit]
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.
The result was promoted to A-Class! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

U.S. Route 131 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I think this is a good subject for the next MI FAC after M-6. It also happens to be the second highway/freeway in my current hometown to be nominated. (Yes that means I-196 and M-11 are destined for future work to match my original hometown in having all FAs.) Oh, and if we review it in time, it could be at FAC at the same time as US 113. Let's confuse the FAC reviewers! ;)
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 05:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Review from the Admiral

[edit]
Resolved issues from Admrboltz (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images:
    • You already are working on my concerns for File:Along motorcade route 904.jpg regarding licensing.
    • Images should be geotagged.
    • Map is missing GIS source and location map for those unfamiliar with the sub-national breakdown of the US.
  • References
    • Delink the Ludington Daily News redlink on ref 48.
    • Can your two {{google maps}} references be merged? There is no real reason to have one for IN and one for MI.
  • The Michigan section includes 172.132 miles - Sandy doesn't like really specific decimal places in prose, maybe change to "approx 172 mi"?
  • Link Indiana Toll Road in the Indiana section of the RD and not in the Freeway conversion.
  • When you mention railroad branches, do they have names?
  • Link divided highway in the SW Michigan section
  • Link minor league baseball
  • "This bypass was built in the early years of the 21st century"
  • Inflation values should probably be commented out.
    • missed one: "from the Indiana Toll Road northerly to north of Three Rivers would cost over $200 million"
  • Do the exit numbers and mileposts really not line up?
  • Alpha sort your See also list.
  • Can we add the other two images not used in the article from the Commons cat, the bottom half of the article seems a bit spartan.

--Admrboltz (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images: the answer was in the EXIF data for the image: "David Hume Kennerly/Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum" is the source. Since he did it for the Library & Museum, which is administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, it's PD-USGov. Of the photos, I added the overpass image to the History section. The fall color image isn't the best, so I'd prefer not to use it for now. as for geotagging, I don't know where the overpass and fall colors photos are located, so I can't tag them. The museum is tagged though. The map has been updated with the inset, GIS, color key, etc.
  • Figure rounded
  • The map does not give names to the branch lines, just the operators.
  • Links added
  • Commenting the remainder out for now, yes.
  • The exit numbers line up to the mileposts. The mileposts though don't line up to reality, probably to allow for future freeway conversion on the south end.

Imzadi 1979 → 01:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "One of the more iconic sections of the US 131 freeway in the Grand Rapids area is the S-Curve.<[54]" -- stray <.
  • "G.R. Ford Freeway" in the RJL is a dab (set index) page.

--Admrboltz (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. "Another large-scale construction project rebuilt an iconic section of the freeway through Grand Rapids in 2000.", is it possible to replace "an iconic section of the freeway" with "the S-curve"?
  2. Is it possible for the services section to have a second level heading rather than a third level heading as part of the route description? This is similar to what is done in toll road articles.
  3. The sentence "There are eight rest areas along US 131 that provide locations for motorists to pull off the highway and bathroom facilities." sounds awkward.
  4. Is there any history of the road before 1919 worth mentioning?
  5. Is it possible to find the construction costs for the US 131 freeway segments?
  6. In the quote "the speed limit on the S-Curve must be reduced as low as 25 mph [40 km/h] on some bad-weather days because of the sharpenss of the turns and [the] numerous accidents [that] have occurred there.", is the metric conversion supposed to appear in brackets? Usually they are done in parentheses but the case may be different for quotes.
  7. "School children in Anderson, Indiana wanted to honor James Whitcomb Riley, the poet the Hoosier State, in 1926 with a highway that connected the country's summer and winter resort areas.", it appears there is a missing letter in the second clause.
  8. In the junction list, is it necessary to indicate the beginning of a divided highway? Dough4872 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  1. Why? What's wrong with the sentence? It adds a little color to an otherwise slightly boring paragraph.
    It will help clarify what the iconic section is, maybe try "the iconic S-curve". Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When M-28, with a similar section, went to FAC, it was requested to either remove the services section, to move it into the RD because it's not a toll road, and there aren't as many services to discuss.
  3. Tweaked.
  4. Yes, it's called the "memorial designations" section. Beyond that, no.
  5. Data not available. I don't have newspaper sources for all of the segments' openings, or I would have included that information already.
    There was nothing relevant that could be found in MI newspaper archives or Google News? Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was, I would have added it already. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Anything inserted or changed in a quotation is done in brackets to denote that the change is the work of the current writer, not the original author or speaker.
  7. Tweaked.
  8. Ask MDOT why they switch from a single red line to a double red line. Since the transition point does not align with a junction, that's the way to do it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually, USRD articles do not indicate changes between divided and undivided segments, as these can be frequent on some roads and would overburden the junction list. I remember USRD discussed this issue in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#One-way pairs in junction lists?. I still would suggest removing it. Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the issue is frequency, don't let that worry you. There's one (1!) transition point, and it's significant here. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first mention of "BUS US 131" in the route description was a bit vague, as the abbreviation was never clarified.
Good catch. Fixed. Imzadi 1979 →
"...follows a four-lane expressway-style highway...." I think this sentence could be rearranged a little. It is a four-lane expressway (I hope), not a four-lane expressway-style highway (which could imply that it is similar but actually isn't).
It's not a full expressway. There are few driveways in a few locations, but otherwise it is a full expressway, as explained in the next sentence. Imzadi 1979 →
Is it a problem that references 11 and 12 are continually used next to each other? Do they need to be grouped?
They're both used together for a lot of the details on whole paragraphs of the RD. Some details are specifically cited to just one or the other though. (Google is not used for the rest areas or car pool lot information.) Imzadi 1979 →
"US 131 debuted, along...." in the beginning of the history could be a little confusing. --PCB 04:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what's confusing to you? US 131 and the rest of the US Highway System have the same "birthday" if you will. They both debuted at the same time. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I just didn't know what "debut" meant...hehe. --PCB 05:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, is it necessary to use the word "township" in every slot for the exit list? I'm not quite familiar with what a township is; do people in everyday language say "township"? If not, why is it necessary? --PCB 05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Townships in Michigan are subdivisions of the county. The City of Grand Rapids is legally a separate government from the Township of Grand Rapids. In common usage, we'd call them just Grand Rapids and Grand Rapids Township. See Township (United States) for more details, but yeah, I have to list that part of the municipal names. Imzadi 1979 → 05:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • In the first sentence, shouldn't it state that the miles are in Michigan? After all miles are, not miles is.
    • Another good catch. BTW, you're welcome to edit the article for stuff like this. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Can you explain why the M-6 interchange is called a mammoth interchange?
    • That's the adjective from the article. The second half of the sentence discussed how big it is, but I expanded that a bit. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Please clarify "hidden I-296 designation".
  • "At exit 176, M-55 leaves a concurrency with M-115 and joins the freeway around the east side of Cadillac." I think I know what you mean, but "the freeway" is just a bit confusing. --PCB 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie

[edit]
Infobox and lead
  • As we discussed on IRC, the red box around the zoomed in area is hard to see at 290x172px. I suggested replacing it with File:Map of USA MI.svg, but that's where the discussion ended.
    • The problem is that the US 131 map doesn't show the whole state and does show parts of other states. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Note1 seems ill-placed. Wouldn't it be just as easy to show each state's mileage using |length_notes=?
    • U.S. Route 491 uses basically the same thing, although Dave didn't separate his explanatory footnotes from his referential footnotes like I did. Instead this one note substitutes for 2 references, when it's not really needed to break the two states' mileages out separately.
      • I won't press this further here, but I think this should be discussed at WT:USRD. Rather than in-fight among ourselves about which method is the One True Method of showing how total lengths are figured, we should hash it out as a project.
  • As I said on the I-470 ACR, I'm not too keen on using postal abbreviations in the infobox. We're not mailing letters here.
  • Each states' counties should be on separate lines, even if Indiana only has one. It will eliminate that awkward comma after Elkhart County.
  • U.S. state should be linked.
    • Low value link. Tony1 pulled it on Capitol Loop. I agree, and I pull it from articles in general. The link to Michigan (or whatever state) is higher value. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Surely this is an obvious oversight. Freeway is mentioned over 100 times, but it not linked once.
  • I don't know if I would say it runs on the western side of the LP. I-29 runs along the western side. Maybe just say it runs through the western LP.
  • When I read that it didn't originally end in Indiana, then read the sentence about Fife Lake, I assumed Fife Lake was in the south. That should be clarified.
  • "The state started near Three Rivers..." This would be a good spot to mention MDOT for the first time.
    • Except that it wasn't MDOT until 1978. It was the State Highway Department back then. Rather than confuse people with the names, I left MSHD's first mention until the History section.
  • The blurb about freeway construction doesn't seem to flow very well. I might go through it myself and tweak it.
Route description
  • "In 2007, INDOT determined that 7,949 cars and 2,068 trucks used the section of US 131 in the state of Indiana.[8]" All year? This happens more than once.
  • Northerly and similar have ambiguous meanings, so they should be avoided.
    • Hmm. No one's ever complained before. I need to think about this one. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Through Michigan, believe it or not, I think there is too much detail on what the route travels through.
    • Suggestions on what to trim? Imzadi 1979 → 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, my concern is tl;dr. If each section was somewhere between the lengths of 'Services' and 'S-Curve replacement', I'd be happier.
        • I've trimmed 1,315B from the article, and absent any specific details you want removed, I can only come up with a few ideas on places to trim further. One is to spin the entire Memorial designations section out completely as a sub article and drop a single paragraph summary in its place. Second would be to cut out the entire historic bridge section. The third would be to cut the car pool lot information, although I'd prefer that it stay. I'd rather not pull the bridges as the one is on the NRHP. Anything else, and we're not cutting fat but meat from the article. I'd be down to removing details on landmarks, or the environment around the freeway. As it stands now, some counties have only two or three sentences, and whole communities along the highway are no longer mentioned at all. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the RD, I don't really like what appears to be a lead paragraph for Michigan under the third-level heading for SW Michigan. I'm not so certain it would be better to change the SW Michigan header to Michigan, placing a fourth-level heading after the first Michigan paragraph and making the other Michigan sections fourth-level as well.
  • Calling the S-Curve iconic is borderline weasely.
  • {{Convert}} has an option to convert the parentheses to square brackets.
  • "This fluid will melt ice to lower temperatures than the −20 °F (−29 °C) at which salt stops working..." I think you meant to say the fluid will melt ice at temperatures lower than –20 °F.
  • "Ouwinga was a state lawmaker who died while serving in the Michigan House of Representatives in 1991." I think it's clearer to say "...who died in 1991 while serving..."
  • "Built as Trunk Line Bridge No. 61 in 1916–17, the 45-foot-long (14 m) span is 18 feet (5.5 m) wide in a concrete through-girder style that cost $9,956.63 to build.[102]" This sentence seems awkward, but I don't know a better way to fix it. Also, when you read it with the sentence before it, Trunk Line gets repetitive.
After this, we'll be good to go for my concerns. –Fredddie™ 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this review? --Rschen7754 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. Route 113

[edit]
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.

Promoted to A-Class! –Fredddie™ 11:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

