Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Pennsylvania Turnpike

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.

Withdrawn over concerns that this was becoming a peer review and that the review really needed to be restarted. No prejudice to a renomination once outstanding issues are addressed. --Rs chen 7754 22:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The Pennsylvania Turnpike is the first long-distance limited-access road in the United States that ultimately led to the creation of the Interstate Highway System. This article is well-researched and I think it can eventually become a FA.

Nominated by: Dough 48 72 22:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

Resolved issues

I plan to review this nomination. --Rs chen 7754 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Map

I would recommend putting some shields on the map for context.

I already put a request for the map to be fixed to include the extensions of I-99 and I-376. Added a request for shields as well. Dough 48 72 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RJL

I would consider putting a line break before the references to fix the column width issue.

Fixed. Dough 48 72 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No periods in the notes column.

Removed. Dough 48 72 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No capital P for proposed.

Fixed. Dough 48 72 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Formerly called the Philadelphia Interchange" needs a citation.

Added citation. Dough 48 72 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the eastern terminus actually I-95 yet?

In New Jersey, the Pearl Harbor Extension of the New Jersey Turnpike is officially I-95 in the SLD even though it is not signed yet. Dough 48 72 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

More to come. --Rs chen 7754 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Dough 48 72 03:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

General stuff

Please go through every paragraph and make sure that no two sentences start with the same first word or words in the same paragraph. Once you have done this, please post the diff so that I can check. --Rs chen 7754 07:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done [1]. Dough 48 72 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please audit your use of however, currently, today, and recently per the SR 56 FAC. --Rs chen 7754 09:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dough 48 72 00:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Map, again

How about them shields? How about some text for cities?

Still working on getting that done. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's something that you are able to do; I won't be removing this oppose until the map has them. --Rs chen 7754 18:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Added text and shields to the map. There is a glitch however. Dough 48 72 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 05:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The turnpike designation begins at the Ohio border in Lawrence County, where it continues as the Ohio Turnpike. - where the turnpike designation continues as the Ohio Turnpike?

Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto for the next sentence - you just said it ended!?

Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It would utilize seven tunnels that were built for the abandoned South Pennsylvania Railroad in the 1880s - well does it?

Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

the first long-distance limited-access highway in the United States that would spur the construction of other limited-access toll roads and the Interstate Highway System. - wording is ambiguous

Reworded. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

such as reconstruction of the original section - vague

Reworded. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now, based on the issues Fredddie has been finding. Will reconsider once his and my reviews are done and issues are addressed. --Rs chen 7754 05:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Holding for now pending resolution of Mitchazenia's issues. --Rs chen 7754 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Image review by Imzadi1979

Unless noted otherwise, the captions are ok.

File:Pennsylvania Turnpike logo.svg should have its description page updated. Since the design is public domain, Vishwin60 never had any rights to release. At worst, the description is deceptive on that point.
Removed unneeded licensing tags. Dough 48 72 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike map.png should have the GIS source(s) used to create the map added. The caption for the map is not a complete sentence and should not have terminal punctuation (aka a period) in that case.
Fixed image caption. Contacted O on obtaining a source for GIS data. Dough 48 72 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Source for GIS data added. Dough 48 72 03:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The Interstate shields at the bottom of the infobox should be replaced with text. If the concern is that the shields would not be used otherwise, then {{infobox road small}} should be used in the article to display them appropriately.
Would you like it if I included IRS in the Delaware River Extension section for I-276 and in the History section for I-280? I think including the mini infoboxes look tacky and the shields better presented in the infobox browse. Dough 48 72 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The trouble is that you have two different styles, the 1957 variation and the current at 20px in height. One is three digits wide (25px) and the other is only 2 digits wide (20px), with the difference between state name and "neutered" shields. I know what the difference is suppose to be, but non-roadgeeks won't at that size. Also, icons are not a substitute for text; only text is a substitute for text. The icons either need text added next to them, or they need to be replaced by the appropriate text only. I still think that you should insert an IRS in the body of the article for each designation to offer the location/length/year(s) as appropriate for those designations. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Added mini-infoboxes and removed shields from browse in infobox. Dough 48 72 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound.jpg is GFDL, CC-BY 2.5, or CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Allegheny Mountain Tunnel West Portal I76 Dscn7191.jpg is GFDL, CC-BY 2.5, or CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound at US 222 exit.jpg is CC-BY-SA 2.0 by way of Flickr.
File:PA TPK WB Whitemarsh Township.JPG released by nominator to PD.
File:Paturnpiketicket.jpg has a PD photo, but I wonder if the ticket itself might attract a copyright. I doubt that it does, and the caption checks out. (It has full sentences, so the periods are correct.)
File:PennaPike toll plaza.jpg is CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 2.5.
File:PA TPK Willow Grove tollbooth.JPG is PD by nominator.
File:Sideling Hill Plaza jeh.JPG is PD by another wikimedian.
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike 70 mph 1942.jpg is PD as a work of the federal government.
File:Rays Hill Tunnel - Andrew Carnegie - 1880s.jpg was created in the 1880s, but we need proof that it was published before 1923 for the license tag applied to be accurate. The source also needs to specific what print source was used to obtain this photo. In any case, that doesn't mean this photo isn't PD, just that we need to clarify why/how better.
Mitchazenia scanned the photo from a copy Mitchell Dakelman (one of the authors of the Images of America book) had. However, nothing was said on whether this photo was published before 1923. I believe the photo itself is from the Pennsylvania State Archives. Dough 48 72 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Removed the photo for now until the copyright can be verified. Dough 48 72 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1942.jpg is another photo that's PD because it is a work of the federal government.
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike 1942 LOC.jpg is another photo that's PD because if it is a work of the federal government, however the FDP doesn't actually state this. I would suggest that {{information}} be used with full details filled in.
Added information template. Dough 48 72 19:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Laurel Hill Tunnel 1942.jpg is more PD-USgov.
File:Rays Hill Tunnel at night 1942.jpg is another PD-USgov.
File:Blue Mountain Tunnel viewed from Kittatinny Mountain Tunnel 1942.jpg is more PD-US-gov.
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound Lebanon County.jpg is CC-BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike eastbound at Homewood Viaduct.jpg is CC-BY-SA 2.0 via Flickr.
File:Delaware River Turnpike Toll Bridge.jpg is PD by a wikimedian; caption should not have a space en dash in the bridge name. I would suggest that the file size be set by adding |upgright since this is a portrait-oriented photo. (This would reduce the overall width because of the extra height involved.)
Fixed. Dough 48 72 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Sideling Hill Tunnel approach.jpg is PD by a wikimedian; FDP should be checked for categories.
File:Abandoned Turnpike.jpg is PD by a wikimedian.
File:PA TPK WB 0.5 mi to Norristown.JPG is PD by the nominator.
File:PA TPK Virginia Drive slip ramp.JPG is PD by the nominator.

Just as a comment, I did upload File:St. John's Church Pennsylvania Turnpike.jpg, which is a photo I had of the church next to the turnpike. This photo may be a possibility to help illustrate that part of the RD. Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

OK, I moved my section down so the other sections don't get lost. After nearly 2 weeks of reviewing, I have finally completed my review. There is some good news and some bad news.

First the good news. You clearly want this article to go to FAC. With the right amount of elbow grease I think it could. Speaking on behalf of the rest of the project (I can because others have said this on IRC), we want this article to become a Featured Article. This would be our first collaborative FA as a project.

Now the bad news. It needs a lot of work. This might sound mean, but this is another instance of a Good Article not being a good article. In all, I found 175 points that need work; some of them have more than one issue to work on. My review is over 22Kb of text. To save yours and my sanity, I won't paste it all at once.

Just a few formatting explanations first. I used two templates that you see on MoS pages, {{!xt}} and {{xt}}, and used them in a similar form. Your original text uses !xt while what I think you should say instead uses xt.

Here we go. –Fredddie ™ 15:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I should note that you can discuss the changes I'm suggesting. Since the goal of this review is twofold, 1) to get this article to and through FAC and 2) to make you a better writer, I expect something more than I don't like it. If you don't necessarily agree with something I would like to see or you need further explanation as to why I'm suggesting something, say so. –Fredddie ™ 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

First review from Fredddie

These are the two biggest issues I found in the article.

You have a tendency to use <verb>ing; "-ing" is used 366 times in the body of the article. Not all of them need to be fixed, but I would revisit them all to make sure. The reason is that the verb you're adding -ing to would in some cases be a stronger verb for the sentence. For example:
"The turnpike passes through the Appalachian Mountains in the central part of the state, utilizing four tunnels."

"The turnpike utilizes four tunnels as it passes through the Appalachian Mountains in the central part of the state."
Each instance of a clause starting with ", with" should be revisited. There are 52 times you use it. Here is an example:
"The road was extended east to the Delaware River in 1954, with the bridge over the Delaware River finished in 1956, completing the mainline turnpike."

"The road was extended east to the Delaware River in 1954. The mainline turnpike was completed in 1956 when the Delaware River bridge was finished."
Got through making fixes to the lead and route description. Dough 48 72 16:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a good start, but these issues are in the whole article. –Fredddie ™ 21:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I have finished making fixes to the remainder of the article. Dough 48 72 22:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, looks good so far. Continuing with the review. –Fredddie ™ 01:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

West and east ends are missing articles: "at the Ohio state line"
Added. Dough 48 72 01:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
While correct, the sentence "The limited-access highway runs 360 miles..." is awfully long and should probably be split.
Split. Dough 48 72 01:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's worse now than it was before. It's well documented that I don't like the word terminus when it comes to highways. A train station at the end of the line embodies a terminus better than a highway that begins and ends at the state line. If I-70 ended there, Breezewood would be a great example of a highway terminus.

I was looking for something like "The turnpike designation begins at the Ohio border in Lawrence County, ..." –Fredddie ™ 03:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Reworded to get rid of "terminus". Dough 48 72 15:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not exactly clear that I-70 and I-76 overlap each other and the turnpike for a while.
Clarified. Dough 48 72 01:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This, too, isn't much better. You wrote, "I-70 between New Stanton and Breezewood (concurrent with I-76), ..." Do you or anyone else think "I-70 and I-76 between New Stanton and Breezewood, ..." sounds better instead? –Fredddie ™ 03:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Changed. Dough 48 72 15:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, we get to the meat and potatoes of the review. –Fredddie ™ 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Route description

"rural areas of farms and woods" This is fluff. What other kinds of rural areas are there?
In other states, rural areas could be deserts or grassland. This helps give an unfamiliar reader an idea of what the physical surroundings in Pennsylvania are like. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
But this is Pennslyvania, not the American Southwest. In the mini-lead, you could have a sentence or two describing the terrain of the route. –Fredddie ™ 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned rural surroundings in mini-lead and cut down mention of farms and woods in route description. Dough 48 72 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"A short distance from the Ohio border, the road comes to the Gateway toll plaza in the eastbound direction."
"A short distance from the Ohio border, the eastbound lanes come to the Gateway toll plaza."

Changed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You say "Pennsylvania Turnpike" a lot. 70 times in the RD alone! There are so many synonyms you could use (turnpike, route, road, tollway); I would replace at least 75% of them.
Changed several instances. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not nearly enough. Perform a Ctrl+F just to see how many times "Pennsylvania Turnpike" is highlighted on the page. –Fredddie ™
Went through the remainder of the article and changed several instances. Dough 48 72 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
MUCH better. –Fredddie ™
1,545-foot (471 m) long→1,545-foot-long (471 m)
{{Convert|1545|ft|m|adj=mid|-long}} There are 8 others that need to be corrected as well.
Fixed. I converted to meters instead of kilometers though as that is more standard when converting feet. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Good catch. –Fredddie ™
"...where it reaches Cranberry. In Cranberry, the Pennsylvania Turnpike..." Also for New Stanton, Donegal, Blue Mountain Tunnel. Repetition is the issue here.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you really cite rural land and suburban development to the simplified turnpike map?
It is cited to Google Maps. The simplified turnpike map is used to show the county line. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty weak. I suggest using a better map than the simplified turnpike map for showing where county lines are. –Fredddie ™
Used a state road atlas to cite county lines. Dough 48 72 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I would revise the Warrendale toll plaza sentence to say the toll ticketing begins there.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
In the context of roads, don't use interchange as a verb. (3 times).
Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"The Pennsylvania Turnpike resumes..." It ended?
Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
✗ Not done. –Fredddie ™
My bad. Got it this time. Dough 48 72 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
More farm field and woodland fluff.
See above. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"It is at this interchange that the roadway narrows back to four lanes and that I-70 forms a concurrency with I-76 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike." This sentence should be revised so "narrows" or "forms" is the main verb of the sentence.
Reworded. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm from Iowa so I know or thing or two about agriculture by default; what exactly is an agricultural area? I can list ten things off the top of my head.
An agricultural area is an area with farm fields. I used this term to vary the wording. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I was able to think of 10 things that could be an "agricultural area". You should be more specific. –Fredddie ™
Removed as i cut down on mention of farms and woods in route description. Dough 48 72 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"Here, the road passes under the mountain in the 6,070 ft (1,850 m) long Allegheny Mountain Tunnel.[3][4][5]"
1. Roads pass through tunnels. (3 times in the Irwin section alone)
2. Does "the mountain" have a name?
Varied wording. The mountain is called Allegheny Mountain. I used the generic term mountain to avoid "Allegheny Mountain" from being used twice in the same sentence. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
3% grade doesn't seem steep enough to get a sign along the road. The lowest grade I've ever seen signed is 5%. Why mention it?
It is the steepest grade along the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
...So you should mention that. –Fredddie ™
Mentioned. Dough 48 72 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
What is an agricultural valley and how is it different from a regular valley? (3 times)
A valley that has farmland in it. Worded to provide detail of what the valley is like. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It's using a big word to not really describe anything. –Fredddie ™
You should spell out U.S. Route 220 Business before using the abbreviation.
Spelled out. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the southern end of I-99 also the southern end of US 220? It kind of reads that way.
Reworded as to not imply that it is the southern end of US 220. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"City of Altoona" "City of" is fluff unless you're talking about the city government.
Removed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"East of Bedford, the Pennsylvania Turnpike passes through the Bedford Narrows, a gap in Evitts Mountain, along with US 30 and the Raystown Branch Juniata River.[7]"
1. How wide is Bedford Narrows?
2. It passes through US 30 and the river?!
The width of the narrows would not be the most relevant to the article. It was basically wide enough to hold the turnpike, a river, US 30, and a railroad line. Reworded as turnpike does not pass through US 30 and the river but rather parallel them through the narrows. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I think two sentences saying ""East of Bedford, the Pennsylvania Turnpike passes through a gap in Evitts Mountain known as Bedford Narrows. The turnpike, US 30, <the railroad>, and the Raystown Branch Juniata River all pass through the 0.5-mile-wide (0.80 km) (fill in with the correct width) narrows.[7]" would add some color to the article. –Fredddie ™
Reworded. I left out mention of the railroad since the tracks have been removed. Dough 48 72 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the railroad is worth mentioning. –Fredddie ™
You should probably mention the significance of Breezewood.
I mentioned that I-70 has traffic lights along US 30. This detail would be more relevant for the Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania article. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"Past Breezewood, I-76 continues along the Pennsylvania Turnpike, ..." Is I-76 or the turnpike the subject of this sentence?
Reworded to make the turnpike the subject. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Are the rural areas or is the turnpike parallel to US 522? It's not clear.
Clarified to say turnpike is parallel to US 522. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Kittatiny Mountain or Kittatinny Mountain?
Fixed typo. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Who calls it "the straightaway"?
The name was popularly used when the road was first opened. There was not a specific person or organization who coined the term. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Farther east→Further east
Changed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"East of Carlisle, the Pennsylvania Turnpike heads east through more farmland with some development as it approaches Harrisburg."
1. I would drop the "East of Carlisle" and replace it with "As it approaches Harrisburg".
Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
1. What kind of development?
Residential and commercial, do not need to get too detailed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"East of this, ..." this should be more specific. Same with "Past this," "Following this," and "With this, ..." later in the article.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Does the turnpike go through Harrisburg? Around Harrisburg? The article doesn't say.
Clarified that it passes to the south of Harrisburg. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Only the farmland is Pennsylvania Dutch Country? I'd get rid of "an area of farmland known as the".
Removed. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
In this paragraph alone, you've said "crosses into X County" three times.
Changed some instances. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the Blue Route? Is that like Pittsburgh's color rings?
The Blue Route is a common nickname for the Mid-County Expressway portion of I-476. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I-276 just ends at the river?
Yes, it ends at the bridge with the road continuing into New Jersey as unsigned I-95. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You really should explain I-276 ending at the river a little better
Added some detail. Dough 48 72 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"The Pennsylvania Turnpike is controlled by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission."
"The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission controls the Pennsylvania Turnpike." (active/passive voices)

Reworded. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I would move the last paragraph to the top of the RD and use it as a mini-lead. I'd then add a sentence or two at the beginning describing the route in summary.
Wrote mini-lead and moved last paragraph to beginning. Dough 48 72 17:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
We seem to have created a new repetition problem. "The road heads east again and passes under Kittatinny Mountain in the 4,727-foot-long (1,441 m) Kittatinny Mountain Tunnel. A short distance after exiting the Kittatinny Mountain Tunnel, the highway heads under Blue Mountain in the 4,339-foot-long (1,323 m) Blue Mountain Tunnel." I would double check all the tunnels. –Fredddie ™ 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Varied wording of tunnels. Dough 48 72 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Features

There should be a mini-lead for this section.
Wrote mini-lead. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You can do better than that. There is no flow at all. The idea is to entice the reader to read the section. –Fredddie ™
Made some tweaks, including the addition of an introduction sentence. Dough 48 72 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
References? –Fredddie ™ 23:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Added. Dough 48 72 00:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
"With the ticket system, a motorist receives a ticket upon entering the turnpike at an interchange and pays the fare and surrenders the ticket upon exiting. If a motorist loses the ticket, the turnpike charges the highest fare to the exit where the motorist leaves."
"Upon entering the turnpike, motorists receive a ticket that lists the fares for every exit. When exiting, the ticket is surrendered and the appropriate fare is paid. If the ticket is lost, motorists are charged the highest possible fare for that exit."

Changed. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Do tolls change every year? You should use {{As of}} for potentially-dated statements like "As of 2012, it costs...".
Tolls do change every year. Added template. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
What's the average toll per mile?
Added. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You should inflate the 1939 tolls to today's dollars.
Added inflation template. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"bonds to build the road and would be removed" →were to be
Changed. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"However, tolls continue to be charged to raise the money required to build extensions and to make improvements to the road.[20]"
"Tolls continue to be charged today to pay for improvements to the turnpike system."

Changed. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"The toll rate was about one cent a mile and the ticket system was used when the turnpike opened.[21]" The ticket system part seems lazily tacked on.
Split sentence. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
What other roads had a higher rate?
Added list of roads with higher rates. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Instead of listing the toll increases in just percentages, you should give rates as well. I'd go for the entire route, if possible. Then you should inflate those numbers.
Added toll rates with inflations. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
In 1978 and 1986, tolls increases were planned. Did they go into effect?
Yes, added details. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no flow to the paragraph about toll hikes. I would probably split it into two and revise some of the sentences so they're not so dry.
Split and revised sentences. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't call people humans, it's cold and heartless. I'd probably revise the sentences to say "Motorists originally stopped at booths to receive toll tickets from turnpike staff. In 1987, ticket machines replaced the workers.
Reworded. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"In 2001, it was expanded west to Carlisle,[43][44] and on December 15, 2001, was extended to include the entire length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.[45][46]"
"By December 15, 2001, E-ZPass could be used on the entire length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.[45][46]" It sounds off to have a year for the Carlisle extension and then a specific date for the entire length.
Changed. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"The strike lasted only seven days, with an agreement reached on November 30."
"The strike ended after seven days when both sides reached an agreement on November 30."
Changed. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You mentioned the turnpike commission is considering going all electronic. Then a few sentences later, you said they are indeed switching. This should be reconciled for consistency's sake.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
How much would a 76% surcharge be for the entire route?
Added. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Are the callboxes at mile markers?
Not specifically. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Instead of using it as an aside in the service plaza section, the emergency assistance section should mention the towing options available. That is, if they're still available.
Mentioned towing options. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Roughly speaking, where are the service plazas located?
They are throughout the state. The exact locations are shown in the exit list. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Service plazas were built as a result of food and fuel being scarce?
There were not many resturants and gas stations near the turnpike when it was initially built. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"The same year, Howard Johnson's contract expired, with Burger King replacing them at several locations.[77]" What?
Removed sentence as it is excess detail. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
In this same paragraph, there was a nice flow up until you decided to ramp up the timeline. More than half of the paragraph was 1978−83. The rest of the paragraph is 1983−95. That's too abrupt.
Split paragraph. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"Sunoco will continue to operate the gas stations at the renovated service plazas." Future tense for something dated 2006?
Fixed. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You say "between <year> and <year>" seven times in this paragraph, many of which consecutively.
Changed some instances. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The plaza closures could be a separate paragraph.
Split. Dough 48 72 00:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
No other issues with the radio section other than length. But I'm not sure if anything more can be added.
No other issues with the speed limit section either. I would have rounded up 55 and 60 mph to 90 and 100 km/h, respectively. I'm not going to ask you to do it, but you can if you want.

