Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 69 in Michigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interstate 69 in Michigan

[edit]

The article was promoted. –Fredddie 23:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Interstate 69 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Might as well nominate this since Ontario Highway 402 is here at ACR, and if both are promoted, Michigan's network of FA-/A-Class articles will be connected to Ontario's. This would also be the third of four 2dIs for Michigan to be promoted.
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979  03:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

[edit]
Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. "Interstate 69 (I-69) is a part of the Interstate Highway System that runs from Indianapolis, Indiana, to the US–Canadian border at Port Huron, Michigan." this is not entirely true as I-69 has several disjoint segments between Texas and Indiana.
  2. Maybe you should mention I-69 is concurrent with I-94 at its eastern terminus in the lead.
  3. I do not think it is really important to mention that the distribution center is a Walmart distribution center. Typically, we do not mention specific business names in a route description.
  4. "and through an interchange with M-96 west of downtown Marshall." sounds awkward.
  5. Is the sentence about the Indian trails and the map really necessary given the fact I-69 follows none of them?
  6. "The first span of the Blue Water Bridges", I know the Blue Water Bridge is a twin-span bridge but is it officially called Blue Water Bridges? If not, "Bridges" should be singular here.
  7. "In 1980, a Flint-area politician wanted to dedicate a highway after the United Auto Workers (UAW).", what was the name of this politician? Dough4872 03:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review by Admrboltz

--AdmrBoltz 04:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Floydian

[edit]
Review by Floydian
Lede
  • I've never been a fan of "running" as a verb for describing highways. I'd suggest "travelling concurrently" in this case. YMMV in each of the cases that I mention it below.
  • Again in the second case, and remove the link to concurrency.
Route description
  • Nitpicky, but "crosses into Calhoun County and over the St. Joseph River." - if the county line is the river, then you should swap the order of these.
  • Intersecting M-60?
  • "North of I-94, I-69 has one more interchange before crossing into Eaton County" - You mention the road at other interchanges, but not this one.
  • "Near Olivet, I-69 begins to turn in a northeasterly direction. As it continues in that direction, it runs to the north side of Olivet." - Reads somewhat awkward, and again with the run bit.
  • " I-69 follows the path of a line of the Canadian National Railway" - I'm assuming you mean parallels it?
  • "I-69, the railroad and the Swartz Creek all run together" - sounds like a marathon :) There's another "run" shortly after this too.
  • "It jogs to the north around Lake Nepessing on the southwest of Lapeer." Reads weird/grammatically incorrect.
  • "follow part of the Black River in the area." - "in the area" seems redundant here.
History
  • I believe left aligned photos are supposed to be placed above level 3 headers to align better.
  • "The first major overland transportation corridors in the future state of Michigan were the Indian trails.[9] None of these followed the path of the modern I-69 however." - Just curious why you put this here, it seems irrelevant to I-69 in this case.
  • "By 1936, the highway was extended all the way into Flint to end at M-21." - M-78 or M-104?
  • The second paragraph of the Predecessor highways section gets confusing when you introduce M-78 into the picture. It may be prudent to mention as you go along which segments of these would line up with I-69, since Pittsburg, for example, isn't mentioned in the RD.
  • In the last paragraph of Interstate Highway era, you mention that BUS I-69 was designated in 1984, congress extended the designation for a final time in 1987 to Port Huron, but the final segment of the route wasn't completed until October 1992. This is rather confusing.
  • "...the Michigan Legislature designated that I-69... would be named..." - declared would be more appropriate than designated in this case.
  • "The following October" - is that October 2001 (that October) or October 2002 (the following), as I would come to read it?
  • Why would it ever be a mistake to head to Canada? ;)
Exit list
  • Looks good
Business loops
  • May want to use a better source than Gmaps for validating that the loops followed those predecessors, as I can only see evidence of the ones in Coldwater and Charlotte being US 27
Refs
  • Ref 2: Scale / "Scale not given" needed
  • Do you think it may be better organized to group your refs so that maps can be given their own section? I've thought of doing this on a few articles with over 40-50 refs.

I'll add my history review in the next day or two. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or seven. Since you haven't replied yet, I've just inserted the history review above. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evad37

[edit]
Review by Evad37

Lead

  • A north–south freeway from the Indiana–Michigan border to Lansing, it changes direction to east–west and continues to Port Huron before terminating in the middle of the twin-span Blue Water Bridge while running concurrently with I-94 at the border – long sentence, suggest splitting into two

Route description

History

RJL

Business loops

Infobox

Looking good otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 04:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37: as noted above, the appropriate fixes have been implemented. Imzadi 1979  01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
  • Source 20: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 29: Do you mean 1947? Also, the print is too small on both the original (which was found through archive.org as the FHWA site is down) and what is on Commons.
  • Source 30: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 34: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 39: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 47: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 66: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 68: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 76: will AGF on the lanes part as the free part of the article cuts off. But what about the completed in 2012 part? That can't be in a 2011 article...
  • Source 78: Good on V and CP. --Rschen7754 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For whatever reason (which could have been a blonde moment on my part), the wrong map citation was pasted into the article for fn 29. As for fn 76, there's a new FN 77 present to resolve that glitch. Imzadi 1979  23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Rschen7754 23:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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