U.S. Route 113 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
Nominator's comments: This article passed the Good Article process without a problem. The article has been gradually improved since then, but I am now looking for constructive criticism to take it to the next step.
Nominated by: Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Dough4872 02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. "US 113 is the primary highway within Worcester County, Maryland", maybe indicate it is primary north-south highway as US 50 is an important east-west road in the county.
    •  Fixed Added north–south adjective to the sentence.
  2. "US 113 is one of three major north–south highways in Sussex County", maybe indicate what the other two major highways are.
    •  Fixed Added "Along with US 13 and DE 1" to the beginning of the sentence in question.
  3. In the history section of the lead, it may help to indicate the northern terminus was in Dover when the highway was created.
    • Dover is mentioned in second sentence of the history paragraph ("in Delaware the highway was the Selbyville–Dover portion of the DuPont Highway"). It sounds like you think that fact should be more explicit. My first idea is to start the next sentence with "The Pocomoke City–Dover highway was designated US 113..." Would that be explicit enough or do you have a better idea?
  4. The sentence "After the intersection with MD 365, the highway turns north and reduces to a two-lane highway, then traverses Purnell Branch, crosses the Snow Hill Line of the Maryland and Delaware Railroad at-grade, and turns northeast again as the highway receives the other end of US 113 Business" is too long and needs to be split.
    •  Fixed Split into two sentences.
  5. "scattered industrial concerns" sounds a little awkward, try a different word here.
    •  Fixed Changed concerns to properties.
  6. If I recall correctly, the section of Selbyville that US 113 passes through is more commercial than industrial.
    •  Fixed I added commercial to the description.
  7. In the route description, there seems to be missing details about the physical surrondings. For instance, the article does not mention whether the road runs through residential or business areas of the towns it serves as well as the part between Berlin and the Delaware border. In addition, the article seems to imply that US 113 simply passes through forests between Georgetown and Milford. It may help to mention the road passes through farmland near the DE 16 intersection.
    • I am not sure that level of detail is necessary, and I would like a second opinion on that. I realize description of surroundings may be inconsistent in this article, so I would like further guidance on how detailed I should be.
  8. "US 113's interchange with US 50 was built in 1976, along with a future interchange with MD 90 that sat unused for a quarter century", the use of "quarter century" does not seem right here as it was more than 25 years since the interchange was put into use.
    • According to NBI, the interchange was built in 1976. According to the 2000 Worcester HLR, the interchange opened for use in 2000. So 24 years. I like the use of "quarter century" or "almost a quarter century" to suggest a long time, but if precision is more important here, I can replace it with the number of years. Also, should I add state highway map references for that interchange?
  9. The only part of the old State Road that has that name runs from Milford to just north of Georgetown and does not run all the way to Selbyville. Is the original State Road that crossed the county know by other names in some places today? If so, it may help to mention what the segments are known as today.
    • The point of mentioning the State Road is to reference the DuPont Highway's predecessor road, not to go into detail about that road. US 113 never followed the State Road, so it is even less relevant to mention the names of the roads that follow the path of the State Road.
  10. Some more detail about the Dupont Highway can be added to the history.
    • Do you have specific details you would like to see? Can you suggest any resources I should use?
      • Reference 6 has a bunch of information about the planning of the Dupont Highway that would make the article more interesting, such as the designs that were initially planned for the road. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Expansion of US 113 to a divided highway began in the latter half of the 1950s. US 13's bypass on the south and east side of Dover was completed by 1952; US 113 and US 113A's courses did not change, as US 113 was co-signed with US 13 on that portion of Bay Road, which had been upgraded to a divided highway, to the same northern terminus", it may help to indicate where this location is in the present.
    •  Fixed Added location of the northern terminus: State Street near Dover International Speedway.
  12. When mentioning the completion of the US 113 Frederica bypass, there should be a mention that DE 12 was extended along part of the former US 113 to the route north of Frederica.
  13. The references in the article appear to show US 113's northern terminus cut back to the junction with US 13 prior to 1976. Is there perhaps a non-map source that could possibly verify this?
    • If there is such a non-map source, I am not aware of it. Since you are more familiar with Delaware, do you have any suggestions?
      • I would not happen to know of one at the current time, but I would assume AASHTO may have something regarding any possible truncation. Also, looking at the DelDOT maps, it appears US 113 was removed from US 13 between the 1965 and 1966 maps, as the 1965 map has US 113 on US 13 and the 1966 map does not. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The History section does not mention any information about how the routing of US 113 was affected when the DE 1 freeway was constructed in the area of Dover Air Force Base in the 1990s.
    • I do not think the routing was affected significantly. US 113 may have hopped onto the freeway from Bay Road for a few miles, but I am not sure how I would source that.
      • When DE 1 was constructed, the portion of Bay Road in front of Dover AFB became a freeway with a diamond interchange for the base's main gate. Northbound US 113 left the freeway for Bay Road at the interchange for DE 10/DAFB north gate and southbound US 113 joined the freeway further north at the point where DE 1 passes over Bay Road. Try looking at maps from the 1990s as well as non-map sources. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a sentence explaining the upgrading of US 113 to a freeway from the southern end of Dover AFB to Exit 95. Since Exit 95 involves both the ramps at DE 10 and where DE 1 crosses Bay Road as two complementary partial interchanges, I did not explain the stretch of Bay Road "within" the interchange. Is an explanation necessary or would it be too much detail or too confusing? Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Some information about why US 113 was truncated from Dover to Milford could be added to the article.
    • The only information I could find on a rationale was in the US 113 article at AARoads. That information is sourced to a personal email. Until I see a more official source, I am going to treat the rationale as speculation, which is something to be avoided in Wikipedia.
  16. More information about the dumbbell interchange at MD 12 as well as the freeway plan in Delaware can be added to the Future section.
    • Unless I missed something, the freeway plans in Delaware are still under study. I am not sure what more I can add about the MD 12 interchange. Perhaps you can point me to some sources on these proposed projects that go beyond what SHA/DelDOT are saying?
  17. I am not sure if the intersections with unnumbered roads in Maryland should be included in the junction list, even if they were formerly part of routes.
    • I would like another opinion on that, since we disagree here. Also, I am not sure DE 24 Alt should be included in the Junction list, since the mileage cannot be sourced and the designation is not official in the DelDOT Traffic Reports.
      • DE 24A is a signed route and junction lists are supposed to include all state routes, whether mileposts are known or not. For reference, DelDOTs route log for other state routes does not have mileposts for some intersecting state highways. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The Bannered routes section needs references. Dough4872 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My impression is the information in the Bannered routes section are essentially Lead paragraphs inviting the reader to head to the main article to get the details and sources. Is that interpretation incorrect by Wikipedia guidelines?
      • I had actually split the two bannered routes out of this article and left the leads here to provide a summary with a link to the main articles. From that perspective, this may be a place where references are not needed as the information can be verified in the subarticles. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Dough. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed everything, either fixing it or asking for a second opinion, except for #10. I will look through the DuPont Highway source in the next few days and see if anything relevant can be found to add to the article. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Dave

Comments: Lead:

  • US 113 is part of the National Highway System along its entire length-> All of US 113 is part of the National Highway System. IMO sounds a little better, but not a big deal.
  • There is an article about DuPont Historic Corridor. This highway mentions a "Dupont Highway" Are the two related? if so, the articles should be linked and the connection explained. Regardless the origins of "Dupont Highway" should be explained.
    • The DuPont Highway mentioned in the historic corridor article is not the same as the DuPont Highway in this article. The DuPonts were a leading family of Delaware, so they had many, many things named for them, including multiple highways. While the origins of the DuPont Highway are explained in the History section, I added a little more info to the sentence in the Lead, explaining the highway was a philanthropic measure initiated by one of the DuPonts. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

  • Mataponi Creek and Corkers Creek and passes the entrance to the Shad Landing unit of Pocomoke River State Park. IMO you should briefly explain what makes these features notable, especially the state park.
    • Many of these minor bodies of water are included as reference points. The state park is notable as being a state park, and is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. There is only so much you can say about a state park whose location is on a river, contains wetlands, or containing some unique wildlife configurations. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five Mile Branch, Massey Branch and Poplartown Branch also need explanations. My take is these are rail lines from the context. However, I do think it is possible that the mentions of railroad crossings could be referring to the M&D railroad previously linked and the branches could be a creek or street. If all these are indeed railroad branch lines perhaps say "US 113 crosses the Snow Hill Line of the Maryland and Delaware Railroad and has several crossings with branch lines of this main as the route traverses Maryland" or something like that.
    • All of the above are bodies of water that US 113 crosses. The term "branch" is used for many minor bodies of water in Maryland. I find it easier to disambiguate a branch as a rail line than as a body of water, since it is awkward to say "Five Mile Branch river" or "Five Mile Branch stream" but not so to say something like "the Columbia Branch rail line." Do you have any suggestions? Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Humm. I definitely think something needs to be done, as rail lines was my first guess. If it's a branch of a river, perhaps you could say "Five Mile Branch of XYZ river." Or perhaps "Five Mile Branch which empties into XYX Lake/Bay/Ocean." Either of those would make it clear it's a body of water. You would probably only need to do this on the first "branch". However, for me using the word "branch" alone to describe a body of water is a foreign concept, so it does need explaining.Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disambiguated all bodies of water with "branch" in their name in the Route description. There are a few "branches" in the History and Future sections, but they had previously been disambiguated in the RD, so I left them alone. Viridiscalculus (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink "concurrency."

History:

  • "relocated to its present alignment as the first carriageway of a future and later upgraded to a divided highway through Newark and Ironshire as well." is a little rough. The crossouts may help, but there is probaby a better way to re-word this.
  • "dualized" - Is that a word? (I don't know, i'm asking an honest question).
  • "was built in 1976, the same year a future interchange with MD 90 was constructed." That doesn't make any sense.
    • Can you elaborate on what does not make sense? My first instinct is the "future interchange" part, but I want to be sure before I correct it. The point I am trying to get across is an interchange was built on another highway but was not put into use for 24 years. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taken literally this sentence implies a highway engineer had a time machine. A future interchange built in 1976? Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reworded this to what I think you meant to say. Let me know if I did this right. Dave (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The way you rewrote it implied MD 90 was not yet built, when in fact MD 90 was the highway that was completed in 1976 and waiting for the other highway to be built to make the interchange functional. I rewrote the set of sentences as follows: "US 113's interchange with US 50 was built in 1976.[18][20] MD 90's interchange with US 113 was also constructed in 1976, but it sat unused for 24 years until US 113 between Berlin and the Delaware state line was partially relocated and expanded to a divided highway between 2000 and 2003.[21][22][23][24][25][26]" Let me know if that solves the confusion or if that introduces new problems. Viridiscalculus (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, you've got features along the route in the History section such as "Dover Air Force Base" and "Dover International Speedway" that aren't mentioned in the Route description. Unless the route no longer passes by these features, they should be mentioned in the Route description.
    • The route no longer passes by those features. They are used as modern reference points to explain where the route once extended. This is explained at the end of the History. The Lead also mentions the highway originally extended north to Dover but was moved south to Milford. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink DelDOT
  • US 113 in Maryland -> The Maryland portion "US XXX in ZZZ" is a USRDism that isn't really correct english, though I'm guilty as sin as doing it too.

Bannered routes:

Content: Looking at the sources used, with the exception of the future section, they are almost entirely map and database sources. I see very few prose based sources. I have two concerns with that. 1- I strongly encourage to do a search of period newspapers (i.e. when major segments were opened or under construction) for the area. I make a habit of doing this. While not always, it's surprising how often you can find quite a bit of notable information about the highway not available in map based sources. 2- I've seen articles at FAC get grilled for relying too much on non-prose based sources. Just an FYI.Dave (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review, Dave. I am not sure what I am going to do about finding more prose sources, because finding information about highway construction from more than a decade ago is not as easy or profitable as you make it sound. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - your most recent fix addressed my biggest concern. Two things for the record. I still think you should search period newspapers for some more prose based sources. I know how tough it can be (believe me) but it does help. And I think not doing so may cause you some grief should you take this to FAC. Second, I don't have a problem with it, but I have seen where articles with future sections get raked over the coals too. The theory is that you've got a section that is guaranteed to be out of date soon. Just something to think about. Dave (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Admrboltz
Resolved issues from Admrboltz (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Image Review:
    1. File:US 113 map.png - Lacking key and GIS source.
    2. Alt text. I know its no ones favorite, but FAC is going to look for it. Check the tool, it will show you which ones are missing alt text.
  2. "The highway runs 74.75 miles" - I may know the context of runs, but a non roadfan may not. Suggest "spans" or something similar.
  3. "dualization" - once again, I know what this is, but most would not. I don't think theres a article on this. If someone can scrounge up some sources, it might be an important article for a lot of these older highway articles.
  4. "All of US 113 is part of the National Highway System.[3][4]" - fact appears in lead but not in prose. Add to prose and remove cites from lead.
  5. In RD - MD, how do you know all these roads are unsigned MD routes, and former alignments of the hwy. I tried to look at the log book, but I dont see this noted.
    • Unfortunately, I am not sure how to properly reference that a highway is unsigned in a way that is not original research. I think the information is important and should be kept, but if it comes down to referencing it or it has to go, I think I can work it out. The former alignments of the highway can be referenced using the same sources used in the History. Since the information about old alignments is referenced in the History, does it also need to be referenced in the Route description? Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would the MD highway log book show the highway and the street name? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The MD log shows both the highway and street name. However, the log does not indicate whether a highway is signed or not. I am not sure if there is a resource that states which highways are signed and which are not. The only way to find out that I know of is to go out into the field, which borders on original research. Typically, highways longer than a mile are signed and highways under a mile are not, but there are too many exceptions both ways in the Maryland highway system to be able to claim a particular highway is signed or not without actually observing it. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "The divided highway was extended north along the Frederica bypass in 1965; DE 12 was later extended north from Frederica to the bypass along old US 113.[36][44][2]" - -refs out of order.
  7. Major intersections table missing scope parameter per MOS:RJL.
  8. Wikilink Right-in/right-out interchange in Major intersections.
  9. If US 113 Alt. doesn't exist anymore, why is it in the '08 log book?
    • By log book, I am guessing you mean reference 2, the "Traffic Count and Mileage Report: Interstate, Delaware, and US Routes." for 2008. I commend you for a great catch as I had forgotten to investigate updating that reference with the 2009 report. Incidentally, the 2009 report does not have US 113 Alt listed. The 2008 report also did not reflect US 113 being truncated. I have no idea why DelDOT kept that info in there for four years after it was removed. The AASHTO reference, reference 55, backs up the claim that US 113 Alt was removed in 2004. However, this brings up a new issue. I would like to put in a reference to the 2009 report, but I should really keep the 2008 report reference because the 2009 report does not contain the mileage number for the northern terminus. Should I link to one report, either 2008 or 2009, or both? Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Refs 11 12 14 16 17 why are the dates bold?
  11. Suggest abbreviating Delaware Department of Transportation in the first ref (e.g. Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) then using DelDOT in the remainder of the references to tidy up the ref list.
  12. Ref 57 58 59 60 should be changed from ALL CAPS to Start Case per MOS:ALLCAPS.