Fix the mini-lead and then we'll move on to the next section. –Fredddie ™ 04:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

History

This, being the biggest section, had the most problems. –Fredddie ™ 02:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This section needs a mini-lead to so people will want to read the whole section. Even as I write this, I'm loathe to read it because it's tl;dr length.
Added mini-lead. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why European settlers are in the same sentence as Native Americans.
The sentence is providing context of how settlers originally crossed the mountains in the state. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
But you don't say that. After your edit, it says the Europeans only followed wagon roads. That's it. Not only that, you don't really say why the Europeans are crossing the state. –Fredddie ™ 03:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Only two sentences separate Native American trails and the Penn RR. Doesn't that seem like it's too much of a jump in time? You could at least talk a little about transport during the American Revolution.
Added details about the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
And in the next sentence we're into the 20th Century?!
The paragraph is providing an overview of important milestones in transportation across Pennsylvania. As such, there is a jump between events. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Fatalities are not necessarily linked to dangerous roads. You have to say how the roads were dangerous and why people died. Crashes? Careening off a cliff?
Claified the roads were dangerous due to curves and grades. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm still left wanting more. You left a nice cliffhanger. –Fredddie ™
Who or what had grades of 9%? Is that steep?
Clarified the highways have the grades. These grades are considered steep. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't say 9% is steep in the article. –Fredddie ™
Wouldn't the South Penn RR be better suited in the first paragraph? You glossed over railroad construction with two sentences about the Main Line of Public Works and Penn RR. In the second paragraph, you can tie it together.
Moved the South Penn information to the first paragraph. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Much better up there. –Fredddie ™
It reads like Sutherland and Lecoq went to Patterson because he had proposed a resolution. If that's not the case, this sentence should be split in two.
Split sentence. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
He is ambiguous. I think it should be Patterson instead of He. –Fredddie ™
More dollars that need to be inflated to today's dollars.
Added inflation templates. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
"Patterson introduced Bill 211 to the legislature, which called for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to be established to build the road."
"Patterson introduced Bill 211 to the legislature, which called for the establishment of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission."
Changed. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the name of the chair of the commission really notable? You don't list any other commissioners from any other time period. (WP:UNDUE)
The chair was important in the development of the highway. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't mention how he's important. Right now it seems his notability comes from being the first chair of the turnpike committee. –Fredddie ™ 03:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
✗ Not done –Fredddie ™
"In April 1938, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the award of a grant for $24 million by the WPA for the construction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and the state also put up $29 million towards the project.[123]"
1. We've established enough context to not label FDR as "U.S. President." President will suffice.
2. Approved a $24 million grant
3. Replace ", and" with a semi-colon
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
If FDR approved the grant, why did the WPA have to give the final OK?
The sentence starting with "Meanwhile, " is incoherent.
Reworded. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the paragraph, I'm left wondering if all the institutions listed bought each other's bonds.
✗ Not done –Fredddie ™
I'm also wondering how much money was raised in all.
✗ Not done –Fredddie ™
Who is Roy Greene?
The newspaper article does not say what his profession was. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
So why mention him by name? Is he notable? I'm guessing since you couldn't find his occupation, he's not. –Fredddie ™
Make sure the dates that need a comma after the year have one.
Is this done? –Fredddie ™
"The first work to begin on the road was grading its right-of-way, which involved a lot of earthwork.[135]" When does road grading not involve a lot of earthwork? Was there an unusual amount of earthwork?
Clarified. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Was eminent domain even a thing in the 1930s?
It existed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Concrete culverts were built to carry streams and roads under the cut.[137]" So they had to cut even deeper to let other roads cross beneath?
Yes, since the road was built on higher earth in the bottom of the valley. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"A lot of work was also involved on building the Pennsylvania Turnpike up the 3% grade on the eastern end of Allegheny Mountain.[140]" A lot of work compared to what?
This was the steepest part of the turnpike, so building it would be a challenge due to the slope. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
✗ Not done. You didn't say this in the article. –Fredddie ™
"The base of Evitts Mountain was blasted in order to carry the turnpike across Bedford Narrows.[7]" Why was it necessary for the mountain to be blasted?
The mountain face needed to be blasted in order to squeeze it through the narrows with the river, US 30, and the railroad line. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
✗ Not done. So say it in the article! –Fredddie ™
"In New Baltimore, the turnpike commission had to purchase land from St. John's Church, which contained a cemetery. As part of the deal, stairways were built on either side of the turnpike to provide access to the church.[141]"
"In New Baltimore, land purchased by the turnpike commission separated St. John's Church from its cemetery. Stairs were built on either side of the turnpike to provide access to both sides."
"Lighting, telephone, and signal systems would also exist.[19]" I'd tack "in addition to lighting, telephone, and signal systems." to the end of the previous sentence and then get rid of this one.
Combined sentences. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"A total of 4.5 miles (7.2 km) of tunnel had been bored through the seven mountains." were
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"As a result of the number of tunnels, ..." Fluff. You can say this more concisely.
Removed beginning part of sentence. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
What design were the non-trumpet interchanges?
They were irregular designs that do not really fall into a clear category. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Two sentences in a row end with the word interchanges.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the level of guardrail detail necessary? If so, how did they compare to other guardrails of the day?
I feel it is important to mention the guardrail detail as this was the first long-distance freeway in the United States and the guardrails did differ from the modern guardrails of today. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would benefit readers to know what was happening on other roads for comparison. –Fredddie ™
How large were the exit signs?
✗ Not done –Fredddie ™
Were billboards banned along the turnpike?
Yes, reworded to make clearer. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Was there a chance trucks and buses wouldn't be able to use the turnpike?
It had not been clearly established until this decision. The urban limited-access parkways that had existed before the turnpike did not permit trucks. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I feel like the tunnel, bridge, and interchange paragraphs would be better suited in a Design subsection.
Split into new subsection. Dough 48 72 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to issues in this section. –Fredddie ™ 04:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

History, part 2

If it was concrete simply poured on the bare earth, was there any difference in design?
It is basically the same except there was no gravel surface, which led to the pavement to deteriorate quickly. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"The opening was announced on short notice with no ribbon cutting or ceremony to be held.[162]"
"The opening was announced on short notice; no ribbon cutting ceremony was held.[162]"

Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Tons need to be converted to tonnes.
Converted. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"However, revenue would decline due to tire and gas rationing caused by World War II.[174]" during
Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"It provided a direct link between the Mid-Atlantic states and the Midwestern United States and cut down travel time between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.[20][177]"
1. Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states
2. By how long did it cut travel time?
Changed and added how long travel time was cut. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I would renamed the "Extensions built" subsection to "Extensions"
Renamed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The transverse joints on the pavement were also spaced closer together.[187]" How much closer?
Added. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Cement cannot go on strike. Cement workers, however, can.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Two sentences in a row mention the Philadelphia extension and Gov. Duff by name. Repetition.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Why did the Bureau of Public Roads add the turnpike to the Interstate Highway System?
Mentioned. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"This proposal was due to the fact that the spurs of I-80S did not connect to I-80 in northern Pennsylvania." What do you mean by spurs of I-80S?
I-80S had several spurs in southern Pennsylvania such as I-280 that did not connect to I-80 in northern Pennsylvania. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The renumbering was approved by the Federal Highway Administration on February 26, 1964." I thought AASHO did route numbering.
The source says the FHWA approved Pennsylvania's proposed changes to the interstate numbers. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
There is an {{Infobox road small}} for I-280, but not for I-80S. How come?
I-280 redirects to this article whereas I-80S doesn't. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Were the tunnels the issue or bottlenecks at the portals?
Bottlenecks were the issue, fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The turnpike commission began studies in 1959 on how to resolve the traffic jams at the Laurel Hill and Allegheny Mountain tunnels, with studies for the other tunnels following.[229]"
1. Turnpike commission repeats two sentences in a row
2. "In 1959" "that year"
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't like "As a result of these studies, ..." perhaps change it to "At the conclusion of the studies, ..."
Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you can link to the Wiktionary defintion of bore. Not everybody will know that a bore is a tunnel.
Added link. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Were the Allegheny Mountain and Laurel Hill tunnel projects combined? It reads like they were.
They were separate projects but occurred at the same time. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The bypass of Laurel Hill tunnel was chosen because it would be cheaper to construct than another tunnel and would be completed quicker to relieve traffic.[231]
The Laurel Hill tunnel was bypassed because traffic would be relieved faster and less expensively than it would by boring another tunnel.

Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The Laurel Hill Tunnel was bypassed by way of a deep cut to the north of the tunnel.[23][234] Groundbreaking for the new alignment took place on September 6, 1962. The bypass would feature a wide median and truck climbing lanes, with a 145-foot (44 m) deep cut dug into the mountain.[235]" The first and third sentences here should be combined.
Combined. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Is that former SPRR tunnel the same one from earlier? You should mention that.
Oh, you did, but in passing.
"Following its opening, the original tube would be closed to allow it to be updated, reopening on August 25, 1966.[234][237]"
1. Following its opening? What's opening, the old tunnel? Because that's what this sentence is about.
2. "It" in the middle part of the sentence is unclear.
Reworded. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Did you mention the potential Rays Hill/Sideling Hill bypass when you mentioned the tunnels being built? You should.
Added mention earlier in history. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"The cut over Sideling Hill was built to pass over the Sideling Hill Tunnel.[242]" passes
Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The new alignment would come to its eastern terminus a short distance east of the Cove Valley service plaza on the original segment." ends
Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The bypass of the two tunnels would have a 36-foot (11 m) wide median with a steel barrier in the middle.[75]" Did the bypass have the 36-foot-wide median and steel barrier?
Yes. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"The parallel tubes at these three tunnels would open on the same day as the bypass, with the original tubes subsequently getting remodeled.[230]" What bypass?
Clarified. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
How wide was the median originally?
10 feet, as mentioned earlier in the history. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The New Stanton interchange required left turns across traffic on the turnpike? It's not exactly clear.
Left turns across traffic on the exit rams, clarified. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
You said "providing access" in two consecutive sentences.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Holographic road signs. Have you already mentioned what the signs were like?
The proposed upgrade was to have holographic signs, which was considered a new innovation at the time. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"a widening of the turnpike was necessary." "it was necessary to widen the turnpike."
Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
How did the oil crisis affect the widening plans?
It implemented a 55 mph speed limit that would not allow for a reconstructed 80 mph road to be built. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
In addition to I-80, did the oil crisis have a role in the turnpike's declining traffic?
Yes, mentioned. Dough 48 72 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

History, part 3

"disagreements between Governor Dick Thornburgh and the turnpike commission members as well as differences between the commissioners.[257][258]" I think this can be shortened somehow, but I haven't figured it out yet.
Why was the defense depot interchange not built?
Clarified sentence. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
From where was the depot's connector road coming?
Added termini of connector road. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"In March 1989, the turnpike commission approved a contract for building the interchange.[265]" I know you're talking about the Blue Route interchange, but in the context of the paragraph, and since you've said interchange in every sentence thus far, someone might not pick up on this. I'd combine the two Blue Route sentences.
Combined sentences. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Any clue which contracting laws were violated? State or federal? Do the cases have articles? (probably not, but you never know)
Added some detail. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak. "In June, a losing bidder decided to challenge the turnpike commission, saying it violated female and minority contracting rules which require X% of workers to be women or minorities." is a much better sentence. Find out what percentage of women and minorities are required and then fix it. –Fredddie ™ 00:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"When this interchange was relocated, the overhead interchange lights were a nuisance to nearby residents.[271][272]" Is this the new or the old interchange?
The new interchange. Clarified. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The turnpike is inanimate; it cannot celebrate anything nor spend any money. The commission can, however.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You say "original section" in three consecutive sentences. "original section of the (Pennsylvania) turnpike" in two of those.
Cut down on use. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"The slated date for completion of the reconstruction between Irwin and Carlisle is 2014.[279]"
1. You haven't mentioned this section needing reconstruction yet, so the reader doesn't know it's being planned.
2. Shouldn't this be in the 21st Century section?
The reconstruction is being done in small segments, with the 2014 date being when the entire length from Irwin to Carlisle will have been rebuilt. Moved to 21st century section. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You say "reconstruct(ion)" in five straight sentences.
Varied wording. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Plans were made in 1993 to build a direct interchange between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-79 in Cranberry Township.[280]"
1. Shouldn't this be in the Late 20th Century section?
2. You're going to have to remind us where Cranberry Township is.
It is in the 21st century section since it was completed then. Clarified where Cranberry Township is. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Who agreed upon the new interchange design?
Mentioned. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Where did the ticketing system begin before it moved to Warrendale again?
It began at Gateway, as mentioned elsewhere in the article. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Marshall Township and Pine Township," "Marshall and Pine townships,"
Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Why did those two townships want to prevent the toll plaza?
Mentioned. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, you need to remind us where those townships are.
Clarified. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Butler service plaza closed? Tolls aren't collected there, so it seems unlikely that Warrendale is the reason.
The service plaza was at the site of the Warrendale toll plaza. Clarified. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, OK, the I-79 interchange opened in 2003. This paragraph is poorly constructed if it starts and ends with the I-79 interchange but doesn't talk about that interchange the whole time.
The interchange project went hand-in-hand with building the Warrendale toll plaza. Since they are related, they are mentioned in the same paragraph. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is a slip ramp? What purpose do they serve?
It is a ramp that only uses electronic toll collection. Clarified. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"E-ZPass only" is an adjective, it should be "E-ZPass-only".
Fixed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"having cost of $5.1 million." What?
The Virginia Drive slip ramp cost $5.1 million to build. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
They were going to build a slip ramp at PA 252? You're introducing it by saying it was canceled.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"In 2009, the slip ramp project was put on hold due to engineering issues in widening an adjacent portion of the turnpike.[293]"
1. What sort of engineering issues?
2. an adjacent the adjacent
The article does not mention the specific issues. Fixed wording. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
It is currently fall 2012. Did you use {{As of}} or similar template to avoid potentially dated items?
"The proposed slip ramp is to cost $160 million." You don't know that for sure. It is projected to cost that much.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Schyulkill River is in Philadelphia, right?
At this point, it is in Montgomery County. Clarified. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Was the new Susquehanna River bridge a segmental concrete bridge, or was it only planned to be one?
- This isn't an issue that needs to be fixed, only my curiosity. When they widen the turnpike, do they have to add a proper median or are they just tacking on an extra lane to each side?
They tack on an extra lane to each side. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
In removing the steps to St. John's, how are they providing access to the cemetery?
They did not say, I would assume there would be no access to the church from the turnpike. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "level of service of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel"?
Fixed. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the turnpike commission planning on making the entire turnpike at least 6 lanes wide? That's kind of how it seems. Consider moving all of that into a Widening section.
They are not widening the entire turnpike to six lanes, only the busier sections. Dough 48 72 00:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Change the I-95 interchange header to "Interstate 95 interchange project"
Changed. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I would move "In 1982, the federal government mandated that the interchange be built in Pennsylvania.[334]" to before "A gap exists in I-95..."
Moved. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Construction on the actual interchange with I-95 will begin in 2013 with the flyover ramps between northbound I-95 and the eastbound Pennsylvania Turnpike and the westbound Pennsylvania Turnpike and southbound I-95 to be completed by 2018." Run-on sentence.
Split sentence. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
What purpose will the parallel Delaware River bridge serve?
It will carry more lanes of traffic across the river. Dough 48 72 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rest of the article

Since the remaining points are so few and the above is so long, I figure I might as well post the rest of it. –Fredddie ™ 03:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Exit list

You're missing mileposts. Since you're only using one decimal place, you could use Google Maps to supplement the turnpike map.
Added missing mileposts. Dough 48 72 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping for ranges. In the RD, you list lengths for all the tunnels and bridges, but you only list one singular point in the exit list. –Fredddie ™ 01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Added ranges of bridges and tunnels. Dough 48 72 22:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you explore the PennDOT GIS data to see if you can get more precise mileage data. V C 18:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the GIS data does not show the ramps where they intersect the turnpike so using that to milepost the exits would be difficult. Dough 48 72 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't use ramp intersections for anything unless no other data was available. I use centerline intersections and urge you to do the same. –Fredddie ™ 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The GIS data doesn't show the centerline of the trumpet interchange intersecting the turnpike either. The data only shows the ramp from the intersecting road and has it dead end at the toll plaza, with the interchange between the ramp and the mainline turnpike missing. Dough 48 72 00:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the GIS data? I would like to see it for myself. –Fredddie ™ 00:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This is where you can download the GIS data from. Dough 48 72 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
At my last FAC, overlinking was an issue. I would remove as many extra links as you can. The easiest way is changing {{{city#|Foo}}} to {{{location#|Foo}}} in {{Jct}}.
Removed excess links. Dough 48 72 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

References

I'm not going to go through each one, and anybody can answer this, but are Dakelman and Cupper supposed to be linked every time they're referenced?
The references link to the works cited section, which has the full citation. U.S. Route 131 has this. Dough 48 72 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I know how it works; I am asking from an overlinking perspective. –Fredddie ™ 01:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is overlinking, as when one clicks on any of the footnotes, they have a direct link to the full reference. Dough 48 72 22:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not think linking Dakelman and Cupper every time is excessive. I did something similar for U.S. Route 113 and I did not have any problems. V C 18:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am ending my review early just so other people can jump in and not feel like their review is getting lost. I do plan on doing a second pass once everyone else is done. Right now, though, I am leaning oppose. There have been far too many times where I have asked for something, a weak change or reply was made, and I have had to clarify what I thought was a clear instruction. And then the change still wasn't made. –Fredddie ™ 12:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: this review needs 3 more supports, the completion of Imzadi1979's image review, and a spotcheck for promotion. --Rs chen 7754 09:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Random thoughts by Mitchazenia

Need to split up paragraphs something fierce. These paragraphs are humongous and are a prevalent issue through the entire article. My suggestion is what I do, no more than 6–7 lines in the editing window per paragraph. This includes all wikilinks, but not references.
Split several paragraphs. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Erm, there are still a ton of splittings that still need to be done. I just want to clarify, on my screen, it's a 90x9099 (or whatever the max is) editing window with 6–7 lines. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Split more paragraphs. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Tunnels subsection should be necessary here. These tunnels are a significant feature of the Turnpike and deserve their own subsection.
This could be an idea we can go with. However, we can possibly also incorporate major river bridges too as they are also important structures along the turnpike. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You get my point. It should exist. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Created subsection. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Lead could use some more thoroughness than this and needs to have smaller paragraphs.
The lead is supposed to provide a basic summary of the article, so excess detail is not needed there. Split paragraphs in lead. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
What changes? I don't know where you changed things. There's more bloated paragraphs now than split. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Split the paragraphs up. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Location consistency in infobox please. You jump from near to in, and using different municipality levels.
I use the common location for identifying the interchange, which is usually a nearby city/borough or unincorporated municipality. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be a preference to drop the unincorporated municipalities. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the unincorporated municipalities as they are more known to people. I would rather say the east end of the I-76 concurrency is near Valley Forge than in Upper Merion Township as the former location's name is more well known to motorists. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Expansion of emergency systems wouldn't hurt. Right now it's a lone paragraph that also needs some sentences merged to make sense and not have awkward cutoffs. Radio broadcasts also suffer from the same shrimpiness problem. I would look into merging them and expanding on it considering they are similar.
I would not be opposed to combining the emergency systems and radio broadcasts sections as they are both short. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
My condition is that you expand on them. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Expanded and merged. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Exit 352: Is STREET ROAD the actual interchange name. I know from personal experience the exit has no name.
The turnpike lists Street Road as the exit name in the toll calculator and toll book. It has been practice on new signage for the slip ramps to not include the formal interchange name. Despite this, we should continue to include the name indicated in the toll calculator and toll book. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Source should be next to the name then.Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Added source. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
All the Dakelman sources if possible should have Neil Schorr's name on it.
I just included Dakelman in the footnotes since he is the first author listed. I have seen other example of footnotes for books with multiple authors that only listed the first author. However, I would not be opposed to changing the footnotes to say "Dakelman and Schorr". Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
They worked equally, and I am basing on personal knowledge of one of the two authors, on the book.Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Changed footnotes to read "Dakelman and Schorr". Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
New York Times citation formatting is very inconsistent. Please keep to one format (see Refs 207 and 208 as an example of the problem.)
The reason for the formatting inconsistencies is that the template generates the date in a different place depending on whether or not there is an author for the article. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Location, location, location. There is no consistency here whatsoever when it comes to use of locations in citations.
The infobox and route description use location based on proximity to incorporated towns and unincorporated places to give people an idea with familiar place names. The exit list uses cities, boroughs, and townships as it is standard to use the exact municipality here. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. I want the citations consistent, not use throughout the article. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the locations in citations, newspaper articles only have a location specified if the location is not in the title of the newspaper. Otherwise I felt it was redundant to have the location specified if it was already mentioned in the newspaper title. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is the PennDOT wikilink in Citation 350? It should be in Citation 2.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Please check for consistency of this Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Checked. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
What is citation 3 media-wise? (book, pamphet, what?)
Book. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Make sure that's noted. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not know if there is a parameter in {{cite book}} that can specify this source is a book. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This is optional, but I'd make this 3 columns of a reference list. 2 columns of 175 is a bit much.
Done. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Exit 25A became exit 20? What is this?
Exit 20 is based on the milepost on I-476 since Mid-County is a mainline toll plaza on I-476. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
A section could be considered on EZ-Pass ramps considering Exit 320 opened last week.
Split slip ramps into new section. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Expand on the opening please. How many people were there? Any politicians?
As mentioned, there was not a formal ribbon cutting or ceremony as the road opened on short notice. Basically all that happened was motorists lined up to enter the new road at midnight. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Why was the concrete failing in 1954? What led up to this?
Added. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would move around design and construction considering I feel they read backwards.
Switched order. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Any update on the St. John's stairs?
Nope, the stairs still exist. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
According to what? The article writes without update. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have not seen any newspaper articles about the steps being removed since the newspaper article was published. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Added updated source on removal of steps. Dough 48 72 03:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Why 3di mileposts in the infobox? Nowhere else in PA do we use this.
The GIS data for Pennsylvania can get mileposts out to several decimal places. I figured to go out to 3 since that is a good standard used in other states. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Repeat, we've never done that anywhere else in PA. The most is 1 or 2di, which is what should be a general rule for every other article in PA (mainly 2di as a preference). Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Narrowed down to 2di. Dough 48 72 01:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I would please check for WP:OVERLINK as a precaution using the general rule that one use after the first to guide the reader is your basis.
I tried to avoid mentioning links more than once in the article. In Fredddie's review, I removed several redundant wikilinks in the exit list. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As much as it might not be the best thing for the article, an "In popular culture" section might be useful here.
I think this section would be too trivial for the article. These sections are frowned upon in other road articles. Dough 48 72 17:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would look into it anyway. There is stuff talking about it. This isn't just a two lane road. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I find this comment quite ridiculous. --Rs chen 7754 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just some random thoughts for now. Will have more later. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 05:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing on:

What were the initial projections for revenue in 1940?
A little more specific on the Philadelphia extension's groundbreaking locale. York County is rather broad.
The source only says York County. However, the turnpike passes through only Fairview Township in York County. Dough 48 72 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Groundbreaking for the Gateway–Irwin section needs expansion please.
I've never heard of Edgely, PA, and I've been through there a lot, I'd highly suggest clarifying it's location.
I would expand on design (mathematics and schematics) of the tunnel entranceways. They went through some radical revamps in the 1960s.
New Stanton is missing cost, what type of interchange it was and is (not grade-separated mind you.)
How significant (in numbers) were the difference with the I-80 opening?
How was the anniversary noted? $300,000 is very vague.
Cost for the Irwin–Carlisle reconstruction?
I-79 interchange design? Cost?
What were the costs on the original decking of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel changes in 2001?
How is it deteriorating? Also the sentence this is attached to reads rather awkwardly.
Why was the widening pushed back a year?
I would make sure that the exit numbers are mentioned in the slip ramps section.
Added exit numbers. Dough 48 72 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Weren't services areas demolished for the new interchange or is that area I see on I-276 west just openings for the interchange construction?
Clarification, what happened to those service areas?Mitch32^{(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.)} 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Neshaminy service plazas were closed and demolished to allow for the Street Road slip ramp to be built along with widening the roadway to six lanes. This is mentioned in the service plaza section. Dough 48 72 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Any updates on the Norristown ramps?
Nope. Dough 48 72 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
According to whom? Did you look? Mitch32^{(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.)} 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There have not been any newspaper articles that have mentioned the project since then and the project site has no updates since then. Dough 48 72 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused on what you mean above by why Exit 20 is present at 476. Shouldn't this be using 276's numbering?
Exit 20 is the Mid-County toll plaza, which serves as both an exit off the mainline turnpike in addition to being a mainline toll plaza along the Northeast Extension. As it is located along the mainline of I-476, the toll plaza's number is based on the mileposts from that road, even in signage along the mainline turnpike. Dough 48 72 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There is signage for Exit 359 on the Exit 358 ramps heading towards the bridge. What does Exit 359 represent and why is it not covered in here?
Exit 359 is the number for the Delaware River Bridge toll plaza along the mainline turnpike. The exit number is not mentioned in the exit list since it is not an exit per se. Dough 48 72 02:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Gotta be mentioned somewhere. Mitch32^{(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.)} 19:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Added. Dough 48 72 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure I will find more. But here's more to handle. Also read above. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: it's clear that there is a strong consensus against promotion. ACR is not a peer review, and I have to wonder about the stability of the article when this many changes are happening to it that are related to comprehensiveness. I also have to wonder about the validity of any review that was conducted before such a substantial rewrite. Speaking for myself, I would feel uncomfortable ever supporting any article that was torn apart at the ACR stage like this article is; it's fairly easy for accidental errors to slip in with just a bunch of prose corrections, as I found out with my CA 56 ACR. I am also concerned with nominator's reluctance to work on the article; we are fairly understanding when real life gets in the way (such as the slowdown due to the holidays); however, that does not seem to be the case here. We expect nominators (and reviewers) to respond in a timely manner out of fairness to the nominators of other articles, and there is a lack of respect for that here.

Therefore, I'm proposing an early closure of this review, without prejudice for a renomination once the above issues are addressed. Speaking with my USRD "founder" hat on, I want to personally support every USRD editor who wants to get their first FA, and I know that other USRD editors feel this way. Speaking with my USRD "featured article writer" hat on, I don't think that this is a good choice for a writer's first FA, due to the broadness and complexity of the topic. I would recommend starting with a less complex road, bringing it through ACR and FA, repeating a few times, and then coming back to this. If there are no substantial objections I propose closing this on Friday sometime. --Rs chen 7754 06:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no objections from me. –Fredddie ™ 07:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would still like this review to remain open as I plan on returning to this article once I get back up to school later this month. Dough 48 72 22:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but my comments about stability still stand. --Rs chen 7754 08:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

To add to this, you can still work on the comments with the ACR closed. After addressing all of Mitchazenia's comments, we will probably need to re-check the prose again, which means that we will need to start over. In short, if Dough4872 is practically rewriting the article, we really need to start the review over. Feel free to bring this back once the issues above are dealt with. ACR is not a peer review. --Rs chen 7754 07:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead and close the review now. I will look at Fredddie and Mitchazenia's unresolved comments to fix the article and renominate at ACR once those issues are addressed. Dough 48 72 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

California State Route 52

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.

Review passed with three net support votes. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/California State Route 52/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: On March 19, 2011 I was at the opening of the final stretch of this highway, which took over fifty years to build. I have taken the time to complete the research for a road nearby where I lived for the last four years, and I believe that it can go to FAC.

Note: this article is unique compared to a lot of our FAs/GAs in that it cites no maps for the history and relies almost entirely on newspaper articles. I've never done an article like this before; if reviewers could give feedback on this and on the level of detail, that would be helpful.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 03:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 03:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

I intend on reviewing this article in the next few days. –Fredddie ™ 03:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

No opening date? No construction timeframe?
Done --Rs chen 7754 04:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, I could do without the construction dates in the infobox. Maybe we can work in some sort of summary/chart in the history section. –Fredddie ™ 16:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose? That seems nonstandard. --Rs chen 7754 08:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
How about a map showing the phases of construction in a different color? –Fredddie ™ 16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I can work on that later today. --Rs chen 7754 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Done and infobox parameter removed. --Rs chen 7754 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Each sentence seems to have "SR 52" as the subject. Well, yes, this is about SR 52, but a little variance would be nice.
Done
"through the northern part of the city of San Diego." Could we shorten that to "through northern San Diego"?
That could be misinterpreted; northern San Diego could mean North County San Diego. --Rs chen 7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Passes is used in quick succession.
Done --Rs chen 7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think "It took over fifty years for SR 52 to be built, ..." would be better served lower in the paragraph, but I'm not sure where. Start out the second paragraph with "Plans for a route between La Jolla and Santee date back to 1959."
Done --Rs chen 7754 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"With the" used in quick succession.
Done --Rs chen 7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is the bird still endangered? Maybe change it to "over the endangered Least Bell's Vireo songbird, which faced habitat destruction, ..."
Done --Rs chen 7754 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"The road to Mission Gorge Road opened in 1993, ..." sounds like it's a connector road from SR 52 to Mission Gorge.
Done --Rs chen 7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to come –Fredddie ™ 03:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

All addressed. --Rs chen 7754 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Route description

"...as the La Jolla Parkway"?
See below. --Rs chen 7754 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The next sentence, "The road becomes a freeway as it intersects with I-5 before entering San Clemente Canyon, designated as Marian Bear Memorial Natural Park.[2]" seems oddly constructed. I don't like the dependent clause tacked onto the back. Let's rearrange it and make the clause a new sentence. How does this sound? "Before entering San Clemente Canyon, the road becomes a freeway as it intersects with I-5. The canyon is designated as Marian Bear Natural Park.[2]"
Done --Rs chen 7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not an issue, but is it bad that any time I see a number, 90 million years in this case, I want to use {{Convert}}? :)
In the lead, you should probably define the abbreviation to the marine base. I had to look it up.
Done --Rs chen 7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the recycling center relevant to the highway? I'm not asking for it to be removed, just curious.
It's pretty significant; only point of interest in that area, and relates to the history. At some point, there were actually offramps right to the landfill from the freeway, but I wasn't able to source that well enough. --Rs chen 7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You mention the age of rocks a lot. Are they visible from the highway?
Eastern part, yes, the road is carved out of them. Middle part: Done Western part, the article does not say. --Rs chen 7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
"...traveling through open areas in MCAS Miramar until past I-15.[2]" I'm not entirely sure you need this part of the sentence since you start the next paragraph with roughly the same thing.
Do you have the elevation of Fortuna Mountain?
Not sure where I would get that information sourced reliably; I believe it's on the sign though. --Rs chen 7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Done --Rs chen 7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever seen a bike path that wasn't bi-directional? That detail seems silly here.
Not necessarily; bike lanes might not be bi-directional, and there could be two paths, one on each side of the freeway. --Rs chen 7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't like interchange as a verb here. Traffic can interchange, but roads cannot.
Done --Rs chen 7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Didn't you say SR 52 was the La Jolla Parkway in the first sentence? Why isn't it included at the end?
It's actually not; clarified first sentence. --Rs chen 7754 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

More to come. –Fredddie ™ 16:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What about #6? –Fredddie ™ 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My bad, rushing to get out the door this morning. Done now. --Rs chen 7754 08:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, again. --Rs chen 7754 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

History

I know you prefer "constructed" to "built" and other verbs, but you used construct(ed|ion) 36 times and buil(d|t) 11 times in the history section alone. Thesaurus time!
Yes, but it's a 2548 word history section; both of those combined make up about 2% of the history. Changed one of the constructed to built. If you can point to specific places where one word is overused, I'll fix it, but otherwise I don't see a problem. --Rs chen 7754 09:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"A ramp from I-5 southbound to Ardath Road westbound..." Southbound and westbound are adjectives, so they should come before their nouns.
Done --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
In that sentence, instead of calling it "a cliff" you should mention that Ardath Road was considerably higher than I-5 and cite it to a topography map.
"The San Clemente Canyon Road was completed in 1967, ..." were you going to say something else but changed your mind? "The" seems out of place.
Done --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The sentence about the dirt dumping should be revised so it reads like the dumping took place first and then were ordered to remove it later.
Done but it sounds a bit awkward, and "dumped dirt" too colloquial. --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Was I-805 actually dedicated on March 20, 1972, or just scheduled?
Scheduled. Unfortunately, March 20 falls into a gap in the newspaper archives. --Rs chen

7754 03:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Iowa DOT had a brochure for the 40th and 50th anniversaries of the Interstate that listed all the dates the 10 routes here were opened. I was hoping Caltrans had something similar, but if they do, it's not online. All but one of the hits for "I-805 March 20, 1972" are enwp or AARoads. –Fredddie ™ 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you surround the inflation numbers with {{Formatprice}}? I ask because "about $25000 today" has no number separator.
Yes, but I'm not familiar with how to fix it. --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Turns out we needed the parser function {{formatnum}} instead. Fixed it myself. –Fredddie ™ 04:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you think "The second phase of SR 52 from I-805 to 1.1 miles (1.8 km) past I-15 (then U.S. Route 395)..." would sound better if I-15 and US 395 were flipped?
Done --Rs chen 7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You should also mention when it became I-15. Maybe not an exact date, but a mention in transition can't hurt.
Done Cited when it legally switched over; further details are for the I-15 CA article. --Rs chen 7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"The governor at the time, Jerry Brown, ..." talking about Governors Deukmejian and Brown in close proximity like that sounds kind of like both were governor at the same time. Just asking for a little more clarity here. Maybe mention what year it was in the sentence I quoted.
Changed; what makes it more odd is that Jerry Brown came back to be the governor. --Rs chen 7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the MTS or SANDAG acronyms, shouldn't you define them first? Yes, I know I could just click the wikilinks.
Done --Rs chen 7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"As the highway was constructed on top of the Miramar Landfill, trash settling results in dips in the freeway, such as one in May 2007 that raised safety concerns. After a story on May 9, 2007 in The San Diego Union-Tribune generated complaints to Caltrans, the dip was repaired overnight.[39][40]"
I would revise this by introducing the dips with the newspaper article. Then mention it was built over a landfill, and subsequently fixed by Caltrans. I started doing it, but I couldn't get wording I liked.
Done --Rs chen 7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Went back and fixed a tense. –Fredddie ™ 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"By April 1985, a second route along Prospect Avenue was proposed by Caltrans, and earned the support of the City Council.[43]" You could change it to "By April 1985, a second route along Prospect Avenue proposed by Caltrans earned the support of City Council.[43]" It changes the action from proposing the route to earning support, which I think is the more relevant action since you're talking about the city of Santee in this paragraph.
Done --Rs chen 7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure you need to use the definite article every time you mention City Council.
Cleaned up a few references. --Rs chen 7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
However, if you talk about cities as corporate entities, they should be City of Santee (for example).
Done --Rs chen 7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"Residents" instead of "citizens" of Santee?
Done --Rs chen 7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the L in "least Bell's Vireo" be capitalized?
Done --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the picture be moved down closer to where you talk about the birds?
Done --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"SANDAG voted against building a full bicycle lane along the route in July 1989, citing the high costs.[70]" This seems out of place. Is there a better spot for it?
Same with the military building a fence. Odd juxtapositions.
With both of those, I've organized the history geographically, so that is the most logical place (same with the widening earlier). --Rs chen 7754 06:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
How did El Niño delay, well, I'm not sure what it delayed?
Clarified. --Rs chen 7754 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Mobile homes are just that. Did you mean to say "sixty were occupied by mobile homes"?
Done --Rs chen 7754 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You should inflate the $525 million figure.
Done --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Undone, apparently it's the same due to rounding. --Rs chen 7754 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Future

Something is not quite right with this paragraph, but I can't figure it out. Maybe someone else will find something.

Exit list

Are we waiting for CALNEXUS to give us mileposts from SR 125 to SR 67?
Yes; I checked on the latest edition, which came out since they opened it, and still nothing. Sigh... --Rs chen 7754 02:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, this should complete my review. Nice work. –Fredddie ™ 02:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

All done, or replied to. --Rs chen 7754 09:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We still need to find out for sure if that March 20, 1972, date is official. But since we're at the mercy of our sources, I'm not going to hold up the review for that. I'll support. –Fredddie ™ 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dough 48 72 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Dough4872

I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for ACR:

Why is San Diego not linked in the infobox but Santee is?
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
"in the US state of California in San Diego County", suggest reordering.
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
"and the San Clemente Canyon Road serving as an early predecessor", what is this supposed to mean?
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "The extension to Mission Gorge Road opened in 1993, and opened all the way to SR 125 in 1998." could use rewording. I would suggest changing one of the instances of "opened".
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of instances of "SR 52" in the route description. Can some of them be changed?
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
"California senators Pete Wilson and Alan Cranston", are these state senators or U.S. senators?
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
"$2,000 (about $4.04 thousand today)" is there a better way for the conversion? $4.04 thousand sounds awkward.
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
"$23 million (about $32.2 million today) was allocated by SANDAG in 1999 to purchase properties needed for the right of way." is there a way to not begin the sentence with a numeral?
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
" Over 360 properties had to be acquired in order for the freeway to be built; at least sixty properties were occupied by mobile homes" inconsistent way of writing numbers. I would recommend changing the sixty to 60. Dough 48 72 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Done --Rs chen 7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Support - The article looks good now. Dough 48 72 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by Viridiscalculus

I intend to review this article starting in the next few days. V C 18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize it took me way more than a few days to get this review going. I will start with the infobox, Lead, and Route description. V C 01:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I think it would look cleaner to put the two freeway names on separate lines rather than separated with a comma. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 05:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I see a lot of comma issues. I will come back to those when I do my final sweep.
- Adjusted a few, but everything looks good to me... --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I would clarify that La Jolla is a section of the city of San Diego, not a separate municipality. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"Construction began in 1966 with the I-5 interchange to La Jolla, and the construction of the San Clemente Canyon Road." Change "with" to "from"; also, try to avoid using "construction" twice in the same sentence. Done
- Adjusted. --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"The freeway was complete all the way to I-805 in 1970" The term "all the way" suggests a long distance instead of 3 1/2 miles. I would replace it with "east", which also helps orient the reader. Done
- Adjusted. --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"The extension to Mission Gorge Road opened in 1993, and completed all the way to SR 125 in 1998." The second clause of this sentence lacks a subject. Done
- Adjusted wording. --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  - It is unclear what the subject of the second "was," in the part about SR 125, is. The only subject in the sentence is "the extension to Mission Gorge Road." V C 04:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
"over fifty years after construction began" Replace "over" with "more" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I may have more comments once I review the History section and check whether the Lead adequately summarizes the history.

Route description

I really like the geology/physical geography details. However, I think you should compile those details into a paragraph instead of having sporadic sentences. You will still need to have sporadic mentions of the geology for locations you can see stuff from the freeway, but an overarching paragraph would be more coherent for grouping the general details for the reader. Done
- I'm not exactly sold on this, since this would not group all the geology/physical geography details together because of the roadside landmarks. --Rs chen 7754
  - Fair enough. There is not as much material as I initially thought there was, so it may be better as is. V C 04:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
"intersects with I-5" remove "with" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"The freeway is just north of" Change to "the freeway runs just north of" or some similar action verb. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"Rose Canyon Fault that forms Mount Soledad" I do not think this sentence is geologically correct. Done
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"Late Cretaceous rock that is estimated at 90 million years old." Replace "at" with "to be" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"SR 52 intersects SR 163, a freeway heading towards downtown San Diego." SR 163 heads both north and south from SR 52. The sentence implies the freeway only heads in one direction. I understand there is no access from SR 52 to northbound SR 163, but you should explain the interchange better. Done
- Well, just north of there is the terminus with I-15, so it would be redundant. ~-Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  - I am not crazy about it, but I cannot think of a better way to phrase it. V C 16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
"SR 52 has an exit with Kearny Villa Road" Change "exit" to "interchange" or "junction" or something like that. There is another problematic use of "exit" later with regards to Santo Road. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"...Pliocene sedimentary rocks that are estimated to be 10 million years old, visible from the freeway." I would adjust this to say "...Pliocene sedimentary rocks estimated to be 10 million years old that are visible from the freeway." Also, this sentence should not be in the middle of the paragraph because SR 163, Kearny Villa, and I-15 interchanges are intertwined; you should mention the intertwining. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  - The above is done, but I noticed "traveling through open areas in MCAS Miramar" after the I-15 reference. That sounds awkward to me. Would you be able to combine it with the earlier Miramar reference? V C 16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Reordered the sentence. --Rs chen 7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
      - I still think the phrase is not appropriate, even though you removed the -ing construction. The freeway is in the middle of a set of interchanges here; the open area to which I think you are referring is east of the I-15 interchange or west of SR 163. I suggest removing the Miramar clause from the sentence entirely. Can you do that without losing anything important in the description? V C 18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
        Done. --Rs chen 7754 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"with an exit to Santo Road" The use of "with" implies the interchange is an afterthought. I would change "with" to "where the highway has" or "where there is" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"The freeway crosses the San Diego River and has an interchange with Mast Boulevard" One, these details are in the wrong order. Two, you make a passing reference to Mast Boulevard in the previous paragraph. I would make the full reference there and use a passing reference in the fourth paragraph, such as "East of Mast Boulevard, SR 52 crosses and begins to parallel the San Diego River." Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"SR 52 intersects with the northern end of SR 125, where traffic can continue south onto SR 125 or north onto Mission Gorge Road." This sentence is confusing. There are no ramps from SR 52 to northbound SR 125 to access SR 125's stub end at Mission Gorge Road. Rather, access from SR 52 to Mission Gorge Road is via half-diamond interchanges on either side of the SR 125 interchange, the second one indirectly via Fanita Drive. Done
- Adjusted. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  - There is still an "intersects with" in the selection. Also, there is "where SR 125 traffic can continue south onto SR 125". You should include Fanita Drive in this part of the RD because its interchange with SR 52 allows the freeway to access Mission Gorge Road. V C 16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Mmmph, not sure how I pulled that one off. Tried again. --Rs chen 7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
      - I would still bring Fanita Drive into the passage, but I am satisfied with how it is now. V C 18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph and fifth paragraphs are rather short. I would try to merge the fourth with the previous paragraph. I understand it would be hard to merge the fifth somewhere that makes sense. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 08:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Diff is here: [2] --Rs chen 7754 08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope to address your replies above later tonight. In the meantime, I started reviewing the History. V C 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Addressed remaining comments. There are a few concerns remaining. V C 16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed remaining issues. Not sure if you wanted to do this separately or with the stuff below, but here's the diff: [3] --Rs chen 7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thing and we are done with the Route description. V C 18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Route description fixes are done. V C 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

History

"However, SR 52 took over fifty years" Change "over" to "more than" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I-5 to I-805

"However, the ramps to San Clemente Canyon Road were not opened that day since aluminum guardrails" Change "since" to "because" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  - I still see "since." V C 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Hmm, that seems to be where my wifi crapped out and I closed the browser before saving. Done now. --Rs chen 7754 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Estimates indicated that residents of La Jolla would save 80 hours a year by using Ardath Road. A ramp from southbound I-5 to westbound Ardath Road was never completed because of a hairpin turn that would be necessary due to the towering cliff on the west side of I-5 that Ardath Road ascends as it continues to La Jolla.[18][19][20]" One, who estimated the time savings? Two, the second sentence sounds like synthesis. Did one of the two newspaper articles state why the ramp was never built? Three, ref 20 is a map reference, so it would not apply to the first sentence. Please be more specific in your citations at the ends of these two sentences. Done
- Source didn't say who gave the estimate. Shuffled some of the cites around, and removed 18 entirely as it wasn't necessary. --Rs chen 7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"On November 18, San Clemente Canyon Road was connected to I-5 when the aluminum guard rails arrived." You may want to add "installed" or similar after "arrived." Someone at FAC might be picky. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It took some thinking for me to figure out that San Clemente Canyon Road was the precursor to the freeway. It is not clear from the History whether the road predates the designation of the legislative route or whether it was built at that time. Was it a two-lane road? Please integrate these missing details into the part before you describe its upgrade to a freeway. Done
- Moved a sentence. I tried doing a separate search on this and came up with little. --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Prior to current ref 18, "The original goal was to connect the interchange with San Clemente Canyon Road, which served as a predecessor to SR 52 and and plans were to widen the road to four lanes and designate it as SR 52." This is a run-on sentence and it has a double "and." V C 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"In 1967, there was opposition expressed to the construction of the Soledad Freeway, because some citizens wanted the land to be used for a park, and because they did not view the freeway as "necessary"." One, who expressed opposition to the freeway? Two, whenever a quote ends a sentence, the end quotation mark should be outside the period. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  - "That year, citizens opposition expressed" It looks words like are in the wrong order. V C 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Formal bids began in February 1969 for the first section of SR 52 in between I-5 and I-805." The word "in" is not necessary prior to "between." Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason the dollar sign is wikilinked? Done
- Removed. --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There are no references for the 2012 inflation figures in this section and in later sections. Done
- FAC hasn't complained about it with CA 56, and it's considerably messy to have a cite that is unnecessary when it's assumed that it is calculated off the template. --Rs chen 7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  - That works for me. Hopefully this will not be an issue at FAC. V C 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I-805 to Santo Road

"however, construction did not begin for over ten years" in the first paragraph and "over 99 percent" in the third paragraph: Change "over" to "more than" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"On June 30, 1988, at 5:58 pm local time" The exact time seems like an unnecessary detail. Did anything extraordinary happen at or before that time? Like, the San Diego Chicken breaking through a wall or something crazy like that? Done
- I don't think it's overkill, personally. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  - I think it is overkill in the absence of any event that specifically occurred at that exact time or something that explains the timing. V C 20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Removed. --Rs chen 7754 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"A story on May 9, 2007 in The San Diego Union-Tribune generated complaints to Caltrans regarding dips in the freeway that raised safety concerns. As the highway was constructed on top of the Miramar Landfill, settling trash resulted in the dips. Following publication, the dip was repaired overnight."
I was skeptical, but you have the newspaper editions to back this up! The first and second sentences sounds awkward for causation reasons. The first sentence implies the dips raised safety concerns; it was the complainers (was it the newspaper staff or readers who wrote in?) who raised the concerns. The second sentence implies the settling trash caused the dips. I suggest: "In a story on May 9, 2007, The San Diego Union-Tribune raised safety concerns regardings dips in the freeway where it had been constructed on top of the Miramar Landfill. The dips, which were caused by settling trash, were repaired overnight by Caltrans." Done
- Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Planning for eastern portion

Inflation dollar values need to be referenced throughout this section. Done
- See comment above. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"By April 1985, a second route along Prospect Avenue, proposed by Caltrans, earned the support of the City Council;[45] however, there were concerns about the route requiring the demolition of many small businesses." There were concerns by whom? Done
- Rewrote sentence. --Rs chen 7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"In January 1987, the Santee City Council voted to commence a study of a more northern route, even though some believed that this would postpone construction." Who were these "some"? Done
- Added. --Rs chen 7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"In the same month, the mayor of La Mesa, Fred Nagel, started a petition drive supporting the extension of the freeway." La Mesa is not along the route of the freeway. Do you have any details on why Nagel supported the freeway through a neighboring city? Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
In June, the CTC staff..." I suggest putting the year after the month because this is a new paragraph and it may be helpful to remind the reader that we are still in 1987. Same goes for the beginning of the fourth paragraph. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"...regarding the San Diego River crossing, since construction might result..." Change "since" to "because" and remove the comma. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Other proposed routes considered by Caltrans included passing through a local golf course, which generated public opposition." Do you know the number of other proposed routes? Is this the golf course, Carlton Oaks, that is on the opposite side of the river from the built freeway? Done
- Added additional article and material. --Rs chen 7754 09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"There were concerns that the issue would affect the city council elections." Who had these concerns? Done
- Added. --Rs chen 7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"In March 1989, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to the project, on the conditions of altering the route to be east of the center of the town" The orientation is confusing. The freeway passes to the south of the center of Santee, right? Done
- Clarified. --Rs chen 7754 10:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  - I am still confused by "to cross the San Diego River east of the center of town." Does SR 53 cross the San Diego River at a place other than southeast of Mast Boulevard? V C 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Clarified again, not exactly. Any more and I'd be plagiarizing the source. --Rs chen 7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      - The sentence still does not make sense to me based on looking at a map, but I am not sure what to do. I will let FAC deal with it. V C 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Santo Road to Mission Gorge Road

"The military erected a fence in 2002 to block a deer tunnel underneath the freeway that led into the Marine base." Where was this tunnel located? Done
- Added a little, but the source wasn't too clear, and probably wasn't too clear due to WP:BEANS. --Rs chen 7754 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Understood regarding the beans. "Mission Trains Regional Park" sounds like an interesting place. V C 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Done. --Rs chen 7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify the exact endpoint of this new section? Did it end at the half-diamond interchange with Mission Gorge Road or some point to the west? Done
- Done, still need to add page/section numbers for new source. --Rs chen 7754 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Added. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"The new lane was opened on May 8, 2007" The word "was" is unnecessary. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mission Gorge Road to SR 67

"with many homeowners along the south side of Mission Gorge Road being forced to move out of the way of the freeway construction." Do you mean the north side of Mission Gorge Road? Done
- Clarified; it is south. --Rs chen 7754 00:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Twenty-three million dollars (about $32.2 million in 2012 dollars) was allocated by SANDAG" Passive voice. Changing to active voice also eliminates needing to spell out the cost. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"The work began in May 2006, but increasing construction costs were another challenge faced in 2007." Is this the work on Forester Creek? Clarify. Do the increasing costs refer to the creek work or highway work? These should be separate sentences if they are not related, or combine the second clause with the last sentence of the paragraph. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"taking money from a planned reversible lanes project on SR 52." Do you know for which stretch of SR 52 the project was planned? Done
- Future section explains this, but the source I found for this particular point doesn't specifically link the two. --Rs chen 7754 07:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Heavy construction" of SR 52 from SR 125 eastward to SR 67 began in February 2008, delayed by funding issues that were finally resolved in 2006 with voter-approved statewide transportation bonds." This reverse chronology is confusing. Can you rewrite the sentence to be forward chronological. It may be helpful to combine the budget woes of this sentence with those of the last two sentences of previous paragraph to make it flow forward chronologically. Done
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"Over 360 properties" Change "over" to "More than" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
"The official "ribbon cutting" ceremony took place on March 19, 2011 on the freeway at the Cuyamaca Street interchange (exit 17)." You should remove (exit 17) for consistency because you do not use exit numbers anywhere else in the prose. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
For the last paragraph, were there any reports on how traffic was impacted on I-8? You mention I-8 in the previous paragraph and follow up on all relevant routes except I-8. Done
- Did a check just now, and no. AADT doesn't have 2012 up yet, which would be the relevant date. --Rs chen 7754 10:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have finished reviewing the History section. V C 21:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It's the end of the quarter for me, so it might take me up to a week to get to this. --Rs chen 7754 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

All done. Diff (includes lead/RD changes round 2): [4] --Rs chen 7754 10:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, again. Diff: [5] --Rs chen 7754 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the History changes and there are still a few things left to resolve. I am also going to look through the References section, check images, and check the Lead again shortly. V C 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Should be good now. --Rs chen 7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

History is done! V C 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking

I intend to check the wikilinking when I do my final sweep. Do you have a particular scheme (once per article, once per section, once per subsection) I should keep in mind as I check for consistency? V C 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do once per article, not including the RJL or lead. BTW, did you know about User:Ucucha/duplinks.js? --Rs chen 7754 04:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Thanks. I did not know about the duplinks script. I will look into adding it before I do my wikilink review. I have reviewed the images and exit list. V C 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
There is only one duplicate wikilink noted from the duplinks script: San Diego is wikilinked twice in the Lead. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There are three redlinks: Fortuna Mountain, Political Reform Act, and TransNet. Are the latter two likely to ever be populated? If not, I would delink them. Done
- Regarding the second, I got the impression that it was quite a big deal from the source. The third should be as well, as it was a significant initiative. --Rs chen 7754 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  - I brought up Political Reform Act because it sounds so generic. I did a search and it does seem to be the primary topic should an article be created, so it can stay. However, you should provide context, something like "a 1974 act of the California Legislature that did X, Y, and Z." A search for TransNet mostly brought up Transnet, a South African company. TransNet as used here seems to be a county-level thing; I do not think it is notable enough for its own article. I recommend removing the link and providing context. V C 04:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    - Done. --Rs chen 7754 08:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Going back to the infobox, San Diego is linked once but Santee is linked twice. For consistency, either link each city once or link all of them. V C 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Images

The image at the top of the Route description has a very noticeable splotch in the center and several other minor splotches. Would it be possible to shop it? Done
- I can try, but my concern is the visible dashboard in the bottom. It is a fairly bad picture and I could consider replacing it. However, all of my photos are of the new portion... --Rs chen 7754 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  - My main concern is the splotches because they are easily seen without expanding the image. The dashboard is more subtle and will probably not cause a ruckus at FAC. Are you going to have a chance to get to San Diego anytime soon to take photos? V C 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    - I tried in September but couldn't find a good place to get off at (I'm the driver and generally don't want to take pictures on the road). Do any of the pictures at [6] look good, or should I try and fix the one we have? --Rs chen 7754 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      - The ones you have are all of the opening of the eastern end. You should try to fix the splotchy one. V C 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
        Okay, I've removed the splotch in the center portion of the sky. I've also cropped the worst of the splotching out near the edges. --Rs chen 7754 21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
In the caption of the construction progress map, the route should be abbreviated SR 52 for consistency. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In the caption of the Bell's Vireo, "least" should be capitalized, right? Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The images look fine with regard to copyright, but maybe someone else should have a look to confirm.

Exit list

There are several links in the Destinations column that redirect to other articles in ways that are redundant or misleading. To wit:
- La Jolla Parkway redirects to Southern California freeways
- San Diego Freeway redirects to Interstate 5 in California
- Convoy Street redirects to Kearny Mesa, San Diego
- Cabrillo Freeway redirects to California State Route 163
- Escondido Freeway goes to a disambiguation page.
The last one can probably stay as is in case someone changes the dab page to an article on the freeway. However, the others should be delinked or changed to something that makes more sense. Done
- All pulled. Don't want to encourage further forks of the same article. Unfortunately, a lot of the CA pages are like this thanks to AL2TB. --Rs chen 7754 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  - All replied to. --Rs chen 7754 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Future

"Caltrans recommends adding two more lanes in between I-5 and I-805" Remove "in" before "between" Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Ref 2 needs an en dash instead of hyphen in the page range. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ref 3 needs a page number. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Still needs a page number. V C 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Crud, added it to the wrong reference. Fixed now. --Rs chen 7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
In Ref 13, use pp. instead of p. because you have multiple pages. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
You use MDY format for dates in most references, but DMY is used in Ref 19, Ref 73, and Ref 102. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Many of the newspaper references that do not have an author are in one format and the ones with authors are in another format. When you do not know an author, you should use "Staff." That may solve the problem.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Ref 34 still needs to be altered. Ref 34 also lacks "The" in the newspaper name; you use "The" in other instances of The San Diego Union. V C 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Another newspaper inconsistency is capitalization in article titles. Some titles are in sentence case (only first word and proper nouns) and some are title case (all words except and, with, etc.). Either capitalization scheme is fine, but you should use one scheme and stick with it. Done
- I'm generally going off how the article capitalizes it. --Rs chen 7754 02:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  - You are allowed to alter capitalization to fit the appropriate style when you are transcribing titles. The MOS implies you can use either scheme, but you should keep it consistent. V C 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Not convinced that the citations need to be that consistent. Nobody's said anything at the CA 56 FAC. --Rs chen 7754 03:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
      - I think they should all be in the same format, but I will kick the issue to FAC. V C 22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ref 21 is missing an OCLC number. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OCLC is wikilinked in most of the references. Is it the template that does that or can the wikilinking be turned off in all but one of them? Done
- That is the template. --Rs chen 7754 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Google Inc. is wikilinked, unlike all other sources that can be wikilinked like the newspapers. I do not have a problem with this, but this is something that someone may complain about at FAC. Done
- That is also the template. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ref 30 has an extra space in the article title. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
In Ref 58, is page II4 (eye eye four) correct? Done
- Yes, this is correct. --Rs chen 7754 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ref 80 should have a non-breaking space in Dec. 16. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There is an extra space in the title in Ref 100. Done
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
In Ref 112, you set the author's initials without periods. You should insert periods because you use them in initials elsewhere. Done
- The source actually uses them without periods in this case. --Rs chen 7754 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  - I realize that, but the MOS says to use periods after initials. V C 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Spellcheck

I dropped the text into MS Word to run spellcheck, and I found the following errors:
- Genesee has an extra 's' in one or two of the uses in the Route description. Done
  - Still an extra 's' out in the wild. V C 14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    - Done, again. --Rs chen 7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is an instance of "report report" under Planning for eastern portion. Done
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Course" is misspelled in Ref 67. Done
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- The author's last name is misspelled in either Ref 71 or Ref 72. Done
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 02:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I will be out of town December 23–26. I will have computer access, but I will be slower to respond. V C 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- All done. [7] --Rs chen 7754 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Done, again. --Rs chen 7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead revisited

I do not have any specific comments, but I do have a general one. This Lead seems short and unbalanced compared to the rest of the article. This article has a short to medium-sized Route description and a long History, yet the paragraph in the Lead that summarizes the history is not much longer than the first one. Someone may complain about this at FAC. Can you try to expand the history part of the Lead? V C 19:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Done
- Added more. --Rs chen 7754 01:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  - Looks better. I think more can be added, but it is mostly a perception thing. I am not sure how a four-line second paragraph will fly. I know I am not being very helpful, so I will check this off and let you reflect on it before you send this to FAC. V C 04:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. I did some copyediting before I hit Support. Please check to make sure I did not adversely affect anything. Great job! V C 02:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: seems like this article is pending VC's review, an image review, and a spotcheck before promotion. --Rs chen 7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Image review

File:California 52.svg - Shield released as PD by Caltrans.
File:California State Route 52.svg - CC-BY-SA 3.0 by author, has GIS data.
File:California state route 52.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0 by author.
File:California State Route 52 history.svg - CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 by author, has GIS data.
File:BellsvireoF1.jpg - Released into PD by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
File:CA SR 52 Opening.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0 by author.

Images check out good. Dough 48 72 03:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TC N7 JM

Spotcheck

I'll do the spotcheck. It should be done either tonight or tomorrow. –TC N7 JM 02:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Source 40 (Bus transport feedback): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 41 (Problem with dips): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 42 (Dip repaired overnight): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 43 (Initial eastern portion planning): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 44 (Santee opposes plans): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 45 (Prospect route supported): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 46 (Petitioning the route): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 47 (River route is more costly): One word added to sentence for verifiability, no plagiarism
Source 48 (Town Center development): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 49 (Lakeside): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 50 (FHWA dislikes report): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 51 (Santee OK's northern study): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 52 (Route 52 study results): Verifiable, no plagiarism (only copied words are in quotes)
Source 53 (Route 52 decision near): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 54 (La Mesa): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 55 (Price comparison): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 56 (El Cajon): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 57 ("Outdated" report): Verifiable, no plagiarism ("outdated" is used in quotes)
Source 58 (CTC gets petitions): Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 59 (Funding for Route 52 opposed): Verifiable, no plagiarism

There, that's twenty sources. Should be enough, no? Well, great job!

Support –TC N7 JM 16:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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.

California State Route 282

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—Imzadi 1979 → 15:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This is an article about a 0.691 mile road, but there is a lot of information available on it. I don't know if this can go to FAC, but I figure that since it's longer than some of our current A-class articles, this can get a final review here too.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 05:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 06:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments. This looks pretty substantial for a 0.691 mile road. Let's see what we can find here.
- Lead looks pretty short. I know it's a challenge writing a lead for such a short road, since you want to leave some new information for the article body. But I'm accustomed to seeing multiple paragraphs here, at least one for each section. Split the history part of the lead into its own paragraph, and then find a way to expand the first paragraph with r/d information.
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- SR 282 begins at Alameda Boulevard as a one-way couplet, where McCain Boulevard continues west from the Fourth Street intersection from Alameda Boulevard into Naval Air Station North Island. The way this sentence is structured makes it hard to follow; my eyes sorta glazed over halfway through and I lost track of what boulevard was going where. At the very least, needs some sort of punctuation to make the meaning clearer. Better yet, split it into two simpler sentences.
  - Clarified. --Rs chen 7754 06:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Third and Fourth Streets continue through the intersections of J Avenue, I Avenue, Palm Avenue, H Avenue, G Avenue, F Avenue, E Avenue, and D Avenue, passing by homes along the way. I'm not gonna lie, this just screams filler. Are all of these avenues really important enough to mention? If so, consider collapsing the list into saying Palm Avenue and Avenues D through J. Or ..continue through several intersections, including [insert most important intersections here]. I have never really cared for the phrase passing by homes, homes is pretentious and houses (the physical buildings) is what you really mean, but better yet, just say it passes through a residential area. Instead of the intersections of, perhaps intersections with would be a cleaner phrasing.
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 06:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of History is interesting but doesn't express how any of this is connected to SR 282 very well. Try to find a way to make it less tangenty.
  - Third and Fourth Streets are what the route is on. --Rs chen 7754 06:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- SR 282 was initially designated in 1967 from SR 75 to the Naval Air Station entirely along Fourth Street, instead, try SR 282 was initially designated in 1967 along Fourth Street from SR 75 to the Naval Air Station.
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- [...]it was not to be official until the San Diego–Coronado Bridge was completed. How can a designation be unofficial? Do you mean that it simply didn't take effect until that date?
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to do some compare/contrast to the initial designation of the highway compared to its present-day routing. If it's the same, mention it. If it's not, what's different?
  - Added a little bit. --Rs chen 7754 07:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This is most of the way there, just needs some polishing, as listed above, to shine. I'm sure I'll be back in a few days to support. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- All done. --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  - Someone wants their article recognition points for round one of the Cup. Nice work, I'll support. Though, if you have time, the map should be redone; it lacks context. Include an inset showing where in CA this map is located, or label cities. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough 48 72 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"It is a spur from SR 75 and connects traffic between the city of Coronado and Naval Air Station North Island.", "connects traffic" does not sound right.
I would split the sentence "In September, the City of Coronado added Third Street as a truck route going westbound to the base, in addition to the already-existing Fourth Street truck route leaving the base; by this time, SR 282 had shifted to become a one-way couplet of Third and Fourth streets" at the semicolon.
I would suggest adding shields and labels to the map.

Overall, decent article. Dough 48 72 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 23:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I will now support the article. Dough 48 72 23:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by TCN7JM

This is a pretty short article, I think I can handle it. –TC N7 JM 16:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The road is part of a link connecting to the metropolitan area of San Diego via SR 75 and the Coronado Bay Bridge. From where?
- From Coronado, as mentioned in the last sentence. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Attempts to build first a highway and later, a tunnel, to allow base traffic to bypass the Coronado city streets were rejected by voters in 1974 and 2010, respectively. The first comma doesn't really make any sense where it's at. Honestly, I'd put it in front of and later.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
continues west from the Fourth Street intersection from Alameda Boulevard – Maybe change the second usage of "from" to "with"? I got a little confused.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The intersection of Third Street and Orange Avenue dates back from at least 1890. I'd change "from" to "to" unless you're implying that 1890 is the latest date.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Second paragraph of the history uses "however" in two straight sentences. Doesn't read very well.
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Postmile references are out of numerical order.
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's gonna be it! –TC N7 JM 23:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then. You've earned my support. –TC N7 JM 04:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Image check by TCN7JM

I am also doing an image check. –TC N7 JM 03:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:California 282.svg – Good!
File:California State Route 282 cropped.svg – Good!
File:CA282Coronado.JPG – Good!

Images are fine! –TC N7 JM 03:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Fredddie

Just a few things.