Otherwise looks good. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Admrboltz. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Rschen7754
  • Lead - what is a post road? (link?)
  • The highway between Pocomoke City and Dover was designated US 113 as part of the original U.S. Highway System in 1926. The highway was widened in both states in the 1930s and 1940s. - same beginning
  • RD - intro - two sentences start with "Known as". Not particularly engaging.
  • 1.1 - "section" and "old alignment" repeated too. Again with "crosses".
  • Run-on- The highway crosses Church Branch of the Shingle Landing Prong of the St. Martin River then another old alignment of US 113 splits to the west, accessed at its southern end via a right-in/right-out interchange southbound.
  • 1.2 - Median widening - where are you sourcing this from?
  • at grade - that supposed to be hyphenated? (unsure on this one)
    • At grade is hyphenated when used as an adjective ("at-grade crossing") and not hyphenated when used as an adverb ("crosses the railroad at grade"). I think I have the hyphenation correct, but I would check my work.  VC  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing - all off the DOT site and maps. FAC may complain. Just a warning.
  • The RD fails to address the question of "Why does the reader care?" All I get from reading it is that the road intersects other roads and crosses rivers. I suspect this does have to do with the first part being based solely on the DOT site and maps.
  • History - US 113 is the descendent of an old post road - descendant?
  • 2.1 first paragraph - four sentences in a row start with The.
    • I am not sure how to fix this. The highway did not have a name in the 1910s, although I can try to find something. It would be incorrect to use US 113 because the highway did not receive that designation until 1926. The definite article "the" is being used properly here, so barring new information the sentences should remain as they are.  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 cites for one sentence!?
  • 2.2 - in the end the DuPont Highway was constructed in Sussex County as a 14-foot (4.3 m) roadway on the 200-foot (61 m) right-of-way. - 14-foot wide?
  • Junction list - end of Maryland - it looks like US 113 exits from itself!?

Other than the route description, the article looks great. You just need to fix the RD and make some minor edits and you should be good to go.

Rschen7754 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all of the non-Route description issues. I will need more time to work through the RD issues.  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-review of Maryland RD section
US 113 heads northeast as a four-lane divided highway with a wide, tree-filled median - again with the tree-filled, that's not sourced.
I removed the information about the median both here and in the fifth paragraph.
As of 2011, the divided highway extended south to Goody Hill Road between Newark and Ironshire. - be more precise, say like the fourth quarter of 2010.
I rewrote the sentence to indicate the present extend of divided highway and the section under construction as of October 2010, and referenced it.
which contains several museums and preserves buildings from the late 19th century when Berlin was at the intersection of the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington Railroad (now the Snow Hill Line) and the defunct Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway. - That's a bit too much detail. Also, there's a period before and after the ref.
I removed the specific railroad lines from both the Pocomoke City and Berlin sentences. I also removed the extra period.
Next sentence - intersects intersects.
Fixed.
with a narrow, guardrailed median - again with the medians.
Removed.
Throughout the RD you overuse "farmland and forest".
I removed all references to farmland and forest from the Maryland section and will do the same with the Delaware section later. I will save the forest descriptions for when the route passes through state forests, which the highway does in both states. The reader can assume that since the highway passes through a flat, rural area, there is a lot of farmland along it.
The last paragraph seems a little long.
I did some consolidation to shorten the paragraph.
As far as writing the DE part - you're on the right track with the MD part, but don't go too far off on a tangent. This is the US Route 113 article, not some other article. Briefly explaining what something is is fine, but don't go overboard. --Rschen7754 02:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed several items above in the Maryland RD. A few left to complete.  VC  19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed remaining items. Now time to work on the Delaware section.  VC  20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delaware section of the Route description has been rewritten.  VC  16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rereview of DE part of RD
First paragraph is long. Keep in mind that just adding breaks in between paragraphs is an option. However in this case, the first paragraph is a little detail-heavy.
I removed a few details and rewrote a few sentences to make the paragraph more concise. I also moved the image to the next paragraph so the paragraph does not look so long.  VC  07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "The U.S. highway" is overused. --Rschen7754 05:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced some instances of U.S. highway with U.S. route.  VC  07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with disclaimer When I first reviewed the article the RD was void of any description indicating why the reader should care about the article. The article has definitely improved since then. However, a concern I have is that upon taking this article to FAC, some may complain that there is too much tangential detail. It's a hard balance to find the point where the RD remains interesting and has details yet there isn't a "detail overload". It's also hard to tell where FAC will draw that line as well. I think the article is to the point where if FAC draws the line more towards the less-detailed side, the changes could be made without much difficulty. But again, it's FAC, and who knows what will happen there. Otherwise, the article is good and I have no reservations about the rest of it. --Rschen7754 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate 70 in West Virginia

[edit]
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.

The result was: Promoted to A-Class! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Interstate 70 in West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I would like to submit this article for your consideration. It just passed its GAN, and am hoping it can help out the I-70 Featured Topic.
Nominated by: Admrboltz (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I don't normally come to ACR and support off the bat, but for this one, I will make an exception. For those who are wondering why, I was in contact with Admrboltz the other evening on IM discussing the article, and offered all of my suggestions via that venue. At the conclusion of my discussion, I suggested that the article is A-Class worthy. That isn't to say that others won't or can't find avenues of improvements, but for me, the article meets the criteria to be promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Imzadi 1979 → 05:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some quick comments after recent changes... Can the length of the bridges and tunnel in the exit list be indicated by making the distance a range? For example, if the tunnel is a quarter mile (let's round to 0.3) then maybe its milemarkers are 0.8–1.1 instead of just 0.9.
    • The Wheeling Tunnel length is given in the RD, converted to meters and in the History converted to kilometers. Just for consistency, they should match, but really, you don't really need the measurement in the History. It's actually kinda picky, but when using the word "long" or "wide" with a measurement that's an adjective, ideally the extra word is hyphenated into the measurements as well. ({{convert}} has an option to do that.) It's either "The tunnel is a quarter mile (400 m) long." or "The quarter-mile-long (400 m) tunnel is..." or just "The quarter-mile (400 m) tunnel is...". For such a simple fraction like a quarter, a third or a half, I'd prefer to see it it written than in fractional format than 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2.
    • "causing travelers to have to detour through Wheeling, or onto I-470". Can you find a source for the detour? [1] mentions using I-470.
      • Already used that page, so added to that sentence as well.
    • Last item, but both links in the See also section are in the article already, making them redundant. Maybe we can find something else to insert there though to preserve the section, like the link to National Road? Imzadi 1979 → 10:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Dough4872 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. "I-70 enters the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia, Ohio County, and the city of Wheeling as it crosses the Ohio River. Traveling east, the highway intersects and becomes concurrent with U.S. Route 40 (US 40) and US 250, crossing the Fort Henry Bridge from Wheeling Island." Can this sentence be made more clear to say that it crosses the west channel of the Ohio River from Ohio onto the island, intersects US 40 and US 250, and then crosses the east channel of the Ohio River onto the mainland?
    Reworded. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The route description could use some more detail on the physical surroundings. What kind of development does I-70 run through while passing through Wheeling? Does the road pass woodland or fields in the rural areas?
    Added. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When describing the portion through Wheeling east of the tunnel, it would help to mention the freeway passes near homes. In addition, some mention should be made of the road passing buildings on Wheeling Island. Dough4872 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been completed. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Can some more details about the construction of I-70 be added to the history section?
    What I could dig up is what was available on the web. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way to do some offline research to find construction details? Dough4872 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried all the databases I have access to via the Salt Lake City Public Library, however their selection of non UT/CO papers is limited to the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, neither of which provided helpful articles. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is there an official WVDOH source that can be used for the mileage in the exit list? Dough4872 01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I have seen. Most states you can use AADT data, but WV only does maps, and there are no mileposts on them. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I will support this article in its current state with a disclaimer. If this article is taken to FAC, more research needs to be done for the construction history. Dough4872 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support this article for A Class –Fredddie™
Comments from Fredddie

I have a number of comments. –Fredddie™ 02:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better than it was before. I will get out the fine-tooth comb and go through it again before I will support. –Fredddie™ 13:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the points I'm satisfied with. I still think some more detail can be given about the interchanges. For instance, why is the US 40/WV 2 interchange complex? Having looked at a map, I know it's because US 40/WV 2 are on one-way streets that abut a mountain. –Fredddie™ 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These have been fleshed out a bit more. --AdmrBoltz 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good. –Fredddie™

A bit concerned that if these errors were missed, there may be several more. --Rschen7754 02:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional support provided that this article is copyedited as planned. I think it's a great article, I'm just a bit concerned that there may have been some things missed during the ACR stage. --Rschen7754 21:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate 270 (Colorado)

[edit]
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.

The result was promoted to A-class - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Interstate 270 (Colorado) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Not being quite experienced with ACR, I'd like to go ahead and nominate this article now and see what I'd need to improve to get this article to A-Class and possibly to FAC.
Nominated by: --PCB 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)<
Resolved issues from AdmrBoltz
Review from Fredddie
  • In the first sentence, I would call it a 7-mile-long interstate. Those 450 feet don't really make much of a difference.
  • U.S. state should be wikilinked.
  • "The western terminus of I-270 is at the interchange with I-25 and US 36 at Welby, but mileposts reset at I-76." This sentence confuses me. This shouldn't be how I-76 is first mentioned.
  • Don't use interchange as a verb.
  • "...meeting its eastern terminus at..." can be simplified to "ending at".
  • First section of I-270 was completed from where to Vasquez Boulevard?
  • What former alignment?
  • "...was contracted in 1993 and completed in 1999." should read "contracts were let in 1993 and construction completed in 1999."
  • "Since completion, this segment has undergone more construction for new bridges." This sentence is sloppy

This is only the lead. I'll review the next section after this is fixed. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finished all (I hope.) Thanks for breaking up the review into chunks to not overwhelm the page. --PCB 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the mileposts reset? While you work on that, I'll review the next section. –Fredddie™ 02:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should cite the speed limits. If you can't, remove them.
  • I would move the concurrency (road) link to the RD. Other peer reviews I've followed have suggested formatting the link [[concurrency (road)|is concurrent with]] because the it's a verb phrase and not just a verb.
  • If you mention US 36 not being signed in the lead, you should do so in the RD as well. Does Colorado have a policy of not signing overlapping routes? Either way, you should explain it.
  • All distances, even one mile, should have a conversion. For one mile, I would simply type it out. one mile (1.6 km) The non-breaking space is required per the MoS.
  • Don't use interchange as a verb. Both paragraphs.
  • "The route passes under I-76, where mileposts reset due to..." should read "When the route passes under I-76, the mileposts reset...". The rest of the sentence "...to the original alignment of the route." is pretty weak. It should be rewritten with a little bit of history. Why was the alignment changed?
  • "...which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270, ..." Avoid repetition as much as possible. I would probably have said "the westbound and eastbound lanes", respectively.
  • Amidst isn't the word you're looking for. Amidst is when you're in the middle of a crowd of people. Use through instead.
  • "...suburban Adams County..." If it's a suburb, which one is it?
  • "...at that point also concurrent..." Needs a verb.
  • Why is US 6 unsigned?
  • Insert a comma after SH 35 (Quebec Street).
  • "...meet its southeastern terminus..." Sounds sloppy.

Here is my review of the route description. –Fredddie™ 04:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) *"The freeway heads southeastward passing under York Street, which is only accessible from westbound I-270, and whose entrance merges into eastbound I-270, and crossing the South Platte River [7] through Adams County. I-270 enters the city of Commerce City,[8] running roughly parallel with the nearby Sand Creek [9] and crossing over SH 265 without an exit.[10][11]" This is an epic run-on sentence. –Fredddie™ I did a second pass of the RD and fixed a few things myself. –Fredddie™ 17:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rather than starting the history section with a subheading, I would write a lead paragraph for the history section. Check out US 30 (IA) for what I'm talking about. It doesn't have to be long; three or four sentences will suffice.
  • The first sentence in the construction section is a run-on. It should read. "Construction on I-270 began in 1965. The first segment cost about $2.7 million to build. It opened in 1968, connecting I-70 to Vasquez Boulevard."
  • When talking about I-76 before it was renumbered, you should refer to it as I-80S. Then replace the next sentence with "I-80S became I-76 in 1976."
  • I would reconstruct the sentence about the extension similarly to the how I suggested the first sentence, except put a full stop after $11.4 million and delete "however, the mileposts still restart when the highway reaches I-76." The information is repeated in the next sentence, so duplication isn't necessary.
  • I would remove the last sentence in the construction sentence. It kind of contradicts the preceding sentences.
  • When did reconstruction of the bridges begin? If you can't find anything, I would replace " ...by May 1998. By the end of the year..." with "...in the late 1990s. By the end of 1998, ...".
  • "In February 2000, a connection between westbound I-270 and westbound US 36 was completed,[19] which was formerly not available. I-76 westbound was also connected to I-270 westbound during this time.[15][20]" These two sentences should be rewritten as a complete thought. As it is, it's disjointed and doesn't flow.
  • The first sentence of the improvements section says bridges were replaced over Washington Street in 1998. Then it says new bridges were built in 2002. Did Colorado DOT really build new bridges over Washington Street twice in five years?
    • Not quite sure. This seems to say so. --PCB 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do some more digging and come back with a more confident answer. :) If they really built the same bridges twice in ten years, there are bound to be some cries of government waste. –Fredddie™
        • Here's the clarification. The first time the bridges were constructed was for westbound I-270, the second time for eastbound. I clarified it in the article. --PCB 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call the I-25/I-270 interchange incomplete. If you look at just that one interchange, yes it's incomplete. If you zoom out a few levels, and look at the I-25/I-270, I-25/I-76, and I-76/I-270 interchanges as a system of three close , you'll see that all possible movements are covered. It might be a good idea to move this to the RD and explain it thoroughly.
  • Departments of Transportation cannot worry, but officials in the organization can.
  • The last paragraph should be at least twice as long. Two sentences does not a paragraph make.