Since the route is a one-way couplet, the KML looks weird because it splits the two. Maybe show each direction?
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe mention it's entirely within the Coronado city limits in the first sentence?
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It spurs off of SR 75" or "It is a spur route of SR 75".
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Connects NAS North Island to the state highway system would be more correct, no?
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
"Attempts to build first a highway and later, a tunnel, to allow base traffic to bypass the Coronado city streets, were rejected by voters in 1974 and 2010, respectively."
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is Alameda Blvd considered part of SR 282? If so, the KML should reflect that, too. If not, that AADT figure can be pulled.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
"Coronado began to pave much of its street system in the early 1910s." The City of Coronado workers? Workers? The city itself can't do anything :P
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall, not bad! –Fredddie ™ 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I support. –Fredddie ™ 04:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by SounderBruce

Ref 8: "Will Grade and Pave Coronado Streets" (The San Diego Union and Daily Bee) - I'd like to see where the article/city guide/profile mentions the intersection of Third Street and Orange Avenue
- Confirmed
Ref 9: "Coronado Trustees Plan Opening of Bay Boulevard" (The San Diego Union and Daily Bee) - Using "decomposed granite and oil" as a surface sounds interesting
- Confirmed
Ref 12: "Bay Span Route Added To State Highway Net" (The San Diego Union/Copley News Service)
- Confirmed
Ref 15: "Council Shifts North Island Truck Route" (The San Diego Union)
- Confirmed
Ref 16: "Coronado's Traffic An Issue" (The San Diego Union)
- Confirmed: "At the shoreline, a number of things could happen under the concept. The highway could empty into First Street, which would carry traffic into North Island's First Street gate."
Ref 20: "Heading for the gate: Navy base's new entry expected to ease traffic flow, improve security" (The San Diego Union-Tribune)
- Confirmed: "The traffic pattern heading into North Island Naval Air Station, one of the county's largest employers, is set to change tomorrow when a new main gate opens off Third Street."

Looks good. Support Sounder Bruce 02:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

Interstate 96

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 article has been promoted. T C N7JM 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Interstate 96/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Continuing the theme of improving the coverage of the highways of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (hey, the UP is pretty much done), I present I-96. It's Michigan's lone intrastate two-digit Interstate, and the only 2dI in Michigan that doesn't terminate at the Canadian border. Oh, and it was the last/current WP:USRD/AID article.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 05:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 08:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I plan to review this article. --Rs chen 7754 08:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Map

I'm not going to make either of these essential for a support, but my thoughts:

The text labels are too small.
Shields would be nice, but it might obscure too much. (a la California State Route 56)
- I'll see what I can do. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

RJL

Exit 1 - why not split into 1A and 1B? It seems a bit awkward right now.
- Because MOS:RJL has specified that if the A and B are a single interchange not to split it. 1A and 1B are the rams in a modified cloverleaf and 1C is a secondary ramp on EB I-96 just past the cloverleaf. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  - I still think that looks awkward, but not going to hold the ACR up over it. --Rs chen 7754 18:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Emergency US 31 should redirect to the specific route.
- Fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Originates -> originated?
2nd paragraph, sentence 2 and 3 both start with It.
Comma after since then
- All changed/tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS check

No OTRS images.

I haven't been doing the minor copyedits myself since I'm doing so many reviews and don't have time to fix; apologies. --Rs chen 7754 09:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Route description

Intro fine. --Rs chen 7754 19:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Muskegon to Grand Rapids

What's a three-quarter cloverleaf interchange?
crosses in-> crosses into?
I-96 has curved... seems awkward. --Rs chen 7754 02:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Tweaks applied. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Grand Rapids to Brighton

crosses into Livingston County - lost a period
to Grand River-> to the Grand River?
takes on ... subdivisions... awkward. --Rs chen 7754 03:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Another round of c/e. Imzadi 1979 → 03:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Metro Detroit

Spaghetti Bowl probably needs a source.
I'm concerned about the FHWA source that is used to back up the FHWA statement. Does a mileage verify this?
loops over? --Rs chen 7754 05:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Another c/e job done, and a note added. Imzadi 1979 → 06:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Beginnings

Grand River Road. - should have comma after
It became M-16 in 1919 - framing issue
Reference 32 is incomplete. --Rs chen 7754 07:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Nothing to say for 2.2.

Subsequent history

Entire first paragraph uncited.
and the first on I-96 - missing period
approved for construction?
End of review. --Rs chen 7754 07:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cites added, and other tweaks applied. As mentioned elsewhere, the Herrick District Library in Holland, Michigan, has been contacted regarding the various articles from the Holland Evening Sentinel. Imzadi 1979 → 08:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support noting that I need to check again regarding the cites at FAC time. --Rs chen 7754 08:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

- Oppose nonstandard sniper section does not belong. --Rs chen 7754 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Conditional support iff the nonstandard sniper section is not present. --Rs chen 7754 23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dough 48 72 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dough4872

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

In the lead, is it necessary to spell out "US Highway 31" twice. After defining it once, I do not see why you can't abbreviate for the business route.
The sentence "I-96 has curved to the east through these interchanges and then turns back southward after them." needs to be reworded. It should not use the past tense and "then" does not need to be used.
It would help if more pictures of the road could be added, particularly from outside the Detroit area. Dough 48 72 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dough, please wait to complete a review until after any pending ones are completed. You've done this quite a few times now, and it's annoying to the other reviewers and nominator. --Rs chen 7754 08:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Changed.
Already done for the other reviewer.
In progress. File:Interstate 96 and Sternberg Road.jpg was added earlier, and I'm just waiting on what I hope will be additional license changes by other Flickr users. Imzadi 1979 → 08:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Support - Great article. Dough 48 72 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Image check by Fredddie

Doing something a little different and doing an image check. First off, I know alt text isn't required, but someone is bound to complain that there are red boxes on the alt text checker page. –Fredddie ™ 03:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

File:I-96.svg - OK (PD), should be PD-MUTCD, though
File:Interstate 96 map.png - OK (PD by author)
File:Interstate 96 and Sternberg Road.jpg - OK (CC-BY 2.0)
File:WZZM 13 Weatherball.jpg - OK (PD by author)
File:I-96 and I-496, Lansing.jpg - OK (CC-BY 2.0, OTRS)
File:I-96 and I-69 south split Lansing.jpg - OK (CC-BY 2.0)
File:Mixing Bowl Interchange (Novi, Michigan).png - OK (PD), it may behoove us to have that link in the description point to the same overhead shot
File:DavisonExit.JPG - OK (PD by author)
File:Interstate Highway plan June 27, 1958 (MI).jpg Might want to double check the source (currently "AASHO?"). I don't doubt that it's US-government produced, but we can use a more specific license than this one.
- This is sufficiently fixed for me. –Fredddie ™
File:Interstate 96 E-L at M-39.jpg - OK (CC-BY-SA 2.0)
File:36th Street exit Grand Rapids I-96.jpg - OK (PD by author)
Portal icons OK
- All updated save ALT text. I'll get to that later. Imzadi 1979 → 04:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. Images look good. –Fredddie ™ 04:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please go through and change all currently / today / recently / however per the CA 56 FAC. --Rs chen 7754 06:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy's paranoia about the words notwithstanding, "currently" appears once in a paragraph talking about a recently approved interchange that is being added, so the whole paragraph is already "time bound" as to when the information applies. There is a "however", and it's appropriately used to convey juxtaposition with a previous statement. Both are fine, and neither need to be changed. Imzadi 1979 → 15:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: this review needs 1 more support and a spotcheck before promotion. --Rs chen 7754 09:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to spotcheck. I hope to do this over the weekend. --Rs chen 7754 08:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

review by Dave

~~NOTE: Partial review. I will delete this note when review is finished.~~ So far so good. It shows this article has been written and reviewed by experienced people.

Route description

"~~Like other state highways in Michigan,~~ I-96 is maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)." I don't like the wording of this adjuctive clause, to me it sounds diminutive. Let me think about this and see if I can come up with a replacement clause if you feel one is necessary
- I swapped it out, using that as an excuse to link to Michigan State Trunkline Highway System (turning 100 on May 13, 2013!) Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Much better Dave (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
"I-96 passes through an area with several lakes as it crosses into Oakland County" That similarly sounds awkward to me. Don't any topo maps have a specific name for this area? I'd prefer something like, "I-96 passes through rural Oakland County, featuring several lakes adjacent to its route" or something like that if the area has no name.
- The only names I know of for that area is the "Oakland County Lakes Country" or something similar... Let me look to see if I can find something else. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Did you find anything, I see this hasn't changed. I'd prefer a re-write but it's not a big enough of an issue for me to withold a pass vote.
"run concurrently past the studios for WZZM-TV with its weatherball" IMO, if this is worth mentioning, it would also be worth a parenthetical of why is the weatherball notable, special or worth mentioning. What is special about it?
- Well, it's a local landmark with its own poem... "Weatherball red, warmer weather ahead..." Honestly, I had put the mention in to justify using the photograph of the weatherball in the article until such time as I could find something else from the Grand Rapids area. I'll play with this a bit though. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"ramps are ~~actually~~ the northern end" (IMO words like actually, also, etc. should be used sparingly, admitting that I'm guilty too)
- In think that it's justified in this case because I-296 is unsigned, so the ramps being discussed are the unsigned mainline lanes of an auxiliary Interstate. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm split on weather "Gerald R. Ford" in Gerald R. Ford Freeway should be wikilinked, I'm leaning towards yes, as his name is used elsewhere in the article and it wouldn't be right to wikilink it in the airport mention.
- Personally, I don't like to wikilink the name of a person in a highway name like that. Doing so visually splits the larger name "Gerald R. Ford Freeway" into two items because "Freeway" isn't linked. In the article on I-196, the sentence about the name would say "Gerald R. Ford Freeway named for the president..." and "president" would be linked to the article about the man. (And with all of the various people in this state to be graced with freeway names, we end up with two unrelated Fords honored, Gerald and Edsel, which is why BGSs in GR use "G.R. Ford Fwy" or some variation.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

a: Should the year of the FWHA route log be included in the first sentence of the footnote, to make it obvious it is 10 years out of date? or should that be left to the reader? (I'll admit that only takes a few extra miliseconds of reading to figure this out, still)
- I don't know if we need to call it out since it's still "current". (As far as I can tell, the base tables have been updated periodically, even though the title still says "as of October 31, 2002".) Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  - I'd prefer the year was added, as it won't be current forever. We list years for books and maps, I don't see why this would be different.
    - The date is listed in the citation, but I don't think it's appropriate to list in the explanatory footnote the specific year. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

History

", and the Jeffries was no exception". IMO this sounds more appropriate for a history book rather than an encyclopedia. I'd suggest to strike and then modify the next sentence to something like, "To minimize the impact to existing communities and businesses, it was decided that the Jefferies Freeway ~~freeway~~ would no longer utilize the Grand River Avenue corridor."
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph order in the section "Subsequent History": I suggest to move the paragraph about the multiple vehicle down. Right now the paragraph order of this section is: construction, accident, construction, construction, criminal incident. IMO it would flow better with the construction paragraphs together.
- Noted and done. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Exit list

I note that here is the first mention of the Lake Michigan Circle Tour (as the western terminus of the subject of the article). Is this worth mentioning in the Route description?

I don't think so exactly, just because the LMCT doesn't follow I-96 at all. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Auxiliary routes

"decommissioned and the highway transferred ~~turned back~~ to the City of Portland."

Sources

Sources 59 and 60 are television/radio stations. Nothing wrong with that, but it's been my experience that these links tends not to last long. I've had better luck sourcing news items to newspapers, especially major ones. An added bonus to sourcing to newspapers, if the link does die, you've still got a valid paper citation that can be found in any library. Just noting for the record.

Normally I remember to pre-emptively archive them using WebCite (although WLUC-TV back home is blocking archival now... *sigh*) Anyway I added pre-emptive archives for both citations to eliminate that issue. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Works for me

~~More to come Dave (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)~~ Done, overall well done as these are minor wording suggestions. please keep hounding me to do article reviews, its the only way I'm going to get motivated to get back in here. =-) Dave (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied above. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Just let me know about the lakes wording and let's discuss the year for the log. Again I see that as important as listing the year of publishing for a web citation, map or book. Aside from that my concerns are resolved. Dave (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the date for the log is listed in the citation, but I don't see it's worth explicitly listing in the explanatory footnote itself. Last time I checked, FHWA's NHS maps don't indicate the concurrency, so if we wanted a more recent source, they're a few years newer... As for the lakes area, no name is coming up on Google nor the USGS topos. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Support, my apologies for taking so long. I got sent on the road for work without advance warning. Dave (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

I will be looking at 17 sources. --Rs chen 7754 05:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Source 5: Good on V and CP.
Source 11: Table, but good on V.
Source 12: (Paper) atlas, but good on V.
Source 15: The first page of that source should be cited as well, in my opinion.
Source 17: Good on V and CP.
Source 20: Map but good on V.
Source 24: Good on V and CP.
Source 26: Good on V and CP.
Source 28: Good on V and CP.
Source 29: Good on V and CP.
Source 30: probably should be mid instead of early at best because the signs weren't up yet.
Source 31: nitpicking "scheduled to be opened by" versus "opened on".
Source 34: Good on V and CP.
Source 35: Good on V and CP.
Source 36: ditto source 31, though as the day before I suppose it's not so big of a deal.
- ~~Just need to check source 17~~ and once the issues are addressed we should be good. --Rs chen 7754 08:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

California State Route 67

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 article was promoted. Sounder Bruce 01:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/California State Route 67/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This just passed GA and I believe could go to FAC. P.S. This is pretty short, unlike CA 52 and CA 56, and the upcoming I-8.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 02:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

File:California 67.svg - Shield released as PD by Caltrans.
File:California State Route 67.svg - Released into PD by creator, has GIS data.
File:CaliforniaRoute67a.jpg - Released into PD by author.
File:CASR 67.JPG - Released into PD by author.
File:CaliforniaRoute67b.jpg - Released into PD by author.

Support - Images look good. Dough 48 72 02:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: this review needs 3 more supports and a spotcheck before promotion. --Rs chen 7754 09:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

I can't believe I haven't looked at this until now. –Fredddie ™ 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

California State Route 198 doesn't redirect here, so why is it bolded?
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't say when it became SR 67.
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"Notorious" may go against WP:PEACOCK or MOS:OPED especially since that word is only used once.
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Has the new SR 52 interchange made a difference in road safety?
The two aren't and never were related. --Rs chen 7754 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
"A freeway south of Lakeside was built in the late 1960s, and opened to traffic in 1970. Since then, the road north of Lakeside has become known for a high number of traffic accidents and related fatalities. Caltrans has made several attempts to remedy the problem and make the road safer. A new interchange with SR 52 was opened in 2011."

The juxtaposition of the two sentences underlined sure makes it seem like they're related. Now, since I thought the two were linked, I would imagine some readers would, too. –Fredddie ™ 11:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Removed entirely. --Rs chen 7754 23:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Route description

I don't know if I'm wrong or not, but the RD strikes me as short.
See below.
Generic comment about scenery...
I've added some details to the RD. However, having hiked through the area myself and driven through there, it's just brush once you leave the city. In Southern California, outside the cities and designated forest areas, it's all piles and piles of desert brush. --Rs chen 7754 22:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

History

You should change all the 2012s to {{CURRENTYEAR}}.
This is actually to make sure the article is up to date, as advised by Sandy. --Rs chen 7754 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
"The road that would become SR 67 was added to the state highway system in 1933, from El Cajon to near Santa Ysabel.[12] The route was designated as Route 198 in 1935,[13] and consisted of Maine and Woodside avenues in Lakeside[14] and Magnolia Avenue in the city of El Cajon all the way to U.S. Route 80 (US 80) at Main Street; at this time, the entire route had been paved.[15][16]"
You could almost add the part of the second sentence before ref 13 to the first sentence and start the second sentence with "It consisted..."
Done. --Rs chen 7754 09:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"...using the old railroad tracks.[14]"→"...using the old railroad right of way.[14]"
The source used right-of-way so that would be plagiarism. --Rs chen 7754 23:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ehh. I don't think you would be tarred and feathered over that. There are only so many ways to describe the places on which trains travel. However, cars don't drive on train tracks, so your wording just seems wrong. Maybe the solution is to put it within quotation marks. –Fredddie ™ 13:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Rs chen 7754 21:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
What purpose were the "yellow, non-reflectorized markers interspersed with raised yellow dots"?
Added. --Rs chen 7754 08:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"By December 1968, the freeway..." to the end of this paragraph reads like a bulleted list.
Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 08:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I like the crash statistics, but there isn't much context here. Is 413 crashes in that 1996–99 time period a lot?
The article wasn't specific - I get the feeling they went through the CHP raw records. --Rs chen 7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Early 80s to mid 90s doesn't strike me as "recent", but I don't have an alternate suggestion.
Changed. --Rs chen 7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
SANDAG should be defined.
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
"The road sustained damage in the 2003 Cedar Fire, with burned guardrails and signs.[52]" Was the road itself damaged or just the guardrails and signs?
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You were right; this was shorter than the last! –Fredddie ™ 02:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I plan to be adding some material to the article sometime after the 11th, so I probably will not be addressing these comments until then. --Rs chen 7754 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have made all the changes; however, the first section of the history has had substantial material added, so I would appreciate a second check of that part. --Rs chen 7754 09:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing sticks out at me. I'll support. –Fredddie ™ 05:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

Review by T C N7JM

I will review this article. –TC N7 JM 01:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

It then becomes a highway through the eastern part of Poway – What type of highway in particular? Just stating that it "becomes a highway" is vague and confusing.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Route description

entering the town of Moreno. SR 67 enters the rural area east of Sycamore Canyon County Open Space Preserve – From the way this is structured, it looks like you're referring to Moreno as the rural area.
- Adjusted. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
In the last second of the second paragraph, I'm not really sure what "intersects to the northwest" means.
- That's fine, it means that the road comes in from the northwest. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

History

A road existed to Julian by 1872 – From where?
- Clarified; only said "Julian road". --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Second sentence makes no sense. I think you're missing a word.
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Why do you need stagecoach wikilinked in two straight paragraphs?
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This might just be me, but that fourth paragraph seems a bit short to stand on its own. Is there any way you could merge it with a different paragraph or does it have a good reason for standing alone?
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I recall looking over this article before you sent it to GAN, and mentioning that the chronology of the first sentence of the very last paragraph was question. This still concerns me. Reading over this sentence, it still looks to me like the construction began in 2008, was delayed by funding issues, and then was resumed after the funding issues were resolved two years earlier.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Major intersections

Postmile citations and exit citations are both out of numerical order.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's all he wrote! –TC N7 JM 03:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 06:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Looks great! I support. –TC N7 JM 06:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Scott5114

oh if you insist

It then becomes an undivided highway through the eastern part of Poway and becomes Main Street in the town of Ramona before ending at SR 78. Describing three locations that the route serves in one sentence is probably a bit much, and makes it feel like a runon sentence. Try splitting it up into two sentences, or use punctuation, like a semicolon (or even commas!) to help give the reader a mental stopping point so they can reflect on what it is they just read. This is somewhat like the boulevard sentence from SR 282, and it might be something to consciously look for when writing in the future.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand East County is a local colloquialism for the eastern part of San Diego County, but that may not be clear to all readers, even with the link. They may think that East County is, itself, a county, or perhaps the name of a city. Consider eschewing its use for something more explanatory, such as the eastern half/portion of San Diego County.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The route existed as a railroad corridor since the turn of the 20th century...—something's off here. The route has existed sounds better, but may not be what you're trying to say. Or maybe replace since. I'm having trouble articulating what the problem is, other than just a vague sense that it doesn't sound quite right.
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
...a highway was built by 1913, and was designated as Legislative Route 198 in the state highway system by 1935, to become SR 67 in the 1964 state highway renumbering. Again, too many clauses here, especially with the semicolon in the sentence. At least they have commas this time. I recommend breaking off the last clause as its own sentence, since there's an interval of almost thirty years there, so it would make a good place for a sentence break.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
[T]he road north of Lakeside could mean any given road north of Lakeside. Might want to specify that you mean the portion of SR 67 north of Lakeside.
Clarified. --Rs chen 7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Interchanges with Broadway / Fletcher Parkway and Bradley Avenue occur as the freeway leaves the El Cajon city limits—What purpose does the slash serve? Is that the name of the street, "Broadway/Fletcher Parkway", or do you mean that the two are reached by the same interchange? If the latter, is it just Broadway or Broadway Parkway? Slashes are ambiguous in prose. As a noun, can an interchange really occur?
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It comes to an interchange... What does, the city of Santee? Gillespie Field? The El Cajon city limits? Oh, right.
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The freeway ends and SR 67 turns north into a conventional highway at Mapleview Street... Pretty impressive feat, turning the entire concept of one of the cardinal directions into a highway! SR 67 turns north as it transitions into a conventional highway or something would be better.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You have a few red links here, some of which are especially long, which might look bad if you intend to pursue a FAC. The geographical ones should be easy to stub out; see Ottawa, Oklahoma as an example of what you can do with just a map and a coord.
- I haven't had issues with red links at FAC ever since my 2012 return to FAC. --Rs chen 7754 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It might be better to restructure the traffic count sentence thusly: In 2011, SR 67 had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 83,000 between Broadway and Bradley Avenue (the highest AADT for the freeway portion), and 18,400 between Rio Marta Road and Poway Road.
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
What caused the deterioration of the Julian road? Lack of maintenance, poor construction, or were the stagecoaches beating it up?
- Again, information was not available. --Rs chen 7754 01:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Might want to explain what portions of the modern highway correspond to the "Julian road", "Road 3A", and the "Ramona road", or if they were the same thing, if that information is available.
- Unfortunately it is not. --Rs chen 7754 01:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Consider rounding the inflation statistics to avoid false precision.
- I've rounded them to match the original precision. --Rs chen 7754 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What does "declaring something to be a boulevard" mean? Is it funding-related, or that it meets a specific design standard? If it would have little tangible difference on the driver of the day, might want to leave it out.
- I get the feeling that it was something like the NHS. --Rs chen 7754 01:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Looked and clarified. --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The demand for more water in San Diego might have led to the construction of the reservoir, but other than that, it doesn't seem pertinent to SR 67. Ditch it.
- Removed. --Rs chen 7754 06:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is "right-of-way" in quotes?
- See Fredddie's review. --Rs chen 7754 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Oh. That's probably not the proper way to resolve that. Putting one word in quotes just looks silly, like you're doing scare quotes or something. I agree that it shouldn't be a plagiarism problem to use right-of-way with no quotes, but if you are convinced it is, do "follow the railroad corridor", "on railroad land", "followed the path of the former railroad" or something like that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    - Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 06:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Are the raised yellow dots prototypical Botts dots?
Following a March 2009 fatal crash, some of the victims filed a lawsuit against Caltrans.. Aren't the victims of a fatal crash dead? Perhaps you should substitute survivors.
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall, not bad; just some small details that need to be polished. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In light of the recent fixes, I now believe that I can support this article. Good work, sir. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Imzadi1979

Looking at this revision, I'm going to spotcheck the following footnotes:

fn 10
fn 17
fn 24
fn 31
fn 38
fn 45
fn 52
fn 59
fn 66
fn 72

Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

All items check out. There are two items that should be updated through.