Here is my review of the history section. –Fredddie™ 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Looking over the review so far, I have struck out what's been sufficiently corrected. –Fredddie™ 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is certainly a much better article than when you began. Good job. –Fredddie™ 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review from Dough4872
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 04:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. In lead, link "overlaps" to concurrency (road).
      1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Can some more descriptive information about the route be added to the lead?
      1.  Done at your discretion --PCB 02:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. There are still several issues that have not been addressed from the PR:
    4. Is it possible to realign the pictures so that they are not on top of each other?
      1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "Bridges along I-270 over Washington Street were replaced and finished by May 1998, as were bridges over Washington Street, costing $12 million.", there seems to be some redundancy in this sentence.
      1.  Done --PCB 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Is it possible to request a map of the route that shows it in better detail? Dough4872 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Image:I-25 Denver.svg How is this? --PCB 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I would say no just because the focus of that map is I-25. We don't want to confuse readers with an ambiguous map. –Fredddie™ 12:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Plus, it's wrong. I-270 goes to I-25. --PCB 15:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You can request a new map at WP:USRD/MTF/R. Dough4872 16:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck through the resolved issues. Dough4872 03:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Imzadi1979
    Review by Imzadi1979

    I reviewed the article at GAN against the GA Criteria, and now I'm going to review it against the more stringent expectations for A-Class or FAs. I've been following the comments by others, and I think the article is much improved. I'm pleased to see the amount of press sources used now. I'll detail the rest of my comments in bullet form below shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. The map should be changed. I'd make a request at WP:USRD/MTF/R for an updated map. What's there now should be used in the new map as part of an inset.
      I requested a map which may not come for a while. --PCB 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Give it some time. I'm sure someone will get to the request. I'd offer to do it, but I don't have those skills yet. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The date in the infobox should be cited.
    3. I'd consider inserting the I-76 and US 85 junctions in the infobox.
    4. Just a pet peeve, but "due to" sounds less than proper to me. In the lead you have: "where mileposts reset due to the former alignment of the route from I-76 to I-70" I'd change that to "where the mileposts reset because of a previous freeway extension." You can leave the exact details for the body of the article.
    5. The rest of the lead's summary of the RD is also a bit too exact. I prefer that the lead summarize in general details, rather than specifics. Give the reader enough detail to summarize the article, but not duplicate it. If they want more, they'll read on.
    6. The infobox says 1965; the lead says 1968. I know (from the body) that the 1965 is the year they broke ground, and 1968 is the year the first section opened. I would insert a mention of construction starting in 1965."Ground broke on the first segment of I-270 in 1965 and it was completed in 1968..."
    7. "The section between I-25 and I-76, was completed in 1999." Extra comma.
    8. In the future section, you have "Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) plans... project. CDOT plans..." Can you mix up the subject-verb combinations there? The last sentence is a "CDOT also plans...". Proposes/proposals, goals, ambitions, intends/intention, aims, wants etc. are all good substitutes.

    Otherwise, the article looks pretty good. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I will try to get these to these issues as soon as possible. Thanks for the review. --PCB 03:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done all, I think. --PCB 16:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. I'll give it a day or so, re-read it and then give you any last comments needed, but I'm leaning toward support as well. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow up comments

    I think some of these came from your copy editor, so I'm not faulting you at all.

    1. From the lead: "the freeway was completed 3 years later" I think that the number should be spelled out.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. From the history: "Two years later, another two-mile segment" needs its conversion inserted.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I'd swap some of the "segments" to "sections" or even "portions" for a little variety in the history.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "Bridges along westbound I-270 over Washington Street were replaced..." could use a "The" to start the sentence. Same with the next sentence. Add a "the" in front of "bridges".
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "In February 2000, a connection between westbound I-270 and westbound US 36 was completed,[19] as was access between I-76 westbound and I-270 westbound, both of which were formerly not available.[1][20]" I'm not sold on that sentence. I'd split it up or reword it. It just sounds wrong.
       Done. --PCB 15:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At this time, I can provisionally support the promotion of the article. The conditions are that you fix those minor issues above, and figure out how to deal with the unsigned highway issue. (I say ignore it since Google Maps shows the US 36 shields along I-270.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I added some missing non-breaking spaces (HTML code &nbsp;) to the article. In short, anytime there's a number that's attached to a word, exit 2, $12 million, SH 35, 6  lanes, etc., it needs that type of space instead of the regular one typed by the space bar on your keyboard. Imzadi 1979 → 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Do I need to finish up with that? --PCB 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I think I got them all. It wouldn't hurt to double check of course. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interstate 470 (Ohio – West Virginia)

    [edit]
    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.
    Toolbox

    Interstate 470 (Ohio – West Virginia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Wee two ACRs at once! Once again, I feel that this article meets the A-Class requirements, and would like to nominate it for such.
    Nominated by: AdmrBoltz 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 20:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    Review by Fredddie
    Infobox
    Lead
    • Could be 50% longer in two paragraphs.
    Route description
    • Belmont County should be linked since it's the first mention.
    • Doesn't Ohio use County Road instead of County Route?
    • "The highway curves to the southeast through woodlands, forming part of the northeastern corner of Neffs, paralleling then intersecting High Ridge Road, which to the north connects back to I-70, and provides access to Bellaire to the south." is awfully long. There should be a full stop after Neffs and a new sentence started. I wouldn't use present participles so much in either sentence, either. (forming → which forms, etc.)
    • "The freeway continues east through a valley..." I don't like through in this sentence. Was I-470 already in a valley, or did it descend into the valley?
    • "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge carries I-470 over three rail lines straddling the western banks of the river, belonging to Norfolk Southern Railway and Wheeling and Lake Railway, the Ohio River,[2] and into developed South Wheeling, Ohio County and the state of West Virginia.[3]" is another long sentence. The way it reads, one of the rail lines belongs to the Ohio River. Maybe mention who owns the rail lines in a separate sentence. Ohio County should also be linked.
    • "...three-level diamond interchange with US 250 and West Virginia Route 2 (WV 2) provides access to downtown Wheeling..." Shouldn't there be a ", which" between (WV 2) and provides?
    • You say "provides access" a lot, four times in the RD! In each paragraph, it's in consecutive sentences.
    • "...the town of the same name..." I don't necessarily like this wording, but I don't have any alternatives that are any better. Hopefully somebody else will come up with something that works.
    History
    • Is there a yellow book map of I-470 plans? I know a number of auxiliary interstates have them, such as I-235.
      • Its linked in there, though I am switching the link out to the map on Commons, as the link returns a 403 Error like AA Roads has been from hotlinking... --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was hoping this map could be added in. Move the picture that's in the history section to the RD. –Fredddie™
    • Was the bridge built before the rest of the freeway? It's not exactly clear.
      • No, it was one of the last portions built. I have historic Ohio maps I can use as sources for the OH part, but I have nothing for WV... The OH maps are in MrSID form, which I can not work with here at work, so I will look into it when I get home. --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The entire West Virginia section of I-470, including Ohio River bridge, shown as under construction on 1976 and 1980 WVDOH maps. Both shown as complete on 1983-1984 map. I don't have any maps from the period in-between (not sure if there even were any). Bitmapped (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any specific reason why Ohio was out of money?
      • Not that I saw, but they just finished their last gap in their IHS in 2006... they seem to have chronic issues with funding. --AdmrBoltz 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't have any documented sources to back it up, but I would guess that Ohio not really getting any benefit from I-470 has a lot to do with its delays in funding as well. The route primarily benefits West Virginia by bypassing Wheeling Tunnel. Only real benefit to Ohio is it has a direct interchange with SR 7 versus having to drive city streets in Bridgeport to get to I-70. Bitmapped (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How large was the gas-tax increase?
      • Hrm... It seems in my moving sections around, the ref I am using has nothing to do with gas-tax increases... it was meant for the sentence before. Corrected references and  Done --AdmrBoltz 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ''"...were solicited for in 1981, ..." For is redundant.
    • Odd that the source is in metric, but it is, so using metric first is correct. (just so others don't say it's wrong).
    • What was the other route that was a Wheeling Tunnel detour? Should mention it on I-70 WV if you haven't already.
    Exit list

    OK. I struck out the issues that have been fixed. The lead could still be a bit longer. A secondary issue to adding the yellow book map of Wheeling is that it makes the history section look short. –Fredddie™ 04:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I added some from the older OH maps, and tweaked the lead. --AdmrBoltz 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My major concerns have been addressed. The concerns I had remaining are minor. "Town of the same name" is just awkward, but so is saying Bethlehem twice within 5 words. We, as a project, should discuss the inclusion of state browsing links on articles like these. –Fredddie™ 17:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dough:

    Resolved issues from Dough4872 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. The states field in the infobox seems a little redundant to the state browse underneath.+
      Removed the {{oh browse}} and {{wv browse}} links. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The browse should be added back as it is essential. The |states=[[Ohio]], [[West Virginia]] is what needs to be removed. Dough4872 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --AdmrBoltz 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      This is now inconsistent among the articles at ACR! –Fredddie™ 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I added back the states entry myself. Dough4872 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "The western terminus is at I-70 near Blaine, Ohio and the highway travels southeast over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge then northeasterly to the Wheeling neighborhood of Elm Grove." This sentence should make a mention of where the eastern terminus of the route is. In addition, this should be split into two sentences describing the termini and then the progression of the route.
      Tweaked. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Can a little more detail be added to the lead?
      Some added. My concern is that the lead should be a summary. I feel that it summarizes the article fairly well. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "The freeway parallels then intersects" needs to be reworded.
      Tweaked. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. In the route description, can the abbreviation for US 40 be defined?
       Done --<font" color="black">AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      "National Road (U.S. Route 40 (US 40))" reads awkward, try "U.S. Route 40 (US 40, also known as the National Road)". Dough4872 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --AdmrBoltz 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Can a link for Bethlehem, West Virginia be added to the route description?
      Added, though will try to rework the sentence per Fredddie's concerns with it. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    7. "the freeway terminates at an incomplete interchange with I-70 over Wheeling Creek.", can this be elaborated?
       Done --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Is it possible to find the construction cost of the freeway?
      As per my comments on the I-70 in WV ACR, I do not live in WV and do not have access to their library system. I have dug what I can out of the Google News archives for the region, but as a 3di it is not nearly as detailed as the information that I had available for the construction of I-70. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Is the date construction began on the WV part of the freeway known? Dough4872 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      No, see previous reply. --AdmrBoltz 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it possible for this to be added to the article? Dough4872 01:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Bitmapped has added this information. --AdmrBoltz 20:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Imzadi1979
    General comments
    1. Regarding images, you'll want to ping 25or6to4 (talk · contribs) to add the correct GIS source for the map, add color key, etc.
      Key added, 25or6to4 pinged. --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The other images check out, although File:Interstate 470.jpg could use geotagging.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "Map of the Wheeling area with I-470 highlighted in red" would be a better caption for the map in the infobox.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. DABs good
    5. ELs good
    6. Could use some ALT text.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 05:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead
    1. "By 1983, motorists could travel the full length of the freeway" That sentence just seems poorly constructed. Can it be reworded?
       Done --AdmrBoltz 05:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. US 250 should be unabbreviated and the abbreviation put in parentheses. Unless I missed something, it's the first mention of a US Highway in the text.
      No, and I had US 40 unabbreviated in the end of the history...  Done --AdmrBoltz 05:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    RD
    1. First sentence could use a mention that you're talking about a location in Ohio, just for specificity.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "An exit ramp to County Road 28 provides travelers ..." should insert the {CR 28) abbreviation here.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "The freeway briefly parallels High Ridge Road (County Road 214) ..." abbreviate in the parentheses. (Additionally, add the road name to the line in the exit list table for continuity.)
       Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Ping Dan and ask him if the "Ohio" is part of the "legal" name of state routes in the state. So long as the text is clear that you're still on the Ohio segment, if the state isn't part of the real name, then you don't need to repeat it in the text. That would remove a repetition with the state's name in the river name at the end of the sentence.
      Pinged. --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Removed Ohio per Dan's comment on his talk page. --AdmrBoltz 22:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge carries I-470 over three rail lines straddling the western banks of the river, the Ohio River, and into developed South Wheeling, Ohio County and the state of West Virginia." Ok, well, I'm not sure I like "the river, the Ohio River" here. Reading that, I almost add emphasis to the name so it's "the river, the Ohio River, and into..." even though that's not what's intended.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    6. I'm tempted to say that in "The Ohio and West Virginia Departments of Transportation (ODOT and WVDOT)" the "departments of transportation" should be in lower case, just like "Marquette and Alger counties" has the common portion in lowercase. I'm not sure though. Looking at my AP Styleguide for some guidance, it agrees on the counties example (""Lowercase plural combinations: Westchester and Rockland counties"), but its plural example for government departments deals with two differently named units: "Lowercase department in plural uses, but capitalize the proper name element: the departments of Labor and Justice". Since the "transportation" name is common to both as well as the "department of" I'd drop the case on it as well, leaving only the states' names capitalized.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    History
    1. "Yellow Book" should be put in italics as well, and I'd shift the link to the full title from the nickname. Actually, I'd drop the Yellow Book name unless you're going to mention the book again.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "The West Virginia portion was under construction by 1976.[14] I-470 was completed by 1983 in both Ohio and West Virginia.[15][16]" I'd combine the two sentences, using fn 14 after the comma or semicolon that joins them. A second though would be to replace the states' names with "both states".
       Done --AdmrBoltz 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "about 518 meters (1,699 ft) of roadway" just seems quite odd to me. I'd use the disp=flip parameter, setting abbr=on if needed to keep the two measurements abbreviated for consistency with the rest of the article. Yes, I know that your source is given in metric, but it's still an American article.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    References
    1. Footnote 3 should have the hyphen switched to an en dash, removing the spaces in between the two years of the title. I'd unlike JPEG. It's not really needed as an explanation, I don't think.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Fn 5 should have a hyphen in I-470 in the title. Since the title doesn't really describe what it is, is there a section of the WVDOT website that you can use in the work= field to offer some understanding? For listings of historic bridges from the MDOT website, I use "Historic Bridge Listing" as the work field for that reason.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Fn 9 needs fixing. I'd ditch the link to ajfroggie.com and use the url field to link to the inset directly.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Fn 10–11, double check that ODOT was called ODOT at that time. If not, switch the publisher to whatever the department was named at the time.
      "the Ohio Department of Highways officially became the Ohio Department of Transportation in September 1972" --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Fn 18: "July/August" should be "July–August" with an en dash per MOS.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Fn 19 should have a location indicated since the city isn't part of the paper's name.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 04:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    7. For Fns 6 and 18, I'll try to pull the paper edition of the journal at the GRPL to get page numbers for you.
    Overall, the article reads quite well. I can't find any glaring issues, just those minor formatting fixes. I agree though that I'd prefer some additional historical information from some dead-tree sources, but I think the article is fine in terms of content. Imzadi 1979 → 04:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from --PCB 05:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    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.

    Not promoted - stale. We considered fixing the issues ourselves and passing, but the issues turned out to be too big to be fixable. --Rschen7754 05:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Interstate 470 (Missouri)

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    Interstate 470 (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Wee 2x 470s at the moment are at ACR. I have taken comments from other ACRs and tried to implement them here first so that this will be as easy as possible.
    Nominated by: AdmrBoltz 05:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

    Dough

    [edit]
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. Is it possible for the lead to be reorganized to describe the route first, then discuss its history?
       Done --AdmrBoltz 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "The concurrent highways continue east through lightly populated Jackson County,", by lightly populated, what kind of physical surroundings does the route pass?
       Done --AdmrBoltz 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. "Just north of the airport is an interchange with 83rd Street, followed by an interchange with Woods Chapel Road", what airport is this?
       Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. "Lakewood Lakes passes to the west of the freeway as it travels north, while an interchange with Northeast Bowlin Road serves as an access road to Blue Springs Lake to the east", what is Lakewood Lakes?
      It is a lake. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Can this be indicated more clearly in the article? From the way I read it, I could of confused it for a residential subdivision. Dough4872 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --AdmrBoltz 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Overall, the route description lacks details on what physical surroundings the road passes. Based on the information given, I cannot tell whether it passes homes and business or rural areas.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    6. "The second was an addition to the cloverleaf at US 50 in Lee's Summit, with the addition of the access roads to Pryor Road and Northwest Blue Parkway.", addition is used here twice. Can one of the instances be changed?
       Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Can some more details about the construction of I-470 be added to the history?
      1. The KC Star's archives are only avail from 91 forward, and Google News has nothing of use between '50-'80. I have old MoDOT maps, but the info you see in the article is what I gathered from the maps. --AdmrBoltz 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    8. "The north-south portion of the highway had existed since at least 1970 as US 71 Bypass,[1] and was renumbered to Route 291 between 1970 and 1971", was this a freeway-standard road?
       Done --AdmrBoltz 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    9. "The remaining section of freeway, between US 50 and Route 291 was opened to traffic in 1983, completing the route", did this replace the aforementioned US 71 Bypass?
      US 71 BYP was absorbed into the highway. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      This needs to be clarified in the article. Dough4872 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       Done --AdmrBoltz 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    10. In the exit list, the airport sign is not needed.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Is it possible for a picture of the road to be added to the article? Dough4872 23:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not see a picture on Flickr that was already freely licensed. As Flickr is blocked from work I will look tonight to see if I have a (c) one that I can have the photographer relicense. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of more concerns:

    1. The sentence "US 40, which parallels I-70 through most of Missouri is the penultimate exit, serving the southern portions of Independence and Blue Springs before I-470 meets I-70 at a cloverleaf interchange, marking the end of I-470 southwest of the Independence Center mall" sounds awkward and probably needs to be split.
       Done --AdmrBoltz 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Is the sentence "US 40 is named after Corporal Michael E. Webster, a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer who was killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver." really relevant to I-470. Dough4872 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      No, probably not, but as a reader, I would be interested in why US 40 was named the Cpl. ME Webster Memorial Pkwy. Also, when I had a coworker read through to make sure it made sense to a non road geek she enjoyed that tidbit. --AdmrBoltz 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I will now support this article for A-class. However, I would suggest a little historical research be done and a picture be added before this article goes to FAC. Dough4872 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PCB

    [edit]
    Review by --PCB 04:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: There might be some conflicts with Dough's review since they were done at the same time. Lead:

    • I think the lead is a little out of order. The history section is also a bit underrepresented in the lead. Perhaps you should move the lead summary of the route description on top, and perhaps the history on the bottom. The structure now jumps between the route, the history, and the route, and the route description is first in the article.

    Route description:

    History:

    • "since at least 1970 as US 71 Bypass" sounds a little awkward. I think it's the "at least" that makes it sound strange. Either move the date to the beginning of the sentence, the reference to US 71 Bypass to the beginning of the sentence or reword "at least".
    • Is "at least" referring to after 1970 or by 1970?
    • I think "remaining section" and "completing" is a little redundant. You already established that it's the last section of the highway, so you don't need to complete the route.
    • Instead of using "the first, the second, the third" perhaps you could use "the final", "the next", "the last", or phrases like those.
    • First the beginning of the second paragraph stated that there were three new interchanges. But the second one wasn't new. It was only an addition. Maybe you could fix that in the topic sentence.
    • The last sentence of the second paragraph is a little vague. To me, it sounds like the opening of the interchange cost money, but it was really the construction that cost 18 million dollars.
    • Find a different word for collapse, there are 4 instances of the word or its form in the last paragraph.
    • Perhaps mention in the first sentence instead of implying in the second that it was the westbound lanes that collapsed.

    Other:

  • Support. I support this article for A-class. --PCB 04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Rschen7754

    [edit]
    • Infobox - if you're doing a map as the source for the founded date, you need two of them.
      • I looked at the MoDOT maps back to 1967, and I-470 is still there. This discrepancy needs to be resolved in the infobox and in the history.
    • Lead - Between about 38,000 and 75,000 vehicles use the freeway on an average day. - the first two words don't really go together.
    • RD - Lakewood Lakes, a pair of connected lakes, passes to the west of the freeway as it travels north. - not very well phrased, the freeway would pass near the lake, not the other way around.
    • penultimate - is it allowed to link to Wikitionary like that?
    • US 40 is named after Corporal Michael E. Webster, a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer who was killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver. - way too tangential
    • History - The north-south portion of the highway, then designated US 71 Bypass had been in existence since 1970 and was renumbered to Route 291 between 1970 and 1971. - needs comma after Bypass
    • The first addition was an interchange with View High Drive, which was constructed in early 1993 costing about $2 million to complete. - comma after 1993. Also what's the status of the stuff regarding inflation?
    • The third interchange, with Strother Road was first planned to be constructed in 2008. - no comma after interchange
    • Seems like a slight imbalance towards recent events - can this be rectified?
    • Should be a support once these issues are resolved. --Rschen7754 09:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose per issue with the history above, and since the nominator is inactive, this doesn't look like something I feel comfortable fixing, knowing nothing about Missouri highways. --Rschen7754 04:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Imzadi1979

    [edit]
    1. Could you specify a break down for the letter suffixes in the exit list's notes column when the exit column lists multiple letters?
    2. A thought that same out of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald FAC and preparations is that when there are twin cities with a common name (in that the two Sault Ste. Maries in MI and ON, here the two Kansas Cities) the references should specify which city is the publication location of a newspaper, even if the city name is in the title.
    3. Fn 11 probably should have an access date just for consistency.
    4. "Two rail lines surround the cloverleaf interchange, both operated by the Union Pacific Railroad, however only the eastern line is operational." Can you change the work "operated" to "owned" to prevent "operated ... operational."

    Otherwise, if you fix Rschen's comments and my few additional ones, this should also be a support from me. Imzadi 1979 → 07:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    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.
    Not promoted - stale. No substantial efforts made to address issues presented within appropriate amount of time. --Rschen7754 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    Michigan State Trunkline Highway System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Not our standard sort of article, but still very important in terms of the state of Michigan. I'm hoping to get some feedback on this article, if there's anything else that should be included or expanded. In the end, this is the type of article that should go to FAC at some point.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. Maybe link decommissioned to Decommissioned highway instead of wiktionary.
    2. "Michigan is one of only two states that does this, the other one being Kansas.", from what I know Nebraska uses N-x to refer to their routes so there are technically three states that use this convention.
    3. Is it necessary to describe the other uses of the M-x convention?
    4. "two-lane highways in far-flung rural areas", perhaps use something better than far-flung like remote.
    5. Under the Highway systems section, it may help to elaborate on more of the details of what the I, US, and M highways are like, the section seems to only focus on the bannered routes. Perhaps discuss the numbering pattern, mileage in each system, and distribution of numbers. It would also help to split the State Trunkline Highways subsection into subsections describing the I, US, and M routes.
    6. Citation needed for "The highways names for special routes are formed by prefacing the parent highway with the type of special route. The full names are commonly abbreviated like other highways: Business Loop Interstate 196 (BL I-196), Business M-60 (BUS M-60) or Connector M-44 (CONN M-44)."
    7. Perhaps provide more details onto how the CDH's are numbered.
    8. Citation needed for "Other county systems are designated and maintained in each of the 83 counties and practices vary between using the pentagon marker to older square markers in black and white."
    9. "roads districts", is that what it is called and not road districts or roads district?
    10. "Michigan was the first state to complete a border-to-border Interstate Highway in 1960 with the completion of Interstate 94 in Michigan", sounds a little wordy in mentioning Michigan twice, try removing the "in Michigan" at the end of the sentence.
    11. The article seems to be missing more recent history of the highway system, is there some that can be added?
    12. Is it possible to add more road pictures to the article to illustrate examples of highways in Michigan?
    13. Reference 21 is a dead link. Dough4872 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Preliminary review comparing with Iowa Primary Highway System:

    • The header "Usage" isn't clear, maybe replace it with something else.
    • Maybe the description of the numbering system should go with the description of the State Trunkline Highways?
    • Maybe include more information on funding in the 20th century?
    • More to come once the above issues are addressed. --Rschen7754 22:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note If no substantial effort is made to address the issues above by the 29th of October, this ACR will be archived. --Rschen7754 20:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    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.
    Not promoted - stale. --Rschen7754 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Arizona State Route 67

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    Arizona State Route 67 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: I have little intention of ever bringing this article to FAC; however, I wish to get more familiar with the A-class criteria.
    Nominated by: — PCB 14:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 00:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. "and is surrounded largely by evergreen trees" sounds awkward, perhaps remove largely.
    2. "where official ownership by ADOT begins", remove official.
    3. In the route description, you use "heads" too much, can other verbs be used?
    4. "The highway, with the new name of Grand Canyon Highway in addition to its other designation," is a sentence fragment and should either be reworded or merged with another sentence.
    5. Are there any more attractions that can be mentioned in the route description. The current route description seems a little dry in describing the turns and direction the route heads in.
    6. The sentence "At that time it was still just a dirt road" sounds awkward and should be reworded.
    7. The NPS logo should be removed from the junction list. Dough4872 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All addressed except for number 5; there are no attractions that I know of. The route is all trees, dirt road intersections, and clearings. — PCB 03:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Otherwise I don't see any issues. --Rschen7754 06:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    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.

    U.S. Route 2 in Michigan

    [edit]
    The result was promoted to A-Class!  VC  01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Toolbox