Fn 17 is for a source published on July 1, 1920, but the bidding mentioned in the article happened the day before, so our article should use a June 30 date.
Fn 38 ("Road Funds Allocated") is referencing the continuation of an article from page B1 on B6. That probably should reference the full article with both page numbers, and whatever the headline is on page B1.

Other than these two minor changes, the rest of the spotcheck is good. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixes look good. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

Pennsylvania Turnpike

Not promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 23:21, 7 April 2013 (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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: After the previous ACR turned into a peer review that significantly rewrote the article, I would like to renominate as I feel the article is now in better shape and should be able to go to FAC in the future.

Nominated by: Dough 48 72 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment to be honest, I was expecting something a little more substantial than this. --Rs chen 7754 05:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Agreed. It's nice to see that things I requested were changed, but I was thinking/hoping you'd go through each paragraph and rewrite for flow and clarity. –Fredddie ™ 02:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per the above, and no response from the nominator. --Rs chen 7754 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you like it if I got a copyeditor to go through the article? Dough 48 72 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that would not address my issues with possible missing content. --Rs chen 7754 20:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been almost a month since we've started this. Any objections to closing this? --Rs chen 7754 06:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point I feel I had completed the research and addressed issues from the previous ACR. I would like to see more feedback from other users. Dough 48 72 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Scott5114

Let's do this. First, a general note: This article could use a good copyedit. I recommend asking one of the copyedit-request groups to lend a set of eyes to the article. For the most part, I will not touch on these in my review.

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: This may be the official name of the state, but it could be confusing for non-US readers, who may think Pennsylvania has the same sort of arrangement as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Consider the simpler "U.S. state of Pennsylvania" instead.
Changed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
it runs 360 miles: runs for
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The turnpike designation begins at the Ohio border in Lawrence County, where the turnpike designation continues as the Ohio Turnpike. The designation ends at... Is the word designation really appropriate here? It feels unnatural; usually we only use designation to refer to a route number in a context specifically excluding the roadbed. The second half of the sentence would be better if it were more along the lines of "the road continues west into Ohio as the Ohio Turnpike".
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The roadway runs an east-west path through the state... Runs a path?
Reworded. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Consider eschewing utilizes in favor of the simpler uses unless you are trying to vary sentence structure by avoiding uses.
Changed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence in the r/d should ~~utilize~~ use an en dash.
Where is the en dash supposed to be used? Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
east–west. I have fixed it myself, but for future reference, according to WP:MOSDASH, an en dash is used any time two terms that are different have a dash between them, ex. east–west, Kansas–Missouri state line, a score of 5–4, etc. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how true it is, but I have heard that border is a word that generally refers only to international borders. The borders of states are state lines.
Changed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
where it reaches its first interchange in the state with I-376: this reads as though it is coming to its first interchange, which happens to be in the state that I-376 is in.
Reworded. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You have two sentences in a row where the turnpike reaches something. Vary sentence structure to keep the reader from falling asleep and drooling on his keyboard.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The road comes to the Warrendale toll plaza, which is where toll ticketing begins. Wait, so how were tolls being assessed before?
West of Warrendale, there are no tolls at exits with the only toll on that portion being the eastbound Gateway toll plaza. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You use the words "rural areas" and "suburban areas" a lot. Not only is this repetitive, but it is a very superficial way to describe the surroundings of the road. It feels really flat and anonymous. Change things up, and be more specific: what is the name of the suburb, or the township that forms the rural area? Same with "woods"; if you're not prepared to describe what type of forest it is, and why it's significant, it's better to leave it out. Consider revising sentences such as these to describe the highway's location more specifically; use distances from villages and named physical features, as in the highway passes one mile north of Quindaro, for example.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
We roadgeeks love to pick on Breezewood, but explaining what happens to I-70 after it exits from the Pennsylvania Turnpike is out of the scope of this article. It should be removed.
Removed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Within Lower Swatara Township, the turnpike has an interchange with the southern terminus of I-283: no, it doesn't; it has an interchange with I-283. You can't have an interchange with a terminus.
Reworded. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A short distance later, the road has a westbound exit and entrance for Virginia Drive that is for E-ZPass tagholders only: Instead of "a short distance", specify it numerically. Are the exit and entrance ramps themselves westbound only, or do you mean to say that they can be accessed from the westbound lanes only? Perhaps instead of saying the ramps are "for E-ZPass tagholders only", you should explain that use by non-tagholders is legally prohibited.
Added distance, there is only an exit from the westbound turnpike and an entrance to the westbound turnpike, reworded. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The Features section does not comply with WP:USRD/STDS. It should be split into Services and Tolls sections, which are standard sections under the guideline, although they are not always seen because they are usually only applicable to toll roads. Major bridges and tunnels and speed limits should be covered in the route description. Kansas Turnpike has gotten a lot of shit lately but its structure is still the gold standard for how a turnpike article should be structured. See also Chickasaw Turnpike. I will decline to comment on this section while it's in its current format.
Fixed to comply with standards as suggested. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Later, European settlers followed wagon roads in order to cross that state. Using that state to refer to Pennsylvania is jarring, as there's really no ambiguity as to which state you're referring to. Use the state.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The sentence regarding the Main Line of Public Works is written in passive voice, which obscures who was responsible for it. Use active voice instead, so you can explain who opened it.
I do not see a problem with the way it is written, it explains that the canal opened and what it was. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
See passive voice and active voice. Prevailing writing advice is that active voice is generally preferred when possible. An example of an active voice reconstruction of this sentence would be "In 1834, the Pennsylvania Department of Whatever opened the Main Line of Public Works, a system of canals, railroads, and inclined planes across Pennsylvania. This system competed with the Erie Canal in New York." (sentence split for good measure since the Erie Canal business is a separate thought) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph about the railroads is interesting but it doesn't establish which of the competing railroads corresponds to the modern-day turnpike. Where was the Pennsylvania Railroad?
The South Pennsylvania Railroad was planned on what is now the turnpike while the Pennsylvania Railroad followed an alignment farther to the north. The article does make clear the turnpike used the tunnels of the unfinished railroad. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Another railroad known as the South Pennsylvania Railroad was proposed in the 1880s to cross the mountains in direct competition with the Pennsylvania Railroad. You can make this sentence a lot shorter and more direct by revising it to "A competing railroad, known as the South Pennsylvania Railroad, was proposed in the 1880s."
Reworded. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to include a short aside as to why Carnegie cared what the rates of the Pennsylvania Raiload were.
As a result of the challenges of crossing the mountains of Pennsylvania by car, William Sutherland of the Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association and Victor Lecoq of the Pennsylvania State Planning Commission proposed a toll highway in 1934 to cross the mountains. This sentence mentions crossing the mountains twice. That's redundant. Try to restructure the sentence to avoid this.
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition to improved travel across the mountains... You already said this twice this paragraph!
Fixed. Dough 48 72 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Curves were to be wide and the roadway signage was to be large. Any chance we could get more precise than wide and large? Compare to Kansas Turnpike, which says Curves along the turnpike are limited to 3° and grades limited to 3%. This entire paragraph would probably be better in the "Design" subsection.
In February 1938, the turnpike commission began looking into proposals for $55 million in bonds to be issued for construction of the turnpike. I'm not sure I follow what's going on in this sentence. Wouldn't the turnpike commission be the one issuing the bonds? If so, who's proposing the bonds be issued? Unless the PTC bond-issuance process is completely different from the one OTA uses, I'm lost.
Plans were still made to sell bonds; the first issue was planned to be around $20 million... So is this a separate bond issue or did this replace the $60 million that was being discussed at the beginning of the paragraph? Did Van Ingen get their money back?
In June, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) announced they would loan the commission an adequate amount of money to build the road. This loan from the RFC totaled $32 million: Why not just say "...announced they would loan the commission $32 million"?
In September 1938, there was a proposal for railroad: In March 2013, there was missing word. This paragraph might be better folded into the paragraph discussing the railroads earlier in the history section, even though that makes things slightly out-of-order chronologically. Who turned it down? PTC?
There is precedent to "Design" being its own section, not a subsection of "History". You might consider whether that would make sense for this road. Some of the content of this section, however, is not design-related at all, but rather about the construction of the road.
As the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel bore was in too poor condition to use: The wording is clunky here. Maybe "As the condition of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel was too poor to use..."?
Concrete was used in lining the tunnel portals. Why not "The tunnel portals were lined with concrete"?
Many designs of bridges were used to carry roads over the tollway: No, they weren't, a mere design can't carry a shoe, much less a road. Something like "The bridges that carried roads over the tollway used several designs" would be better. You could do one better and combine this sentence with the one that describes the bridges that the turnpike uses. They are all bridges; why make the distinction between them?
Prior to groundbreaking of the first section, the turnpike commission sent workers out to assess the former railroad tunnels in 1937. The information from the design section about the tunnels and their condition should probably be moved here. Think about keeping related information like that all in one place, even if it means things are out of order chronologically.
...Walter A. Jones dug the first shovel into to earth. The construction of the turnpike was on a tight schedule as completion of the road originally planned by May 1, 1940. Basic grammatical errors—or one may go so far as to say typos—are present in two sentences in a row. As previously stated, a copyeditor needs to go through this article.
After groundbreaking, contracts were awarded for various work in building the road, such as finishing the tunnels of the former South Pennsylvania Railroad, grading the turnpike's right-of-way, construction of bridges, and paving operations. "Various" isn't a word that I've ever seen used to describe "work". Try something like "After groundbreaking, a series of contracts were awarded for various facets of the project, including finishing the tunnels..."
The first work to begin on the road was grading its right-of-way, which involved a lot of earthwork because of mountainous terrain. "A lot of earthwork" probably slips below the bar of professionalism we're aiming for. The first clause feels awkward but I can't articulate a reason why. If you remove the prepositional phrases it says "The first work [...] was grading its right of way", which is even worse, so there's something wrong with that construction that's pinging my radar.
Building the cut involved bulldozers excavating the mountain and explosives being used to blast the rock. Surely the explosives were used first, and then the bulldozers were brought in?
The Clear Ridge cut was 153 feet (47 m) deep, the deepest highway cut at that time... The deepest where? On the Pennsylvania Turnpike? In Pennsylvania? In the United States? In the world? In the Alpha Quadrant? The Milky Way? The universe?
A lot of work was also involved... There's "a lot" again. It could be argued that "a lot of work" is POV, since you (and PTC workers in the 1940s) could find it to be a lot of work, but modern highway engineers might consider it trivial.
In New Baltimore, the turnpike commission had to purchase land from St. John's Church, which contained a cemetery. Creepy that they would put a cemetery inside a church...do people sit on the headstones instead of there being pews? But it has little to do with the turnpike, so why are we...oh, the land contained the cemetery. Whoops.
The paragraph on paving operations is awkwardly structured. It starts talking about concrete paving, then randomly interjects that ramps were done in asphalt, then goes back to talking concrete. Also, the sentence These paving operations led to a delay in the projected opening of the highway and by October 1939 the completion data had been pushed back from May 1 to June 29, 1940 as paving would not take place during the winter of 1939–1940. has too many clauses going on, and would probably be better split into two sentences (a good breakpoint would be at and). Do you mean completion date instead of data?
Completion was later pushed back to July 4 before being pushed further back to the later part of summer 1940 after rains delayed paving operations. This sentence is also too long and complex. Break it up, or at the least use some sort of comma or semicolon device.
In the first 15 days of operation, the road saw over 150,000 vehicles. This sentence might go better with the preceding paragraph, which ends with a description of heavy traffic in the early days of the turnpike, and this sentence supports that with a statistic. The road saw 150,000 vehicles is a bit too poetic; roads can't see.
...cut down travel time between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg... "Down" is unnecessary; cut it ~~down~~.
The Susquehanna River Bridge was constructed with a 4-foot (1.2 m) raised concrete median and no shoulders to save costs. Can you really save a cost, which is a negative number? You can reduce it, or cut it, or you can save money, but...
You may want to state that the original Carlisle interchange was closed, since there is a current Carlisle interchange that readers familiar with the road may confuse it with.
Might want to say "it was intended to have been finished by..."
It was scheduled to take place at the Brush Creek viaduct in Irwin with Governor Duff in attendance. The word "schedule" usually refers to temporal planning, not geospatial. Using it in the past tense like this also implies that it did not, in fact, take place as planned. If I said "I was scheduled to meet with the general manager at 2pm to discuss how he was running the business into the ground," it implies that for whatever reason that meeting either didn't take place (probably because he's a weenie that can't take honest criticism, so he canceled it) or maybe he was late (which is probably a contributing factor to how he's running the business into the ground). You get the idea.
Traffic followed a temporary ramp onto rural local roads leading into small towns in Ohio until the connecting Ohio Turnpike could be built. Ditch rural. Care to specify which small towns we're dealing with in Ohio?
Was the Valley Forge toll plaza relocated? It says it was located at the junction with the Schuylkill "as a result of building the extension", but it doesn't actually say that this project moved it.
Can a bridge "contain" anything? Can anything contain a median? Can something contain the absence of something? These are very deep questions. I guess, theoretically, a beverage bottle could say "CONTAINS NO CAFFEINE!" I've never seen one that says "CONTAINS NO MEDIAN!" however. Must not perform very well in front of focus groups.

That's 50 points. I believe that's sufficient to illustrate its shortcomings (and besides, I am quickly becoming delirious). This article has a lot of potential. It appears to be built on a solid base of research (357 references!), and is very thorough. If this article were a building, those are the foundation and structure, respectively. The issue is the interior furnishings. Unfortunately, just good research and thoroughness do not an A-Class article make—one has to have compelling prose, too. This article needs quite a bit of attention to the actual writing before it can be put forward as our best work. So I must oppose at this time. The good news is, however, that this is comparatively easier than if you had to fix an article that is shoddily researched or with serious holes in its coverage. Request a copyedit, tune up that prose, and this article can shine. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose based on this review. I think Scott's advice should be heeded before we continue further. –Fredddie ™ 23:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

Will do in a couple minutes. Sounder Bruce 04:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Pennsylvania Turnpike logo.svg - PD, uploaded as 1923 to 1978 document without copyright
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike map.svg - PD-self, uploaded by author - It would be nice to see the Harrisburg area freeways go under the red line
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound.jpg - GFDL, uploaded by author
File:Allegheny Mountain Tunnel West Portal I76 Dscn7191.jpg - GFDL, uploaded by author
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound at US 222 exit.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded from Flickr
File:PA TPK WB Whitemarsh Township.JPG - PD, uploaded by author
File:Paturnpiketicket.jpg - PD-self, uploaded by author - It would be nice to get a newer image without the hand and/or a light background
File:PA TPK Delaware River Bridge toll plaza EB.jpg - PD, uploaded by author
File:PennaPike toll plaza.jpg - GFDL, uploaded by author
File:Sideling Hill Plaza jeh.JPG - PD, uploaded by author
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike 70 mph 1942.jpg - PD-USGovt, uploaded from Library of Congress
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1942.jpg - PD-USGovt, uploaded from Library of Congress
File:Laurel Hill Tunnel 1942.jpg - PD-USGovt, uploaded from Library of Congress
File:Rays Hill Tunnel at night 1942.jpg - PD-USGovt, uploaded from Library of Congress
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike 1942 LOC.jpg - PD-USGovt, uploaded from Library of Congress
File:Blue Mountain Tunnel viewed from Kittatinny Mountain Tunnel 1942.jpg - PD-USGovt, uploaded from Library of Congress
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike westbound Lebanon County.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded from Flickr
File:Pennsylvania Turnpike eastbound at Homewood Viaduct.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded from Flickr
File:Delaware River-Turnpike Toll Bridge EB.jpg - PD, uploaded by author
File:Sideling Hill Tunnel approach.jpg - PD, uploaded by author
File:Abandoned Turnpike.jpg - PD, uploaded by author
File:PA TPK WB 0.5 mi to Norristown.JPG - PD, uploaded by author
File:St. John's Church Pennsylvania Turnpike.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:PA TPK Virginia Drive slip ramp.JPG - PD, uploaded by author

Overall, images look good and their placement in the article is good. Sounder Bruce 05:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments that might turn into a review by TCN7JM

After Scott is done reviewing, I'd like to look over the article once or twice to see if there are any major errors that stand out at me. I may not support/oppose, but if I find enough stuff that this turns into an actual review, I will. T C N7JM 05:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott does not seem interested in finishing his review, so go ahead. --Rs chen 7754 05:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I am uninterested in finishing it, it's that there would be little point in continuing it when I have 50 issues from the first half of the article alone. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Because of these things, I must also oppose. Much more stuff needs to be fixed. T C N7JM 23:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Interstate 75 in Michigan

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 ™ 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Interstate 75 in Michigan/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The longest highway in the state of Michigan, the only highway on both of Michigan's two peninsulas, and a future FAC. Should this article be promoted further, the A/FA or FA-only maps of Michigan will have both peninsulas interconnected with higher upper-tier articles.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 05:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 05:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

Review by T C N7JM

I've been on this road from the Ohio border to US 2, if I remember correctly. I'd love to review this article. T C N7JM 05:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I can't help but feel that the second sentence should mention Michigan instead of just I-75 enters the state.
[B]oth of Michigan's two peninsulas is redundant.
You start both the last sentence of the second paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph with the word "various".

Route description

The first sentence is missing a word.
I-75 carries segments all of four Great Lakes Circle Tours - I think you accidentally swapped the order of "all" and "of".

Lake Erie shore and the Downriver communities

You mention where the Lake Erie Circle Tour leaves I-75, but not where it joins the route.
Maybe add a "respectively" to the end of that last sentence?

Detroit to the Tri-Cities

In the first sentence, the downtown Detroit looks awkward as it is.
[B]ypass around (multiple uses) seems redundant, seeing as the definition of bypass is "to go around".
In the second-to-last sentence, do you need to mention that Birch Run is in Michigan? I'd pipe the wikilink.

Central Michigan

I-675 merges back in - That sounds pretty weird, in my opinion. I would reword that.
You use "northwesterly" a lot in this subsection. Are there any other words you could use to substitute for it?
Near the end of the second paragraph, you begin one sentence with I-75 turns northwesterly and the next sentence with Turning back to the northwest. There was no directional change in the first sentence, so the word "back" is unnecessary.

Northern Michigan

First sentence has an easily-avoidable "<verb>ing" phrase.
The second sentence of the third paragraph has no sense of juxtaposition with either of the sentences next of it. It just kinda states "this freeway passes between these two lakes".

Upper Peninsula

LHCT needs to be used in parentheses once before you use it to abbreviate the Lake Michigan Circle Tour.
You need a reference for H-63 being the former route of US 2.

I'll do the other sections when my head doesn't feel like it's going to explode. T C N7JM 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

History

Indian trails to state highways

Toledo, Ohio, Monroe and Detroit - The way that's formatted makes it look like Ohio is a part of the list and not just tacked onto the end of Toledo.

Interstate Highway era

The southern section of near the Ohio state line - There's an extra word here somewhere.
In 1962, the section from freeway from M-24 - Another extra word.

More to come. T C N7JM 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Monumental bridges

You should use the conversion template to convert the costs from the olden days to 2013 dollars.

Exit list

There are two exit 2s?