    U.S. Route 2 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Yes, I know the article needs more photos, but this future FAC is of the same level of importance to transportation in the UP as M-28. I have added information on all of the tourist route designations and all of the historic bridges along the roadway, similar to the M-28 and US 41 articles. In the coming days, I plan to dig for photos to complement the text.
    Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    I support this article for A Class –Fredddie™
    Comments from Fredddie
    Lead
    • First paragraph looks good.
    • Seems like a long jump from being an Indian trail to being a state highway. Any record of US 2 being an auto trail like the Lincoln Highway?
    • I'm not sure reused is the verb you're looking for as far as one route number replacing another. (twice)
    Route description (west)
    • You can reasonably round the mileages in the RD lead. Plus, I think four decimal places in Wisconsin is a bit much.
    • There are two links to the business route article. I think that link should be moved down to the business loop and the two links changed to point readers to the business loop section.[[#Business route|business route]] (Oops, already is)
    • Suburban UP woodlands is a bit of a stretch.
    • I don't think you need the definite article when talking about creeks, referring to the Jackson Creek. I could be wrong, though. It reads oddly to me.
    • 770 vehicles... should mention that it's on average. That is, unless exactly 770 vehicles used the highway every day during the testing period. (again for the highest-traffic section)
    • The sentence about Watersmeet HS and ESPN seems out of place; plus, it's not cited.
    • Odd that ESPN is linked, but Canada/Canadian is not.
    • In Crystal Falls, is US 2/US 141 the main highway? That sentence and the one prior could be merged for clarity.
      • Ok, some copy-editing should address these comments. The 4DP for WI was a typo, now corrected. I've switched (I think) all of the S-V pairings along the concurrencies to singular subjects for consistency and tweaked the triple concurrency issues. Imzadi 1979 →
    Route description (east)
    • There are some subject-verb disagreements when you talk about US 2/US 141 together. US 2/US 141 re-enters... and US 2/US 141 exit... in the same paragraph. Looking up, the last paragraph of the western section has it, too. Pick one verb conjugation and run with it.
    • The three highways merge together... two of the higwhays were already merged, so it kinda reads like they were split at some point and now they're back together. (happens again in Escanaba)
    • Are there no railroads near the western section? The ELS is the first mention of any railroad.
    • The last three sentences together are choppy. There is no flow among them.
    • In Menominee County, the surroundings are the subject of the sentence, not US 2.
    • More subject-verb issues. The two highways run together... and ...the trunkline enters... in consecutive sentences.
    • Wouldn't it be simpler to say Central and Eastern time zones?
    • Above you spelled out both Iron Rivers, but you used Bark River (the city) and the namesake river; seems inconsistent.
    • I'm sure it's perfectly logical, but calling streets axes of Escanaba's street grid seems odd.
    • Near Thompson, US 2 leaves the western unit of the Ottawa National Forest, yet in the previous paragraph, it was passing through the western unit of the Hiawatha National Forest. One of those is wrong, but I'm not sure which.
      • There aren't any rail lines along US 2's western segment. The lines in that area are farther north along M-28 or not visible from US 2 in the Ironwood–Wakefield area. Imzadi 1979 →
      • Fixed the Ottawa/Hiawatha National Forest confusion. Imzadi 1979 →
    History
    • More info about the pre-state-highway auto trails would be nice, but I'm not going to hold it over your head to get a support.
    • State trunkline section looks good.
    • Shouldn't the section be called Interstate era?
    • ...the I-75 designation supplants... supplanted? (again in the last paragraph)
    • You already defined expressway once, is it necessary to do so again?
    • MDOT raised the speed limit from 55 mph? I just want to clarify; it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article.
      • I moved the TRIH and GLAR stuff up from the memorial designations. I don't have the book handy with me at the moment, but there are some additional memorial designations that can be added into that section in their place and pad out that first paragraph. Imzadi 1979 →
    Memorial designations
    • You should spell out County Road 426.
    • MDOT is already defined.
    • The circle tours should define their abbreviations for the junction list.
    Historic bridges
    • Looks good.
    Major intersections
    • Looks good.
    Business route
    • Are we supposed to link circa?

    Now I remember why I haven't reviewed anything in a while. There is some stuff here I could have done myself, but I wanted your opinion on them. –Fredddie™ 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My concerns have been addressed sufficiently. I support. –Fredddie™ 02:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 23:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from Dough4872

    I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:

    1. Is it necessary to mention the business loop history in the route description? This information should be mentioned in the business route section.
    2. "The area is also where the waters meet.", may help to clarify which waters or how many waters meet.
    3. In the route description, you should mention that the road leaves MI for WI and heads back into MI from WI.\
    4. "Then it continues east to Vulcan passing north of Hanbury Lake through the Copper Country State Forest before crossing the Sturgeon River in Loretto before crossing into Menominee County.", I would suggest rewording the beginning of the sentence to avoid the use of "then".
    5. In the sentence "Lincoln Avenue runs north carrying four lanes of traffic past the Upper Peninsula State Fairgrounds, site of one of the two state fairgrounds for the state of Michigan, the only state to have twin fairs.", "site of one of the two state fairgrounds for the state of Michigan" should be "site of one of the two state fairs for the state of Michigan".
    6. "US 2 was shifted to the freeway and the former routing downtown St. Ignace was redesignated Business Loop I-75 (BL I-75).", the sentence i missing a word between routing and downtown.
    7. "At this time, all of US 2's former routing becomes a county road known as Mackinac Trail.", can the number of the county road be mentioned?
    8. I still don't think the CR 426 intersection should belong in the major intersections. Even though the road marks the end of a memorial highway designation, the road itself is of little significance.
    9. The link for Reference 44 has a 403 error. Dough4872 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies
    1. I'd rather leave it as is, than leave the reader with a question as to why it's a business spur and not a business loop since it ends at the state line.
    2. Read the next sentence, which says: "The rolling hills drain to Lake Superior via the Ontonagon River, to Lake Michigan via the Brule and Menominee rivers, or to the Gulf of Mexico via the Wisconsin and Mississippi rivers."
    3. The RD mini-lead already says: "Of US 2's 305.151 miles (491.093 km), it is divided into a 109.177-mile (175.703 km) western segment and a 195.974-mile (315.390 km) eastern segment; in between is a section of US 2 that runs for 14.460 miles (23.271 km) in the state of Wisconsin."
    4. It's fine and keeps the sentences in that part of the article from previous pattern of "The <highway synonym> <verb>..." constructions.
    5. Done, but why didn't you deal with it while you were making minor word changes already?
    6. You couldn't have added that while you were already editing the article?
    7. Done, but that's kinda unneeded in some ways at that location.
    8. I disagree, and I won't remove it. US 41 and M-35 both list it in their RJLs.
    9. I can't help that. The link is valid, but ajfroggie has "hotlinking" disabled on his website, which runs afoul of the link checker tool. (Try clinking the link directly from the footnote in the article, and it works, but use the link checker tool and it will fail every time.)
    Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from Royalbroil

    Imzadi left me a message about images. I recently took lots of photos, especially of the eastern segment. Soon I'll add a photo of the eastern terminus of the western segment. I have traveled the entire route. I also want to help improve the content article so here's some comments:

    • "a major conduit for Michigan and Canadian traffic through the state" - I saw license plates from throughout the United States - certainly consider adding Wisconsin otherwise since it is between the segments. Either that or quote the source since it's an opinion
    • "In the 1980s, the highway was truncated and removed from the I-75 freeway resulting in today's basic form." - needs some punctuation change or restructuring with the break in thought before "resulting"
    • "the NHS is a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility" - "important" implies someone's opinion (important to whom?)
    • I agree that the "watersmeet" sentence is awkward. You mean it's a "continental divide" of 3 drainage basins. I suggest combining with the next sentence so the reader can follow what that word means
    • I remember reading that the Crystal Falls area has the world's largest organism with the large moss growth. It is an important object near the route. More important than the Watersmeet basketball team IMHO.
    • To be clearer, I think that the start of the "eastern segment" section should mention the "14.460 miles in Wisconsin" figure include the eastern and western segments. As a reader, I came in to read about the eastern segment and I wondered how far the route had traveled in Wisconsin. Perhaps it could be done as an adjective. See next point
    • "US 2/US 141 re-enters Michigan crossing the Menominee River in Breitung Township north of Iron Mountain and Kingsford." needs punctuation before "crossing". Perhaps - "US 2/US 141 re-enters Michigan after its 14.460-mile jog through Wisconsin by crossing the Menominee River in Breitung Township north of Iron Mountain and Kingsford."
    • "Then it continues east to Vulcan passing north of Hanbury Lake through the Copper Country State Forest before crossing the Sturgeon River in Loretto before crossing into Menominee County" - uses the word "before" twice and they're too close together
    • "the highway crosses the namesake river" - better grammar replacing "the" with "its"
    • "In the age of the auto trail, the roads that later formed US 2 through the UP were used for the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway, named for Theodore Roosevelt, former president of the US, after his death in 1919." - A awkward/run-on sentence. Part of it could be economized a bit as "former US President Theodore Roosevelt". How about: "In the age of the auto trail, the roads that later formed US 2 were used for the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway, named for former US President." The dates follow in the next sentences.

    After these minor changes, I am satisfied that the article passes not only A but FA level. Please let me know when the article gets its FA nom so I can review it. Royalbroil 04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies
    • That "opinion" is from the MDOT study that is the reference for that in the body of the article.
    • I added a comma there.
    • That is from the FHWA, and it is cited there. (That language has been used in M-6 (Michigan highway) and U.S. Route 131 which passed FAC earlier this year.)
    • Sentences combined.
    • The "humungous fungus 'among-us' " is not the largest organism in the world; that title belongs to a similar creature in Oregon.
    • How many times do we need to repeat the 14-mile segment in Wisconsin? It's in the article lead, the RD mini-lead, as well as the row in the junction list table. Sorry, I don't think it needs further repetition. Do we need a fourth mention of something that is kinda outside the subject of this article. After all, this is titled "U.S. Route 2 in Michigan", not "U.S. Route 2 in Michigan and Wisconsin"
    • Copy-edited for that point, and the next one.
    • The TRIH stuff was changed already from the version you reviewed, but I integrated a suggestion from your comments there.
    • I did remove the photo of the eastern terminus of the western segment; the photo was squishing text up against the infobox, and that subsection isn't long enough to need a second photo.

    Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies by Royalbroil
    • On that first point - I know it's from MDOT. My point is that the text should state who makes this statement just like any other opinion from an expert. Very few readers will check the references to see the source. So we agree that WP:VERIFY is covered but I disagree with having WP:NPOV covered per "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Specifically WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
    • Point #3 - Then the other articles need work too. Just because the other articles are at FA don't mean that they aren't capable of being improved. The same comment as my last one - see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
    • Point #4 - does the highway go through the fungus?
    • I'm surprised (but not offended) that you removed the terminus photo. Isn't a terminus more important to this topic that a shot taken of the sign for community on the route?
    • Are you satisfied with the number of images used in the article now? Royalbroil 04:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further replies
    • Except that I disagree that it is an opinion and not a fact. You're using personal anecdotal evidence to refute the conclusion of a department of transportation study group, which doesn't state it as an opinion, but as a fact. The fact that you were in the area in tourist season may color your perceptions.
    • Once again, you're calling something an opinion when it is a fact stated by the appropriate government agency. Surely if it were an opinion, both FACs this year would have noted that already.
    • The highway would go through it, but you'd never know it; the fungus is underground and not visible unless "fruiting bodies" (those things lay people call mushrooms and eat) are present. Even then, you'd need to know that genetically speaking, the fruiting bodies in Crystal Falls and the ones across the border in Wisconsin, etc, are all from the same fungus.
    • As for photos, termini aren't any more important than another other location along the highway for illustrating the roadway. The key importance is that people get a feel for how the environment around the highway, not specific locations, per se. The Crystal Falls photo illustrates the forestland nature of the environment that's discussed at points in the text of the article. The downtown Iron Mountain photo shows the highway passing through urbanized areas. The Lake Michigan photo shows US 2 along the lake, which it follows for a significant portion of its routing. The terminus photo from St. Ignace, and caption, helps illustrate it former freeway segment
    • As for the number of photos, I'm satisfied, but if you have more that you think would be beneficial, please keep uploading them and populating commons:Category:U.S. Route 2 in Michigan so that the Commons box at the bottom of the article is even more beneficial to readers who click on it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply

    I read your responses. I'm not sure what you want me to say. You don't want to make 2 changes that I say need to be done. I gave reasons why then defended my reasons. I bring them up because I want to improve the article. All I'm asking is to name the source inline. If you don't want to do the changes then you don't have my support. Royalbroil 02:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may, I'd like to help resolve this so there isn't an oppose based on a disagreement on what the definition of "is" is.
    1. After reading ref 3 (which I believe is the reference in question), it's clear that M-28 is a major route in the UP, but it doesn't seem to mention US 2 at all.
    2. Read the National Highway System definition page, it's right there in the first sentence. Since nothing involving government tends to make sense, we'll never know who said they were important outside of the USDOT. Perhaps this would be a better resource for the sentence or two about the NHS. Then again, I can think of at least one recent FA along the NHS that does not mention it at all.
    Hope this helps. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That study had referenced US 2, but maybe I had read that in a draft version that's since been replaced, however, the WUPPDR study is now being directly quoted, and only because I have a direct quote will I list the source inline. Had that been paraphrased, I would not feel it necessary as it is not an opinion but part of the conclusions of the study and therefore is a fact. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we're getting somewhere. Good job on point #1. I wanted a direct quote. One the other point about the NHS, it is a direct quote from the FHWA website. But why isn't it in quotes? Per WP:MOSQUOTE, since it's less than a full sentence then the source need not be attributed inline. Per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works the content is luckily in public domain so the copyright is fine. Royalbroil 02:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And when the text is in its simplest form and changing words to paraphrase would alter the meaning, a quotation is not necessary as it's not really a creative expression. It's my opinion that this is the case with the four words from the FHWA website definition of the NHS, so we don't need to wrap those three words in quotation marks because we can't paraphrase them and they aren't an opinion but a definition. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just double-checked Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution, which says:

    If a Wikipedia article is largely constructed through summarizing reliable sources, but there is a paragraph or a few sentences copied from compatibly licensed or public-domain text which is not placed within quotations, then putting an attribution in a footnote at the end of the sentences or paragraph is sufficient, although it does not preclude supplementing that with the method described below.

    That means those four words "economy, defense and mobility" don't need quotation marks. Even if you extend that to the word "important", that's only five words, and the paraphrased sentence is footnoted with a public domain source. The essay at WP:Close paraphrasing even says: "Quoting (with or without quotation marks) or closely paraphrasing public domain source material is appropriate if properly attributed to avoid plagiarism," and since this is attributed through a footnote, the use is acceptable. WP:Quotations specifically says: "For free or public domain material do not use quote marks but the text must be attributed and given a footnote, or given a link to the original text," which is also the case with that sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that you didn't start out with this argument by quoting these appropriate guidelines. I had to do a bunch of legwork. It don't matter. I now Support this article as being at A class. I'm amazed at how the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is being enforced at FA and especially DYK like it were policy. Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Rschen7754 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Review by Rschen7754

    • US Highway 2 (US 2) is a part of the United States Numbered Highway System that runs from Everett, Washington, to the Upper Peninsula (UP) of the US state of Michigan. - what about the eastern part?
    • RD - Watersmeet is the home of the Watersmeet High School Nimrods, the basketball team featured on a series of ESPN commercials and a documentary series on the Sundance Channel - awkward way to start the paragraph, makes it sound like Watersmeet is the topic of the paragraph.

    More to come. --Rschen7754 20:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • History - The name fell out of use before its first anniversary because of World War I. - probably would be better at end of paragraph.
    • Halifax shouldn't be a redlink.
    • US 2 was routed along its current alignment in the area, completing the changes in 1936[38][39] - lost a period.
    • Otherwise I don't see anything obvious. I didn't go over things with a fine toothed comb, but the reviews above seem to be thorough enough. --Rschen7754 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.
      • Halifax wasn't a redlink last time I looked, but those Canadians keep playing around with article naming conventions or whatever and someone AWB-ed the links, and they changed it to a misspelling
      • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from  VC  01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I will start with some content issues. Once those are addressed, I will proofread the article then flip the switch to make this A-class, since there are already four approves.

    • Route description
      1. I think mentioning the National Highway System in both the Lead and the Route description mini-lead is repetitive. I would eliminate the reference from the Lead.
      2. You mention the segments of US 2 that are part of the two particular Great Lakes Circle Tours in both the Route description mini-Lead and the Memorial designations and tourist routes section. I would remove the mentions from one of the sections. If you can get dates for when the circle tour routes were designated, I suggest Memorial designations section.
      3. There is a large expanse of text without a header under "Eastern segment," but the photos are nicely staggered, so it is probably not a problem.
      4. I love the Watersmeet section. If you are talking about attractions that are not specifically on US 2, I would mention the Lac Vieux Desert resort casino.
      5. "The county courthouse is at the top of Superior Avenue, which is the starting point for M-69." I would rewrite this sentence. Unless the county courthouse is notable, I would remove it from the start of the sentence and emphasize US 2 intersects M-69, which is Superior Street, next to the courthouse. The term "top of" should be replaced with the cardinal direction.
      6. To be consistent between the western and eastern segment sections, I would mention county crossings in the eastern segment section.
      7. Can you mention the type of interchange US 2 has with I-75? The sentence suggests the U.S. Highway crosses and continues over the Interstate (the reader might think that until they read "the US 2 designation ends") and it is not clear they have an interchange.
    • History
      1. In the first header, I would change "early statehood" to "early auto trails" or just "auto trails." The first phrase implies there is content about the mid-19th century when Michigan became a state, which is not the case.
    • Memorial designations and tourist routes
      1. Since you mention County Road 426 in this section, I recommend mentioning it in the Route description so the reader has prior context.
    • History bridges
      1. Is the Iron River bridge notable enough to have its own article? I would remove the wikilink.
    • Footnotes
      1. If you can, please incorporate footnotes b through f into the prose. It would be better to provide the reader context in the prose instead of asking them to head to the bottom of the article and back up to continue reading. Footnote a can be used in the text at the top of Major intersections.
    • EOR  VC  03:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've implemented most of the suggestions. The Iron River Bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places, and a member of the NRHP project has been creating all of the missing articles from the List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Michigan. In other words, that link will turn blue at some point in the future. As for the footnotes, several of these are analogs to ones I used in U.S. Route 131, and I feel that they contain content that is not needed in-line to understand the subject of this article, which is US 2. All of them are provided for clarification and used in footnotes to avoid jumping away from the core subject and jumping back in the prose. Foonote a was previously the "length notes" in the infobox, but to streamline display there, it has been converted to a footnote since the content is also mentioned in the notes above the RJL table. Imzadi 1979 → 23:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent, all of my issues have been addressed. I will keep this open until I complete the proofreading job in case I find any other issues that require your attention. Then I will case my comments and close the ACR. Good luck at FAC!  VC  00:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I finished copyediting the article. I found a few more things that require your attention in the references:
      1. References 6, 58, and 59 have a comma, a space, and a period after the map scale. One way to remove the sensation that something is missing is to add and populate the edition field of cite map.
      2. Are you able to add pages to reference 7?
      3. There are a few map citations (for example, reference 41) that have in the Section field a range of grid sections, such as C2–D3 or B1–D10, where the letters are different. Since these designations are based on a two-dimensional grid, there is no one sequence of sections that accurately covers what sections on the map you are referring to. Can you more accurately represent the sections, such as C2–C3, D3 for the first example?
      4. Is reference 72 citing a television program or a website article? If it is the latter, can you provide a URL for the article?
    • Once those items are resolved, I will promote the article.  VC  19:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something's changed with {{cite map}} that's producing the error, and I just noticed it as well. I'm going to see about getting it fixed.
      • Done. Thanks for the catch.
      • The problem is that changing it to your suggestion is quite a bit more cumbersome. I don't see that it is a problem, and several other articles have been sent to FAC that have similar section ranges.
      • Website article, since removed from their site so the URL died. The article wasn't archived any place, so the URL has been removed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    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.
    Promote. --Rschen7754 03:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ontario Highway 401

    [edit]
    Toolbox

    Ontario Highway 401 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

    Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
    Nominator's comments: Haven't been keeping a close eye on this one since I was working on it, so I apologize if there are a few obvious problems that jump out at you.
    Nominated by: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First comment occurred: 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
    Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
    1. You have a few dead links in the article, see this.
    2. In the infobox, it is possible to indicate the city for every road? In addition, the dashes between the routes and the city names should be replaced with "in".
    3. "It became fully navigable from Windsor to the Quebec border in 1964.", perhaps clarify what "it" is here.
    4. The Greater Toronto Area of the route description seems to be a little hard to follow as it jumps from describing the progression of the route to features such as the traffic cameras. Is there a specific reason why this is?
    5. "At Pickering, the highway again meets the former Highway 2, which runs parallel to the Quebec border", does Highway 2 parallel Highway 401 or the Quebec border? Maybe reword to "At Pickering, the highway again meets the former Highway 2, which parallels Highway 401 to the Quebec border".
    6. The section of Highway 401 in Toronto passes through heavily urbanized areas? Are there any attractions easily accessible from the road such as malls or museums that can be mentioned?
    7. "Several of these structures, including the former CN overpass, are slated for demolition, either due to their age, or to prepare for the planned widening of Highway 401 through this area.", perhaps define what CN is here since its the first mention.
    8. The sentence "A 40 m (130 ft) right-of-way was purchased along the Middle Road and construction began to convert the existing sections to a divided highway, as well as on Canada's first interchange at Highway 10" sounds awkward.
    9. The Assumption section seems to list some of the opening dates out of order. Is there a reason why this is done?
    10. I am a little concerned with using "Recent history" as a section title as what is now "recent" will change in the future. Maybe use "Since 2008".
    11. The sentence "The resurfacing will be completed through the summer of 2010." needs to be updated.
    12. In the services table, the services column listing the specific restaurants and gas stations should be removed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, being replaced with a column concerning reconstruction.
    13. Is it possible for the missing shields to be added to the exit list? Dough4872 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - As a major contributor to the article in the past and reviewing content with Floydian for several months, allow me to offer some input on your noted concerns.
    1. Updating sources is always an issue, but these should be able to be fixed without considerable hesitation.
    2. It is, but if you have more than one major junction within one city, it seems a little repetitive in the infobox. For example, Highway 427, 400, 409 and 404/Don Valley Parkway are all in Toronto and as such you'd see it four times.
    3. That seems do-able. "It" refers to Highway 401 even though construction wasn't fully complete until 1968.
    4. In the Greater Toronto Area, there is so much content that can be described for the highway that I can see how it can become a little hard to follow. A little rewording here could go a long way.
    5. Yes, the former Highway 2 parallels Highway 401 in Pickering to the Quebec border. I support your rewording here.
    6. There are attractions that can be mentioned such as Yorkdale Shopping Centre.
    7. CN stands for the Canadian National Railway. That can be described if desired.

    For all the others, I'll allow Floydian to answer them because I believe he has more knowledge regarding your concerns. Thank you very much for your comments Dough4872! Much appreciated!

    All the best! Haljackey (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply from Floydian
      1. Fixed. The government was nice enough to delete years worth of news releases from their site which doesn't allow spiders to index it. Fortunately they are news releases and don't require a web link. A lone dead link remains, as I've sent an email to CBC with the hopes that they remedy it.
      2. Changed the wording on some. However, the sign for the DVP in Toronto still says to Toronto. As Haljackey mentioned, a few aren't indicated because they would all be Toronto.
        1. For consistency, all of them should list the city, even if the same city is listed several times. In addition, the dashes should be removed from the Highway 3 and DVP entries and replaced with words. Dough4872 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Done
      1. Done
      2. This was a very difficult route description to write. As you can see there is a lot of stuff directly related to the highway, and its hard to maintain flow without occasionally diverging from the west to east description of the surroundings. However, it could be rearranged so that attractions and the freeway traffic management system are discussed first and then a standard description follow that.
      3. Fixed
      4. I added information about three major malls the highway passes near in the GTA. There isn't much in the way of attractions or museums though, at least within close proximity to the highway
      1. Done. It's the only mention, so I didn't add the abbreviation after.
      2. Broken into two sentences now
      3. Because of the shear magnitude of the number of projects that resulted in the present highway, it made more sense to discuss the section near Toronto first, then explain the rest in chronological order (and TBH, I can only find one part of the highway outside of that section that was completed by August 1956). It didn't make sense to introduce the paragraph about the expansion through Toronto in the midst of the paragraph about when various parts of the route first opened to traffic, even though it began a few years before the rest of the route was completed. That being said, I'm going to rewrite a bit of this section because I've come across a better source since I originally wrote the article.
      4. Done
      5. Done
      6. Done. Not sure who did this; the prose already describes the service centres.
      7. This would take a lot of work, as the highway passes through over a dozen counties. However, when they are eventually uploaded the template will automatically add them.
    Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from Imzadi1979
    • Comments For now, just some comments to start, working from the bottom up.
    1. Newmarket and Sprawl are dab links in use in the article.
    2. http://www.liveinlambton.ca/newcomers/portal/pages/Sarnia-LambtonLocation.aspx has gone dead since March 29, 2011.
    3. Images:
      1. File:Highway 400 at 401.png should be ok. You might get told at FAC to add a FUR to it because it isn't PD in the US. Consider this a friendly comment that someone else might object on purely legalistic/technical grounds.
      2. File:Carlb-hwy401-lastkm-682.jpg Someone might say that the text of the marker is under copy right, and the photo isn't a de minimis usage. Again, above my pay grade, and more of a friendly comment that someone else might object to it.
      3. It would be nice if you could geotag the rest of the photos from the article that lack the coordinates. (Over time, I'd even geotag the rest of the Hwy 401 category.)
      4. The Commons box results in a redirect. There's a way to specify the exact category in that template. You can also add in commons:Category:Highway of Heroes to the box as well to have it display two categories. Brockway Mountain Drive has two showing after someone split all of the photos up on Commons.
    4. Ok, ALT text isn't currently required for FAs anymore. I'd simplify the map's ALT text to just say something like, "Highway 401 runs along southern Ontario connecting Windsor, Toronto and the Quebec border." or something similar. The ALT text for File:401 construction phases.svg could just be "A map with legend of" because the screen reader/browser will read/show that before the caption of "Highway 401 colour-coded by the year each section opened to traffic" (drop the period from the caption because it's not a full sentence.) The other images should have their ALT text streamlined. See the ALT text for US 131] for an example. We don't need to have the text that describes the image in such detail, but rather indicates, with the caption, what the purpose of the non-text content is.
    5. I'm not a fan of quotations in footnotes. If they were all short, fine. Most of these are multiple lines, so I'd move them to the talk page for the article. I'd create a section there with the quotations with a copy of the footnote citation. That would streamline the length of the page's reference section. If a quotation is really needed to explain something in the body of the text, I'd convert the citation footnote to an explanatory footnote. U.S. Route 131 uses nested footnotes which are also explained at WP:FOOT. What I mean is that I'd use the quote as the content of the explanatory footnote and reference that to the citation footnote. In US 131, the fact that Michigan first signed their highway system in 1919 is referenced using an explanatory note that has the appropriate citation in it.
    6. Fn 12, 25, 28, 35, 90, 99, 130-2, 137, 138, 140-2, 144, and 150-1 need the PDF format indicated.
    7. The books in the bibliography should have publication locations added, if known.
    8. For your explanatory footnotes, I have a totally 100% optional suggestion for you to ponder. If you use the group name of "lower-alpha", the footnote links will be lettered instead of "<group> #". The only thing is don't use the quotation marks around the group name in {{reflist}}, or the list will be numbered and not lettered. I used the letters for US 131 and converted all of the other Michigan articles with separate explanatory and citation footnotes over. I personally think it helps to visually distinguish them without being as obtrusive like [note 2]. YMMV.
    9. 400-Series Highways (Ontario) and List of Ontario provincial highways should be removed from the See also section. They're both at the bottom of the infobox. The former link is in the lead as well. I'd find a way to work the link to King's Highways into the body of the article, if it isn't already. The Basketweave is linked from the text, so it needs to be pulled from the section as well, per MOS:LAYOUT.
    10. The bottom of the exit list needs the distance conversions added per MOS:RJL. You can simplify this just by using {{legendRJL}} at the bottom, even if the legend generates colors in the key that aren't in use.
    11. The services table, if retained needs a color key added to the bottom of it. However, all of these could be incorporated into the exit list.
      • Insert a line into the table for each service centre.
      • Use the distance measurement for the centre, and have the name of the centre span the exit and destinations columns.
      • Move the notes for each into the notes column, indicating the eastbound/westbound status there. You could further steamline that by only listing the direction if it is "eastbound only" or "westbound only".