Okay, that's all! This was a lot of fun to review. I hope I can support after you fix these issues. T C N7JM 02:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

RD comments addressed and tweaked as needed. I'll get the history ones in a little bit... Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the two exit 2 are separate partial interchanges. The history comments are done, and the inflation templates are being added here in just a moment. Imzadi 1979 → 05:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll support. T C N7JM 10:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review

Just claiming it now. Sounder Bruce 07:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

File:I-75.svg - PD-MUTCD
File:I-75 (MI) map.svg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:I-75 Chrysler Freeway looking south.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded from Flickr
File:I-75 MI exit 188.JPG - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:I-75 MI exit 254.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:Upper Michigan Welcome Sign I75.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:Michigan's Indian trails.png - PD-US-not removed, map taken from book published in 1959
File:Michigan Turnpike map 1955.png - PD-US-no notice, map taken from report published in 1955 without copyright notice
File:Zilwaukee-Bridge-September-.jpg - CC-BY, uploaded by author
File:Mack brdg ngt.JPG - CC-BY, uploaded by author on Wikipedia and transferred to Commons by another user
File:Soo Locks International Bridge 2010-04 USACE.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE, released into public domain by US Army Corps of Engineers

Images all check out. Support Sounder Bruce 07:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Extended content

I will review this article. Dough 48 72 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

In the infobox, it may be helpful to indicate the termini are at the Ohio and Canadian borders.
What is a "monumental bridge"? This should be better clarified.
Do you think you can mention the least busiest section of I-75 at the beginning of the route description?
I think it would be a better idea to mention Monroe County when the route first crosses from Ohio.
" I-75 crosses the Ecorse River and passes through an industrial area of the Detroit Metro area.", you use area twice in the same sentence.
"Near the bridge's approaches, the freeway turns 90° away from the river and intersects the eastern end of I-96 before turning again to parallel the river further inland.", perhaps mention which direction the freeway turns.
The sentence "Near the M-59 interchange, I-75 passes the headquarters for Chrysler, and near the M-24 interchange, it runs near The Palace of Auburn Hills, home of the Detroit Pistons." is long and choppy.
The sentence "West of Sterling, the landscape changes again; the freeway passes into forests." sounds awkward.
"I-75 crosses the Pine River before passing into Chippewa County. The freeway takes a more northerly track as it passes under M-48 without an interchange" you use the verb pass in two consecutive sentences.
Perhaps mention how many lanes the road is across the state.
In the Interstate Highway era, you jump from 1961 back to 1960. These events should be presented in chronological order.
The sentence "The next year, the last section of the Chrysler Freeway in Hazel Park was finished when an interchange for the then-unbuilt I-696." sounds awkward.
There are two missing mileposts in the exit list. Can these be found? Dough 48 72 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are done. Number 2, if you mean the sentence in the lead is reusing the term from the section heading, which is a reuse of MDOT's terminology from the sources. Number 3 will have to wait until I'm off work for technical limitations of the work computer. Number 6 is tricky, as the directions in Detroit don't follow the compass neatly, but the locals consider the Detroit River to be east-west even though it is more like ENE-WSW in direction. As for number 13, at some point I'll complete redo the mileposts in the exit list, but that's not going to be done until right before the future FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 06:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lowest AADT added. Imzadi 1979 → 20:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I will now support the article. Dough 48 72 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will also review this article. --Rs chen 7754 00:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No dead links or disamb links.

Lead

No issues.

RJL

Check for stray semicolons.
Southbound exit and northbound entrance; partial ... what?
Southern end of LECT concurrency - should be lowercase
Sharp turn 25 mph (40 km/h) - should be sourced
- All corrected. Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Random note

What is the toll?
- Added along with a quick summary of services keeping in line with our standards on toll roads Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

More later. --Rs chen 7754 08:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RD

I-75 bypasses southeast of Monroe... odd choice of verb.
I-675 splits to run westward into downtown... splits off?
in this area the freeway passes into forests. ... into forests?
There are a pair of interchanges on the on either
are $4 for passenger cars and $5 per axel - is? axle?
The authority also provides a driver assistance program - why would someone need assistance?
And two sentences in a row beginning with "The authority".
Nitpick on the image - the caption says it's the welcome sign but it's barely visible.

Done with the RD, more later. --Rs chen 7754 09:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Done with the RD. As for the first point, "bypasses" is fine to me. Imzadi 1979 → 10:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Freeway names

As a practical matter, the southernmost segments retain their other names. - not sure what's trying to be said here.
- Changed. Let me know if that's better. Imzadi 1979 → 09:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Monumental bridges

The inflation templates only go up to 2010 at last check.
Carferry? Not car ferry?
Who is "they"?
Now the MBA is referred to earlier, need to adjust.
[104] should go before the parenthetical remark.

Will come back to the history. --Rs chen 7754 08:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Done so far. Imzadi 1979 → 09:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Turnpikes and freeways

I-75 itself when I-275 - "when" doesn't seem like the best word here

IH era

One was signed initially as a part of US 23 only from Kawkawlin to Standish. The other through Detroit extended I-75 parallel to Fort Street. - can be combined
The company's owner was jailed for contempt of court during court proceedings in early 2012,[93] MDOT was later ordered to assume responsibility for construction,[94] and the department completed the project on September 21, 2012. - need some sort of semicolon, as using commas is trying to jam too many things together.

That concludes the review. --Rs chen 7754 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Finished those up. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck

I will do the spotcheck. Dough 48 72 01:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Source 1 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 2 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 3 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 9 - Verifiable, no plagiarism, maybe could indicate between which two exits the curve is.
Source 10 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 12 - Partially verifiable, no plagiarism.... Source does not make an indication that the bridge is an exception from MDOT maintaining roads.
Source 13 - Partially verifiable, no plagiarism.... Does not mention authority collecting tolls.
Source 15 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 16 - Partially verifiable, no plagiarism.... Does not clearly indicate that a police department provides the escort service. Also could mention the fee for backpackers and bicyclists.
Source 17 - Partially verifiable, no plagiarism.... Same issues as source 16.
Source 18 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 41 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 42 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 45 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 47 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 48 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 49 - Verifiable.... I would change "derail" to another verb as to not copy the article.
Source 50 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 51 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 55 - Partially verifiable, no plagiarism.... Article does not clearly indicate the termini.

Found a few issues, but otherwise pretty good. Dough 48 72 02:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I swapped out a different source for fn 12, in an explanatory footnote that should clarify that yes, the MBA is separate from MDOT. Since the MBA has jurisdiction over the bridge, it's not an MDOT-maintained structure.

I added an explicit citation to the sentence to indicate that the MBA collects the tolls.

Reading the two footnotes previously numbered 16 and 17 together, yes, it's the bridge patrol that provides the escort service, so please don't be so pedantic.

Changed "derailed" to "undermined".

Added a map cite that shows the termini of the section opened. Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - Sources check out. Dough 48 72 02:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

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.

Featured article candidates/Michigan State Trunkline Highway System/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: 2013 will be the centennial of the creation of Michigan's highway system. We have no formula for system articles yet, and an attempt to have this peer-reviewed didn't solicit any comments. The previous ACR closed without much review either. The goal is to get this sent to FAC early in 2013 so that the article could be the TFA for May 13, 2012.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 10:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I plan to make some general comments about the content and structure, but don't plan to actually review until other editors have made comments on the structure. --Rs chen 7754 10:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, the overall structure seems fine. Awaiting other comments before reviewing. --Rs chen 7754 08:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- If I'm the last review left and we've hit 3 supports, go ahead and pass it; I'll just move my review to FAC. I'll see how quickly the other supports come. --Rs chen 7754 08:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TCN7JM

~~I may or may not review prose later, but~~ I do have one comment on the lead.

"These unsigned trunklines are mostly segments of former highway designations that have been moved or had the designations decommissioned."

Does the word "designation" need to be used twice in that sentence? I think it would look better as "These unsigned trunklines are mostly segments of former highway designations that have been moved or decommissioned." T C N7JM 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

Most of these comments were taken from the review I did last year.

The lead could be expanded. Maybe mention some information about the non-MDOT roads in the state as well as a brief history of the system.
Maybe link decommissioned to Decommissioned highway instead of wiktionary.
Instead of using ""Route 28" or "Highway 28", but as M-28", I would use the more generic ""Route nn" or "Highway nn", but as M-nn".
Is it necessary to describe the other uses of the M-x convention?
"two-lane highways in far-flung rural areas", perhaps use something better than far-flung like remote.
You should include the mileage of the system in the State Trunkline Highways section.
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)."
Perhaps provide more details onto how the CDH's are numbered.
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."
"roads districts", is that what it is called and not road districts or roads district?
Is the price of a barrel of flour really relevant to this article?
"This supervision was difficult since in one case, one county covered all of the Upper Peninsula and several of today's counties in the Lower Peninsula", perhaps mention the name of this county.
Perhaps move "The first centerline was invented in 1911 in Wayne County by Edward N. Hines." to before "The first centerline was painted on a state highway in 1917 along the Marquette-Negaunee Road which was designated Trunkline 15, now Marquette County Road 492".
The article seems to be missing more recent history of the highway system, is there some that can be added?
Is it possible to add more road pictures to the article to illustrate examples of highways in Michigan? Dough 48 72 00:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any comment on the overall structure of the article? --Rs chen 7754 16:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The usage section could possibly be incorporated into the State Trunkline Highways section since it describes specifically the state highways. Dough 48 72 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the article has been significantly revised since my first review, here is an updated review:

The lead could be expanded. Maybe mention some information about the non-MDOT roads in the state as well as a brief history of the system.
Maybe link decommissioned to Decommissioned highway instead of wiktionary.
Instead of using ""Route 28" or "Highway 28", but as M-28", I would use the more generic ""Route nn" or "Highway nn", but as M-nn".
"two-lane highways in far-flung rural areas", perhaps use something better than far-flung like remote
You should include the mileage of the system in the State Trunkline Highways section.
"The State Trunkline Highway System comprises four types of highways: Michigan's portions of the Interstate Highway System and United States Numbered Highway System (U.S. Highways), and the regular state trunklines" the sentence only mentions three.
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)."
Perhaps provide more details onto how the CDH's are numbered.
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."
"roads districts", is this supposed to be road districts or the plural of roads district?
"This supervision was difficult since in one case, one county covered all of the Upper Peninsula and several of today's counties in the Lower Peninsula", perhaps mention the name of this county.
The article inconsistently uses roads district and road district. Which one is it?
Perhaps move "The first centerline was invented in 1911 in Wayne County by Edward N. Hines." to before "The first centerline was painted on a state highway in 1917 along the Marquette-Negaunee Road which was designated Trunkline 15, now Marquette County Road 492".
Perhaps you can add images of all the styles of state highway markers that Michigan used, preferably at the appropriate time peroid in the history.
I would rearrange some details in the history. The designation of trunklines in 1911, the signage in 1919, and the U.S. highway system should be mentioned in one paragraph. Also, try to keep the events in chronological order where possible.
What was the first stretch of Interstate to open in Michigan (not necessarily the first highway fully complete)? This should be clarified.
What was the last gravel state highway to be paved?
The sentence "Future highway projects under planning or construction will build a bypass of Constantine for US 131, highway would maintain access to local roads via at-grade intersections, and the department would maintain jurisdiction of the old route through town" sounds awkward. Dough 48 72 01:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

1 will do in a few hours.

2–13 are done in various ways.

14 let me see what I can do, but all of the various markers are in the infobox at the top of each list article, which is why I didn't put all of the historical marker designs in this article. I might get a 1922 photo of a marker uploaded though and inserted here.

15 some of the paragraphs seem out of order because they're grouped a little more by topics, and those topics overlap chronologically. We might look at splitting some stuff up a little more though, so this might become more apparent.

16 added, sorta; freeway sections were opened before they were signed as Interstates, so I noted the first section to be re-signed as an Interstate.

17 added.

18 fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As promised, the lead has been expanded significantly, and some of the stuff there found a different home in the body of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 14:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - My concerns have been addressed. This article sets a model for what state highway system articles should look like. Dough 48 72 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Viridiscalculus

The History section is very unbalanced and suffers from the opposite of recentism. There are nine paragraphs about the road system in the 19th century and earlier. This is great except for the fact that there is more information there than in the section about the 20th century, when the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System was actually created and constructed. There are only two paragraphs devoted to everything that happened in the last 85 years, and many major areas of discussion have been only glancingly mentioned or not at all. The prose also has a high density of superlatives. Although superlatives are great to have and are juicy morsels for readers, they lose their punch if they comprise most of the prose. The superlatives need to be tied together into a narrative.

Here are some themes you should explore to expand the article's 20th century history, roughly in chronological order, based on my impressions of how most state highway systems developed. No two state highway systems developed the same exact way, but there were enough analogous actions and motives to be able to put together similar narratives. You have addressed many of these already, but there may be facets you have yet to explore.

The Good Roads Movement causes state resources to be devoted to modern road construction. At first, the state offers expert advice to the counties and conducts statewide studies of the highway system. ~~The state sweetens the pot by offering funding or rewards to the counties for building modern roads paved in macadam or concrete.~~
However, these state-aided roads constructed by the county are poorly constructed, seem to be placed at random, or both. ~~Therefore, the state steps in and starts constructing the roads itself and laying out a system, with a goal of connecting all county seats and major cities and towns in the state.~~ Little regard was paid to coordinating with neighboring states at first.
Many of the most important existing roads in the state are turnpikes, plank roads, and the like in varying levels of quality. The state acquired the roads or the road right of way by one or more methods and used the routes for this new statewide system.
Early roads are narrow by modern standards, often being 14 feet or less in width. The state developed or parroted methods of widening roads, particularly along heavily traveled thoroughfares.
World War I affected the state highway system. Heavy military traffic and truck traffic related to the war effort damaged the existing roads and created lessons in building roads that can stand up to the heavy traffic. Many roads were improved or proposed to be improved due to their wartime importance.
Especially in northern states, not expending effort to clear snow from the roads in the winter led to the roads being closed to many automobiles for months. When spring comes, the roads are found to have been heavily damaged. Thus, snow removal became an important task.
The rural versus urban conflict came into play with state road systems. Rural areas often were favored in construction of new roads by the state. Conversely, the cities often resisted being pulled into the state road system.
There were conflicts between the railroads and the state highway system on what to do when the two crossed. Construction of grade separations became important to improve traffic flow and eliminate the danger of fatal collisions. Many state highways in urban areas doubled as streetcar routes, with all of the entailing conflict until the streetcar routes were discontinued and the road was then only used for automobiles.
Federal aid for lateral and post roads affected which roads were improved and spurred such construction.
~~The U.S. Highway system is introduced, affecting which corridors are deemed most important and resulting in route number changes.~~
Early on, roads were improved in place. New pavement was laid on trails used for decades. As road planning, engineering, and construction improved, dangerous curves were bypassed and dangerous and deficient bridges were replaced with modern ones. In addition, roads were built on an entirely new path using the latest methods. New roads were constructed through rural areas to better connect two locations. New roads were constructed to bypass towns and separate local and long-distance traffic. Passage through major geographic barriers like mountains was improved by building on a new alignment.
In many cases, existing roads could no longer be expanded in urban and suburban areas. To avoid this problem, new highways were built with two carriageways or designed in such a way to allow a second carriageway to be built when necessary without needing to acquire more land. Twin carriageways also mostly solved the problem of head-on collisions.
The concept of access of control is introduced to avoid the problem of rampant development directly along highways.
Grade separation of two or more highways is introduced with interchanges to connect the highways.
~~The first freeways are built, mostly in urban areas.~~
World War II caused a major shift in priorities. Most highways languished in favor of improving and constructing new highways to serve important military routes and access military bases and crucial war manufacturing centers.
Following the war, there is a burst of highway-building activity in all areas of the state to compensate for the concentrated priorities of the war effect and explosive population growth, particularly as people flee the cities for the suburbs.
~~Maintenance deferred during the war is corrected. Minor highways are gradually improved to modern standards over the decades.~~
Freeways and other controlled-access highways are built to bypass towns and cities. Highways are widened and dualized.
Freeways and other controlled-access highways are planned on long-distance routes through rural areas to connect cities and relieve the older highways. Many of the freeways are planned as toll roads due to the 50:50 federal aid split not being good enough financially...
~~...until the state scraps toll road plans with the introduction of the Interstate Highway System and its 90:10 federal aid split.~~
The Interstates take many, many years to be built. Once Interstate routes are completed, the old state highways along a corridor are bypassed, and some are removed from the state highway system or even the U.S. Highway system.
Freeway revolts redirect, delay, inhibit, or kill freeway plans. The rise of environmentalism does the same.
New freeways are built that take advantage of the latest planning, engineering, and construction methods. Old freeways need to be rebuilt to modern standards as much as possible to eliminate sharp curves, narrow roadways, and poorly designed bridges and interchanges.

I am probably missing many helpful themes, especially themes closer to the present day, but these ones should be helpful in adding content. Feel free to add more themes to help this article achieve the proper breadth and depth. V C 01:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the status? It's been almost a month. --Rs chen 7754 08:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has not been edited since November. If the Pennsylvania Turnpike ACR got archived for lack of activity, this one should be, too. V C 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That article did not get archived for inactivity; concerns were that the article was being entirely rewritten and that necessitated a restart of the review. --Rs chen 7754 18:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the situations are different. V C 02:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Imzadi1979: can you please post onwiki as to the status of this review? Thank you. --Rs chen 7754 23:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A large expansion of the history has been added, which should address many of these. There are a few minor points to add in (freeway revolts in Detroit from the I-96 article, possibility of adding some the specifics of of the controversy over M-6 and I-696, etc.) but it would be appreciated if VC would strike the points he feels the article covers rather than leaving a laundry list of themes to cover, which imply the article doesn't cover some 24 bullet points. Imzadi 1979 → 01:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I struck the themes that appear to have been addressed in the History section. V C 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review and spotcheck by Fredddie

Image review and spotcheck

I intend to do this. –Fredddie ™ 00:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File:I-75.svg Y PD-MUTCD (corrected license)
File:US 23.svg Y PD-MUTCD (corrected license)
File:M-28.svg Y PD Michigan
File:MI highways.svg Y PD-self (I made it)
File:Business Loop 196 spaced.svg Y PD-MUTCD
File:M-60Bus.svg Y PD Michigan
File:Cheboygan County C-66.svg Y PD-MUTCD
File:Michigan 492 Marquette County.svg Y PD-ineligible
File:Forest Route 16.svg Y PD-MUTCD (corrected license)
File:Great Lakes Circle Tour.svg Y PD Michigan (OTRS)
File:Michigan Historic Heritage Route.svg Y PD Michigan (OTRS)
File:WelcomeToMichiganSignUS8Nov2009.jpg Y CC-BY-SA
File:US 31 Michigan 1926.svg Y PD-MUTCD
File:M-35 1926.svg Y PD
File:Thefirstruralhighwaycenterline.png Y PD
File:M-Blank.svg Y PD Michigan

Images look good. –Fredddie ™ 02:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I confirm that I have verified the OTRS information. --Rs chen 7754 02:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should own up to the spotcheck part. If I have highlighted a reference with {{!xt}}, it did not check out; otherwise, if it is listed here it does check out. I spotchecked 20 references (25%). –Fredddie ™ 00:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Michigan Legislature (1915). "Chapter 91: State Reward Trunk Line Highways". In Shields, Edmund C.; Black, Cyrenius P.; Broomfield, Archibald. The Compiled Laws of the State of Michigan, Volume I. Lansing, MI: Wynkoop, Hallenbeck, Crawford. pp. 1868–72. OCLC 44724558. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
Staff (June 18, 2010). "Road & Highway Facts". Michigan Department of Transportation. Retrieved September 27, 2010.
"Route Renumbering: New Green Markers Will Replaces Old Shields" (PDF). California Highways and Public Works 43 (1–2): 11–14. March–April 1964. ISSN 0008-1159. Retrieved March 8, 2012.
Bureau of Public Roads (November 11, 1926) (PDF). United States System of Highways (Map). Retrieved May 10, 2008. Since it's just a map, it does not mention any Michigan trunklines changing numbers.
Hamilton, William E. (February 2007). "Act 51 Primer: A Guide to 1951 Public Act 51 and Michigan Transportation Funding" (PDF). Michigan House Fiscal Agency. p. 8. Retrieved September 27, 2010.
Staff (December 2009). "Chapter 2D: Guide Signs—Conventional Roads" (PDF). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009 ed.). Federal Highway Administration. pp. 143–146. ISBN 978-1-59804-535-2.
Staff (May 1, 2008). "Appendix C: State Trunkline Connector Routes" (PDF). Michigan Geographic Framework. Michigan Department of Information Technology. Retrieved October 15, 2008. Note: However, the connectors are listed as M-44 Conn, not CONN M-44...
Staff (February 5, 2010). "Drive Home Our Heritage". Heritage Routes. Michigan Department of Transportation. Retrieved May 7, 2011.
Ellison, Garret (July 4, 2011). "Ionia County Boasts First Roadside Picnic Table, One of West Michigan's Hidden Gems". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on April 25, 2012. Retrieved July 6, 2011.
Staff (March 1, 2010) (PDF). Section 394 Report: Analysis of Transportation Funding Distribution Formula (Report). Michigan Department of Transportation. p. 12. Retrieved October 28, 2012.
"Michigan To Push Its North–South Turnpike: Toll Road To Link Centers of Industrial Areas". Youngstown Vindicator. February 21, 1955. p. 2. OCLC 5424159. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
Bagley, Les (October 25, 2007). "Autos Across Mackinac: Michigan Decides Against Building Turnpikes". The St. Ignace News. OCLC 36250796. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
Bagley, Les (January 17, 2008). "Autos Across Mackinac: Bridge Construction Continues; Tourism Down". The St. Ignace News. OCLC 36250796. Retrieved October 30, 2012.
"The Cracks are Showing". The Economist. June 26, 2008. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved October 23, 2008.(subscription required)
"World's Costliest Wonder Bridge Opens Today, Links Michigan's Two Peninsulas: Williams Leads First Caravan Across Bridge". Ludington Daily News. Associated Press. November 1, 1957. p. 1. Retrieved March 30, 2013.
"World's Heaviest Lift Bridge Dedication Is Set at Houghton". Ironwood Daily Globe. June 7, 1960. p. 3. Retrieved March 30, 2013.
"Gasoline Tax Wins Senate Approval". Ludington Daily News. United Press International. December 13, 1972. p. 1. Retrieved March 30, 2013.
Schmidt, William E. (December 15, 1989). "Pleasant Ridge Journal: The Freeway It Took A Generation to Build". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 7, 2011.
Truscott, John (August 31, 1998). "Governor Engler Opens US 27 Freeway" (Press release). Michigan Department of Transportation. Archived from the original on March 15, 2007. Retrieved May 24, 2008.
Riestma, Jeff (May 21, 2008). "Michigan Department of Transportation Updates US 131 Plans". Kalamazoo Gazette. OCLC 9940379. Archived from the original on February 5, 2011. Retrieved February 5, 2011.
- Ok, I added the one map footnote that was needed to resolve the minor 1926 issue... as for the CONN M-44/M-44 CONN thing, just keeping consistent with the other articles... Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I am sufficiently satisfied with the fix. –Fredddie ™ 00:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Evad37

Resolved issues

Usage section:

"The M in the state highway numbers". M should be in quote marks or italics
"reassurance marker shields posted along the side of the highway." should refer to highways (plural), not a single highway
" "Route nn" or "Highway nn", but as "M-nn" " – should explain that nn means a 1 to 3 digit number. Also, why is nn in italics here but not elsewhere?
" "M-nn" trunklines are designated along eight-lane freeways in urban areas, four-lane rural freeways and expressways, principal arterial highways, two-lane highways in remote rural areas, and even M-185,[10] a non-motorized road restricted to bicycles, horse-drawn carriages and pedestrians on Mackinac Island.[11]" – Consider splitting the M-185 into a second sentence, or otherwise rewording. Seems clumsy to have " "M-nn" trunklines are designated along ...[list]... , and even M-185"
"There were also some examples of "M-numbered" state highways which once existed..." – were seems to indicate that all the following M highways no longer exist. It would be better to use are.