    I'll continue my review later when I read through all of the prose. As I remember though, the article prose was in good shape. Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Fixed
    2. Fixed
    3. I'll work on the third point (I'm not sure what the template is to do it). On the fourth point, it's too bad you can't combine the two, having two categories, but also setting up a pipe for the first link. I may have to code it manually to do it correctly, or make the Highway of Heroes stuff a subcategory of Highway 401 (Ontario). Thoughts?
    4. Fixed the ones you mentioned and one or two more. I tried to write these to describe the image to a blind person in the first place. Not sure who keeps adding periods to them.
    5. Have to contend this one. I use quotes for any material not available online and for most news articles online, for when they inevitably disappear from the internet.
    6. Done
    7. Done all the ones that I can
    8. Done. I quite like this :) thanks for the tip
    9. Done
    10. Done
    11. I think that given that there is a section of prose devoted to the services that they fit best in that section. I have fixed the table, however.
    --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that the service centres table can be merged into the exit list. I played around with the idea User:Imzadi1979/401 is what I came up with based on the information I have. (Obviously, the distances and locations will need to be updated/corrected, but the idea holds.) Imzadi 1979 → 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd personally not do that though. There are almost 20 of them and many are actively being reconstructed right now, so I think its best to have all the service centre information (prose) plus the table of them in that section. Highway 400, however, with only 4 centres, would be an appropriate case to put them into the exit list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
    Imzadi1979, are your issues addressed? --Rschen7754 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't had time to look through again. I never did give this article a prose review before. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know if I said it here but I support promoting this article to A-class. Haljackey (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Typically we wait until we have 4 supports before we promote. Imzadi1979 will hopefully be the third, then I'll review for the fourth. --Rschen7754 04:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically I would agree with you. This article has been stalled here since March. Haljackey (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:There is no deadline. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Picking up where I left off...
    1. Starting at the bottom of the article and working back up, either list publication locations (preferered) or not for books. In short, scour through all of your references and works cite for consistency. If you missing something, Nikkimaria will spot it and comment on it at FAC. :P
    2. Another consistency issue is how corporate authorship is handled. Now, it's my preference to use "Staff" as the author unless a specific office/division/bureau can be listed instead. Then the publisher can still be listed as whatever corporation/agency/etc as appropriate. I mention this because the 401 book looks to be corporately authored, yet some of the footnotes are listing the corp. author as the author without a publisher. The benefit in the end, for me, is that only newspaper or magazine articles without a reporter byline are missing an author.
    3. I still recommend working on streamlining the usage of quotations in the footnotes to help keep overall article length in check. YMMV.
    4. FN 3 has DD Month YYY formatting, but the rest seem to be in Month DD, YYYY format.
    5. FN 29: "p. Page 4."?
    6. FN 38... what does this refer to? I'm not seeing a full citation below that would match up to it.
    7. You probably should add terminal punctuation after all of the page numbers the shortened footnotes for consistency with the full footnotes.
    8. Be forewarned, Nikkimaria will probably comment on some papers having publishers and others not if it isn't an all or nothing thing. She won't ding you for locations if they're only used on papers like The Globe and Mail that lack the location in the paper name.
    9. FN 95: Kitchener–Waterloo Record isn't in italics.
    10. "United States Federal Highway Administration" the US part is probably redundant if there isn't another FHWA out there. Up to you if you keep it in citations.
    11. FN 98 is to an online copy of a magazine article by the FHWA, so it should be reformatted as a magazine/journal article.
    12. FN 109 has the location linked, but the others don't. I'd drop the link.
    13. FN 122 and subsequent: "Contract #: 2005-2014" looks weird. I'd quietly reformat it to remove the colon. I make highway abbreviations consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia article in citation titles all of the time, even if that means we no longer parrot the sources' formatting 100%.
    14. FN 125: HTML is unneeded and check date formatting.
    15. FN 133: "CBC news" should the N be capitalized?
    16. FN 135, 136, 138 has "Detroit River International Crossing Study team" but above it was abbreviated in FN 127. Consistency here would be nice.
    17. FN 167 doesn't look like {{cite press release}} to me... (If there is a press contact, use that as the author for PRs in line with my comments on corporate authorship.)
    18. The two borders aren't formatted the same in the exit list... one is left-justified and the other is centered. Also per MOS:RJL, the shields should be next to, and to the left of, the link in an entry. Otherwise the table looks pretty good. Oh, I'd say that the roadway will connect to I-75, not continue as I-75 because in reality, the connection with DRIC will be at a right angle, not a straight-on continuation.
    19. You might want a citation for exit 179's status. You might have that in the prose, but it wouldn't hurt to duplicate it here as well.

    OK, I'm still skipping the prose since Fredddie has been reviewing that, but just a comment to watch the number and placement of images. That, and just make sure your non-breaking spaces are good for SandyGeorgia. (When in doubt, use one, even in links. You don't have to pipe a link, the server treats a nbsp as a space for wikilinks.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I should be able to get to this within a week or so, but I just wanted to point out that for #18, MOS:RJL doesn't indicated that and MOS:ICONS encourages not breaking a line of text in half by an icon where possible. I'd like to keep them at the end for visual cleanliness. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, most of these should be taken care of (unless I forgot to save it a few days ago), with the exception of the author/location issue, which I'll work through over the next few days. For number 8, I've kept it unabbreviated just since its a non-American article and may be an unfamiliar abbreviation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Review by Fredddie

    [edit]
    Resolved issues from Fredddie

    I like to go section by section and even sentence by sentence. Each number is in order. –Fredddie™ 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead
    1. First thing that jumps out is that with an article this long, the lead should be at least another paragraph longer.
    2. I would put the length of the route in the first paragraph.
    3. I know what you mean when you say their assumption, but will the average reader?
    4. The last sentence could be misconstrued that dead CF personnel drive the 401 to the coroner's office.
    Route description
    1. Do you think it would sound better if you said the planners purchased a 91.4-metre-wide (300 ft) right-of-way? I do, but I want your opinion.
    2. What highways in the world are busier? You list a few highways that the 401 is busier than, it may benefit to list some that are busier.
    3. I don't like interchange as a verb.
    4. Are the snow squalls lake-effect snow?
    5. You should define your abbreviations. Looking at you, GTA.
    6. Are the malls really worth mentioning by name?
    7. The Canadian Shield returns from where? It can't return if you haven't already talked about it.
    History
    1. Pretty sure it's always 20th century. Might want to check the MoS.
    2. Is Lake Shore Road no longer in existence or was the pavement improved from macadam? If it's the latter, you may want to say formerly macadam Lake Shore Road. Regardless, it's an awkward sentence.
    3. Are Lake Shore and Lakeshore interchangeable?
    4. ...again congested on weekends. You never mentioned that Lakeshore Road was congested on weekends before, I'd have it read ...again congested, especially on weekends.
    5. I don't think quotation marks are required on 401's "completion".
    6. You mentioned above the design inspired by the Dan Ryan Expressway is a collector–express system. You should mention it again.
    7. In the Carnage Alley section, around the same time as what?
    8. Actually, that whole first sentence could be revised for clarity.
    9. Is Ontario Tall Wall always capitalized?
    10. 20+ km should be converted.
    Future
    1. Nothing jumps out at me.
    Exit list
    1. There is some inconsistent formatting. US–Canada border is left-aligned while Ontario–Quebec boundary is centered. Same thing with the unbuilt section at the top. The en dashes are centered but the numbers are not. Personally, I'd recommend using the templates, but I won't oppose if you don't use them.
      Do the templates work for Canada? --Rschen7754 22:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Good question. It sounds like they will, but it will take some finagling at best to get them to work properly. –Fredddie™ 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Imzadi tested them out and they seem to.... I dread doing it because of the size of the exit list but may as well take out one of the two largest now rather than later. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    External links
    1. Is there any reason there's a link to Brockway Mountain Drive pictures on Commons?

    Overall, this is a great article. Nice work. –Fredddie™ 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Alrighty. I'll get to these soon enough, but I'll address what I can now: The external link issue is strange, but accidental. As for assumption: perhaps, but "take possession of" is one of the definitions of assume; I don't think there is another way to convey that info. I agree about the first point for the RD. I do not know of any highways busier than the 401, but I can't find any sources that claim it is the busiest in the world. I'll link snow squall, but yes. The malls mentioned are massive regional shopping centres, so I think they're pretty noteworthy. The final point for the RD came about because a user corrected me about an earlier appearance of the shield not being the shield; will fix. In the History, Lake Shore is in Toronto and Lakeshore is in Mississauga. Not sure who to thank for that screw up. Ontario Tall Wall is capitalized in every source I've seen it mentioned in, and is a specific modification to the original Jersey Barrier (52 inches tall instead of 42 IIRC). As for the quotations, I use them because the route was completed lengthwise, but construction has never really stopped. The other fixes, as I said, I'll try to get to hastily (except the exit list, that will take me some time yet) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Full response from Floydian

    Okee dokes, here is my reply as I fix up problems.

    Lead
    1. I suppose... the only thing that is big enough to get special mention, that pops to my mine, is the Windsor-Essex Parkway. I will add this shortly.
      • If you write three or four sentences summarizing the route description, you'd be good to go. –Fredddie™
    2. Done
    3. Note my response above this section. Assumption means to take possession of something, which is really what is meant in the highway context as well.
      • My issue with assumption is the exact point you mention. Highways are inanimate things; they cannot take possession of anything. People can assume positions of power, highways just kinda sit there. –Fredddie™
        • Ah, but it would be the highway department as a group taking possession of the road initially constructed by a construction company or owned by a lower government. The highway doesn't assume itself after all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
    4. Maybe they do ;)... fixed
    Route description
    1. I do! Done.
    2. I don't personally believe there are, and no statistic can show higher. However, some have disputed the claim because they say you can measure business by the number of vehicles using the entire length of a highway during a day... But AADT is the stat at one location on the highway. Regardless, no source for the world... yet.
    3. I don't either, but the replacement is often less informative since there is no verb to replace it. "Merges" or "splits" is directional, while "partially interchanges" is more general.
    4. Yes... sudden whiteouts. I have linked the term as we have an article on it
    5. Fixed
    6. Yes. See my comment above, these are major regional shopping centres.
    7. Correct. I had originally written under the assumption that rocky outcroppings further west were part of the shield.
      • Just think about casual readers like myself who know little about the Canadian Shield. –Fredddie™
        • Given the amount of detail in the article, really all that needs to be conveyed is that there are rock outcroppings and that the shield is the geological land form those outcroppings are part of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
    History
    1. True, fixed.
    2. I rewrote this bit.... care to double check that you the meaning I intend is what is inferred, as it is awkward to describe.
      • What now? –Fredddie™
        • My bad. Following frequent erosion of Lake Shore Road, then Macadamized,[55] a cement road known as the Toronto–Hamilton Highway was proposed in January 1914.[56] - Is this more cohesive now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
    3. See my reply above. It's a headache, but it's one in Toronto and another in areas west.
    4. Fixed
    5. I suppose that was some dry humour at the never ending construction. Fixed.
    6. It does. Where do you think it should again?
    7. Was a reference to the timeline of Advantage I-75.
    8. Agreed and done
    9. Yes. It's a specific design that advanced on the original Jersey Barrier.
    10. I just took it out completely. The distance isn't all that important so much as the completion of the sole 4 lane stretch between London and Toronto.
    Future
    1. Even still, I need to make sure everything is up to date in time for the FA.
    Exit list
    1. With the recent changes to the templates I will make the transition to them... But it will probably take some time compared to the other fixes, which I've already made.
      • One thing I just noticed was calling it the (427) mega interchange. Mega is a bit subjective, I think. –Fredddie™
        • I could probably add a source, but I could also take it out. Probably the latter because I haven't heard the term used by non-roadgeek people in my lifetime. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
    External links
    1. I don't know how that slipped through, but imzadi1979 had shown it to me on IRC as an example and I guess I somehow put it in. Fixed nonetheless.

    Hope that takes care of most of the issues. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I added in some replies here and there. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the status of this review? --Rschen7754 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't notice Fredddie had responded within a day of me, but I have now added my replies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Review double check
    1. Lead is still too short. A summary of the route description is all that is needed.
    2. Still don't like the word assumption. But, if you make it "assumption to provincial highway status", I'll be happy. This should alleviate any fears I had of the casual reader asking "assumption to what?"

    Only a couple issues left from above. –Fredddie™ 23:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Floydian: what is the status here? --Rschen7754 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, been very busy. I'll try to get around to the last issue (expanding the lead) in the next week or two as my school semester winds down from all the craziness.

    Changes look good guys. Regarding the 'busiest in the world' fiasco, can an assumption be made here as well? Clearly there isn't any variable source for this (if there are any at all), but the 401 has higher volumes than any other highway reported in any country's documents. Anyways, I'll be keeping my eye on this review. Haljackey (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really... though I'm wondering if the Guinness Book of Records would be of any use here... It used to mention them 15 years ago when the Santa Monica Freeway was the busiest. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Images comment

    I did notice that the images are placed at the end of preceding subsections. This is allowable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, but runs against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Images which explicitly states: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading nor at the end of the previous section, otherwise screen readers would read the image (and its textual alternative) in a different section; as they would appear to viewers of the mobile site." That's something that will need to be fixed in case it comes up at FAC. I just looked at http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_401 in my browser, and yes, the photo for "Carnage Alley" does appear above the section to which it belongs. Imzadi 1979 → 02:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/2011&oldid=522617595"