History section:

Phrases that should be wikilinked: "War of 1812", "corduroy roads", "plank road"
"...and even Henry Ford was cool to the idea..." – Consider rephrasing ("cool" is more of a positive term in modern/colloquial usage).
" designated Trunkline 15, now County Road 492 in Marquette County.[e])" – ")" is mismatched/unused
"the tower elevated a police officer above the center of the intersection to direct traffic before the structure was replaced in October 1920 with the world's first four-way traffic light.[52]" – too many words in one sentence. Needs punctuation, or break it up into two sentences.
"while the coming of the U.S. Highway System" – I think "introduction" or "implementation" sounds better than "coming"
"the Michigan State Highway Department" – needs to be followed by (MSHD), to explain the later use of MSHD
"The Michigan Turnpike Authority (MTA), an agency which was created in 1951" – "which was" is redundant
"The original termini for the turnpike were Bridgeport and Rockwood" wikilink to Bridgeport, Michigan and Rockwood, Michigan
"The first Interstate Highway in the state was signposted in October 1959 when I-75 signs were first installed along the Detroit–Toledo Expressway, replacing US 24A signage in the Monroe area,[64] after the state waited for final approval of the numbering system to be used in the state.[65]" – Another long sentence that might work better as two. Also, "after the state received final approval" makes more sense than "waited for"
"An original goal of Michigan's freeways..." – were there other goals?
"Following the start of these highway improvements, the MSHD adopted a policy to allow traffic to use the state's trunklines every day of the year" – What was the situation/s that prevented traffic using the state's trunklines every day?
"Bypasses of Cadillac and Manton..." wikilink to the articles

Other:

Would it possible to modify the infobox map, or include another map where Interstate highways, US highways, and state highways are colour coded (with an appropriate legend for the colours included)?

This is my first contribution to ACR, I hope it is useful to you - Evad37 (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. All of your comments should be addressed, so let me know if you see anything else. I'm not at my regular computer at this moment, so once I am, I'll work on updating the colors of the US Highways on the map. The Interstates are already in blue, business routes in green. It shouldn't be hard to toss a color key in the infobox caption once done. Imzadi 1979 → 08:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Some more comments:

The Highway names section of the infobox should match the form used in the Usage sections
The image of the Welcome sign along US 8 cause text to be sandwiched between it and the infobox on small screens (on whatever resolution iPhones use, plus on a desktop with a width of 1024px)
The lead does not meet all the requirements of MOS:LEAD, specifically "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" – the most important aspects of the History sections should be summarised in the lead, perhaps as a second paragraph

- Evad37 (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick replies, but the comments on the lead were noted by Dough above, and I promised him in my reply that I'd get to it once I was off work this morning. So that's in progress... Imzadi 1979 → 11:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead has been expanded, which also takes care of the sandwiched text quite nicely. Imzadi 1979 → 14:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, the first paragraph of the lead ends in an incomplete thought: "... by MDOT; some are[end of paragraph]" - Evad37 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Got it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Support, as all above issues have been resolved - Evad37 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

More comments by TCN7JM

Despite striking my comment about reviewing this, I will review this article later today. T C N7JM 12:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm not feeling that well today. I'll get to this tomorrow. T C N7JM 01:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

So, were the road districts created along with the creation of the Michigan Territory? If not, the second sentence in the second paragraph doesn't make sense.

Usage

"with a block letter Mat the top." - Missing a space in there.
The second-to-last sentence of the second paragraph irks me a bit. The way it's written makes me think that trunklines are designated along eight-lane freeways in urban areas and urban areas only, and that they're only designated along two-lane highways in remote rural areas. Is there some way you could rewrite this?

Numerical duplicatioin

Consistency error: The third paragraph has a usage of "US Highways", while the rest of the article (as far as I've seen) uses "U.S. Highways".

County roads and other systems

In the first sentence, it looks and sounds weird with "in the state" being used twice in the sentence.

19th century

You're missing a space before the last sentence of the second paragraph.
A bit of a nitpick, but Chicago, Illinois redirects to Chicago, so you can fix the piped link.
First sentence of the sixth paragraph is missing a period.
The Grand River Avenue picture needs a comma after "US 16".

Mid-20th century and later

You say the Portage Lake Bridge opened in 1959, then in the same sentence you say the International Bridge opened "five years later" in 1962.
"During the 1960 or 1970s" - I'm sure you see the error here.

That's it. Have fun! T C N7JM 15:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And all are fixed. Thanks for the review! Imzadi 1979 → 15:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! And I like how you split the Mid-20th subsection. I support. T C N7JM 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Creek Turnpike

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.

Three support votes result in this article being promoted. -happy 5214 08:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Creek Turnpike/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Finally, at long last, I give you—the Creek Turnpike. This article has been in the works since 2008, whenever I collected all the sources, but I kind of put off doing it until the last couple of months. (Much like the highway itself, planned in the 1950s was put off until the early 1990s!) I've been planning on this being my third FAC since its sister turnpike, the Chickasaw, passed. I think it's ready now. Don't let the size of the article put you off reviewing it—the GA reviewer told me that it was quite interesting.

Known issues: 1) the OSM map is sort of shoddy. Happy5214 is going to create a better version for me at some point soon when some OSM changes he made push through to the tile renderer. 2) There are a few Tulsa World references that are missing page numbers. These are articles that I didn't collect from the online database at my college in 2008; while that database (which I no longer have access to) had page numbers available, the Tulsa World website does not, so I have no way of looking these up. (References which are known to be missing the page number have an HTML comment in the source. If there is no HTML comment, please let me know, as it means I probably overlooked that ref.)

Nominated by: —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I just reviewed this article when it was at GAN, so reviewing it again would be redundant, and I'm sure somebody else would like to do the image review, so I'll take the spotcheck. T C N7JM 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I'm supposed to review 25% of the sources with 20 being the maximum required...so 20 it is!

Source 13 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 14 - (Preliminary note: I think the title should be "Pikepass History", not "OTA History".) Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 19 - Verifiable, one word bothers me...is it possible to replace the word "regardless"?
Source 23 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 37 - Not verifiable, no plagiarism...Elm Street isn't mentioned at all in the source. It says the final leg started at Peoria Avenue.
Source 38 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 40 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 42 - Somewhat verifiable, no plagiarism...no dates are mentioned in the source, only weekdates, and the article is dated 2/27/2007.
Source 87 - Somewhat verifiable, no plagiarism...I'm not seeing a $7 million budget overrun.
Source 93 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 94 - (Preliminary note: The Tulsa World isn't mentioned in the footnote.) Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 95 - Somewhat verifiable, no plagiarism...I don't see anything about an August 2013 scheduled completion date.
Source 96 - Verifiable, plagiarism not applicable
Source 97 - Not verifiable, no plagiarism...no mention of the year 1996.

I'll add more later, but if I remember correctly (again), the Tulsa World only lets you read ten articles per month for free. More to come... T C N7JM 18:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Source 94 is from the OTA website, not the Tulsa World. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. T C N7JM 01:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I mixed up 94 and 95, I think. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a Page Not Found error on Source 96. Does that mean I've run out of free articles or that the link has moved? T C N7JM 12:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

They appear to have reorganized their entire website since the time that links were added to the article. ^#$%$%^#&... —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Check again. They seem to have added automatic redirects so you end up where you were supposed to. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It works perfectly fine now. T C N7JM 20:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Source 10 seems to have moved as well. T C N7JM 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The above fourteen sources are as many as I can view without going over the free views limit set by the Tulsa World. Can somebody else please take a look at six different sources once I'm done? T C N7JM 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If nobody volunteers, I could potentially email six sources to you to check. I have all of the Tulsa World articles listed saved to my email. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at fourteen sources above. Go ahead and fix this stuff before I look at six more. I haven't decided which six I will look at yet. T C N7JM 23:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Replies:

14: Replaced with a link to the PDF that's also linked on the same page, which has an actual title and no annoying/confusing JavaScript hatting things.
19: What's wrong with "regardless" in this context? The toll was collected no matter whether you got on right next to it or at the beginning of the road. "Regardless" conveys that.
I thought it was borderline plagiarism at the time, but it's fine, I guess. T C N7JM 02:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay, didn't know that was your concern. I fixed it. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
37: It should be noted that Peoria Avenue, as it is named in Tulsa, is called Elm Street in Jenks, where the turnpike intersects it. (It's one of those things where the suburb names the street differently from the main city for whatever reason.) The exit is signed "Peoria–Elm", but calling it Peoria is technically an error on the newspaper's part, albeit probably a well-intentioned one meant to help readers unfamiliar with the Jenks area.
I'd mention something like that in the article. T C N7JM 02:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
42: Assuming we're talking about Fighting toll roads—the date included in the article is the one that I have from the online database I retrieved it from. The 2007 date displayed on the Tulsa World website is probably an error, since it wouldn't make much sense to protest a new road fifteen years after it opened to traffic.
87: Must have misread the source. Fixed.
95: Fixed. Wasn't added by me.
97: Again, the World has the wrong date on their article. My copy of the article gives a date of January 13, 1996.

—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks great now, but I can't support just yet. I need six more (still undecided on which). T C N7JM 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I finally decided. I will be looking at Sources 61-66 momentarily. T C N7JM 18:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Scott sent me 62-67 by mistake, so I guess I'm reviewing them instead.

Source 62 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 63 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 64 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 65 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 66 - Verifiable, no plagiarism
Source 67 - Verifiable, no plagiarism

Now having looked at twenty sources, I feel I can support the article's promotion to A-Class. T C N7JM 19:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Extended content

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 17:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Since the turnpike is maintained by both OTA and ODOT, the infobox should mention that ODOT also maintains the road.
I am not certain, since the ODOT-maintained portion is so short, it may not be significant enough to include. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Typically, infoboxes include all agencies that maintain parts of the road, regardless of length. Dough 48 72 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "The extension to the east opened in three parts, from 2001 to 2002." sounds awkward.
Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"before bridging the Arkansas River into Tulsa" sounds awkward. Maybe change to "crossing" and change "crosses" in "crosses Polecat Creek" to "bridges".
Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it really relevant to mention where the northern terminus of US 169 is? All that needs to be said here is that it heads north.
This is done to emphasize the importance of US-169 and the significance of this being the southern terminus of such an extensive route. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"The highway next enters Broken Arrow,[3] then crosses over Haikey Creek." needs to be reworded. I would suggest replacing the comma with "and".
Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the overuse of "then" in the route description. The word "then" does not need to be used to describe the progression of the route.
Pared back some. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The route description seems kind of dry in just mentioning intersecting roads and towns. Maybe mention some landmarks that are near the road.
I am not aware of any (but then, this may be because I am not all that familiar with Tulsa/Broken Arrow). It mostly goes through your typical suburban stuff. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The sentence " This was the ideal corridor for a freeway, due to its low right-of-way costs, comparable to more southerly corridors, further away from the urban core" is very choppy.
Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"and around six that had accounts at the bank closed them.", what is the six referring to? This should be clarified.
Changed to present wording due to GAN. It's obvious that the six refers to protesters. What else would it be referring to? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The sentence " As with the first section of the turnpike, tolls were waived for the weekend; the road was free until noon on December 18" sounds awkward.
What makes it sound awkward? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems to flow awkward with a comma and a semicolon. I would suggest rewording to "As with the first section of the turnpike, tolls were waived for the weekend, with the road being free until noon on December 18". Dough 48 72 15:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the present wording. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"The final segment of the extension, connecting New Orleans Street and the Muskogee Turnpike to the Will Rogers Turnpike, was scheduled to open August 16", did it open on August 16?
See GAN. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Are there any more details that can be added pertaining to the specific groundbreaking of the sections of the turnpike?
No. All details are included as covered by the Tulsa World. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The tolls are as of 2009, can this be updated to be as of 2013?
Is the $3.50 toll for each barrier toll plaza or for traveling the entire road?
Are cash and Pikepass fares the same at the sidegate toll plazas? This should be clarified.
Can the locations of which exits have the sidegate toll plazas be clarified, either in the tolls section or the exit list? Dough 48 72 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
All comments regarding the toll section have been addressed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - The article looks good now. Dough 48 72 14:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

File:Creek Turnpike.svg - Fair use, licensed properly for non-free use
File:Creek Turnpike path.png - PD, uploaded by author
File:Creek Turnpike OSM.png - CC-BY-SA, uploaded from OSM
File:Creek Tpk Exit 31.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:Least Tern Chicks Day 2.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded from Flickr
File:Creek East Plaza.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author

Images all check out and are formatted correctly within the article. I'd like to see more pictures for the history section (planning and/or construction), but I'll Support. Sounder Bruce 18:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SounderBruce here. I'd like to see at least one more picture in the History section if possible. T C N7JM 02:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would as well. However, the images that I have on hand are either too similar to the ones already posted or I can't say for sure where exactly they were taken. Additionally, they're all on the east extension, so I'd like to add more from the western and central segments of highway. Unfortunately, that means I'm going to have to go up to Tulsa for more photos, so it may be a while. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Imzadi1979

I'll look at reference formatting later, but my review is based on a printed copy of this revision.

Lead looks good to me.
I'd prefer to see the counties added to the infobox.
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Route description
- Do we need the "the" in parenthesis after I-44? I just ask because I don't know that I've seen a "the" placed like that in other highway articles.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- "The highway enters Jenks less than one mile east..." I would encourage a manually entered conversion here. In other articles where I've used similar phrasing, I've inserted the conversion as something like "(approximately X km)" using a rounded value.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- My high school chemistry teacher would be proud of me for saying this, but no measurement is complete without a value and a unit. In discussing the AADT values at the end of the RD, the measurements lack units, which I assume are "vehicles".
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
History
- Planning for the first segment
  - ODOT's abbreviation was given up in the lead, so there's no need to use the full name here. Ditto OTA a few sentences lower.
    - I wasn't sure if the abbreviation from the lead "carried over" to the body of the article. Fixed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  - "what would ultimately become the Cherokee, ... and John Kilpatrick turnpikes" notice the lower case "t" on "turnpikes; that's the proper way to pluralize proper names.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  - "On February 16, 1989, the Turnpike sold..." the road sold bonds?
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Each inflation-adjusted figure needs to have a footnote for the inflation method. Per discussions in the past, I would make sure you're using the updated method announced at Template talk:Inflation#Beta announcement: US National Gross Domestic Product per capita following Measuring Worth. Also note that that new method outputs 2011 dollars, not 2013 dollars.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Just to clear up an potential ambiguity, I'd state that it was to have an "18-foot-wide (5.5 m) median" on first mention.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - "...was a route shift of..." → "...was a shift in the route of..."
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  - "along the right-of-way to construct recreational trails ~~upon~~" I don't think the hanging preposition here is necessary.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Construction
  - "Bids were opened ... in that November" sounds better to me.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - ""The Creek Turnpike was initially posted with a 55-mile-per-hour (89 km/h) speed limit..." adjective form here. (That or flip it to "a speed limit of 55 mph (89 km/h)" if you'd like to abbreviate it.)
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Opposition
  - "... to their community and to the environment as their concerns."
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - I'd flip the attribution of that one quote around to "said Tom Taylor, an area resident" to drop one of the commas.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - I'd reword the discussion of closed bank accounts to read, "and around six closed their accounts." Just simplifies things, and the implication is that if they closed their accounts, they must have had them to close them.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Personally, I never use words for numbers 10 and above, and ages are always in years even for numbers 1 through 9. It's slightly jarring to read "one thousand signatures" and then "1,400 signatures" in the next line.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - In the sentence about the crime, I dislike "broken into" instead of "burglarized"; it's a hanging preposition thing. If you're worried about repetition, "burglars" can become "vandals" or "thieves" as both are appropriate synonyms.
    - Fixed. Used "perpetrators" to avoid repetition; is that too formal? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Environmental concerns
  - I'd pluralize "wetland" in the March 1990 sentence.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  - US Fish and Wildlife Service has "FWS" as an abbreviation that I'd use.
  - "nineteen-page" → "19-page"
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  - ACE has already been given as the abbreviation (actually it should be "USACE" or "CoE") so I'd reduce "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" to the abbreviation.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  - There's a direct quote that's been modified to read "God only knows when [the Creek Turnpike]]'ll be completed", and if we're going to substitute text in the quote with a bracketed expansion, I would avoid the contraction.
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Extensions
  - Nikkimaria has changed any %s in running prose in my past FACs to spell out the word "percent", so I'd change the "10%" to "10 percent".
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Another "Turnpikes" that should be dropped to lowercase.
- Later history
  - "U.S. Highway 75" →"US-75" for consistency?
    - Done (not added by me) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Tolls and Exit list sections look fine to me except one thing: "E. 96th St. S." when the others have "Street" spelled out.
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
References
- Even when an edition or title specifies a year, or range of years, I'd still explicitly specify the year of publication. As an example, the 2003–04 edition of the MDOT map was updated for the 2004 printing to show the opening of a segment of the St. Joseph Valley Parkway. Also, the citation templates do output COinS metadata, so omitting the publication year does mean the metadata doesn't contain any date.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Citations that link to PDFs should have |format=PDF included in the templates.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fn 1 and fn 7 have the accessdate in "Month DD, YYYY" format while the remainder of the references are using the ISO-style "YYYY-MM-DD" format for all dates. Personally, I prefer using the more standard date format for all references, but the key is consistency.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- The FHWA NHS map should have a publication date listed on it someplace that should be included in the citation.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Who published fn 13?
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- FN 14 shouldn't be missing a publisher. If the staff at the OTA wrote it, I'd use |author=Staff and put OTA as the publisher; alternately you could repeat OTA as both author and publisher. If there's a specific office/division/bureau that could be listed as the author, that would be good too. Ditto fn 96
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- FN 98 has two GMaps citations in it. FN 4 does too. I'd use |link=no in the templates in fn 98 to suppress the link to Google in the last footnote. I would also use a more specific title in those two cases so they don't look the same.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- One last comment about consistency. Not all newspapers use Title Case for headlines, and not all use Sentence case either. Personally, as a stylistic preference, I convert all headlines to Title Case for consistency, just as I reformat highway abbreviations away from the AP Stylebook-mandated "U.S. 41" or the hyphenated "US-41" used on some websites for consistency with the "US 41" used by the article text on Wikipedia articles for Michigan highways. Such minor changes are permissible, and make the footnotes look more polished.
  - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Otherwise, the citations look quite good. Imzadi 1979 → 09:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, this is exactly the sort of small stuff I was afraid I'd missed. I'll work on fixing these over the next few days or so. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything should be done. Whew! —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick thing, but footnotes 5, 6, and 9 could use dates/years of publication, if possible. Otherwise all looks good. Imzadi 1979 → 02:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Support—all looks good from my end. Imzadi 1979 → 08:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I'll take review #3. --Rs chen 7754 03:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

General stuff

Invest in User:Ucucha/duplinks.js and use it to check the article.
- 2 duplicate links found and removed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Need a citation for the existed date.
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

Signage at Exit 31 -> lowercase exit
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

RJL

No issues.

Lead

Nevertheless, the highway opened to traffic in three sections, starting from the easternmost, - the last phrase doesn't sit well with me.
- Could you give me a suggestion? Just about every reviewer has had a problem with what I've changed that sentence to so as to appease the last one. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  - I'm not particularly happy about that sentence, but I suppose I can live with it. --Rs chen 7754 08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Mix up the beginnings of the sentences in the 3rd paragraph of the lead.
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

More later. --Rs chen 7754 12:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

RD

"swings"?
- I think it's important to vary word usage and not limit ourselves to the same two or three ways of describing things. I try to keep from writing the sort of stale, crusty stuff that characterizes the typical route description whenever I can.
Exit 28 - exit should be lowercase. Ditto for the rest of the occurrences in the article.
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Single sentence paragraph is not a good idea.
- Agreed, but we couldn't really find anything else to do with that sentence at the GA review. Care to make a suggestion? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  - I'd just merge it into the prior paragraph. --Rs chen 7754 06:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    - Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Planning

with construction complete -> with construction to be complete
- Done

Tulsa

Can we combine the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs? --Rs chen 7754 02:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I combined the 3rd and the 4th paragraphs instead. The reason is because at the end of the 2nd paragraph, we're still at Tulsa wanting these changes and OTA being opposed. At the beginning of the 3rd, OTA is agreeing to them. I think that makes a logical place for a paragraph break. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Construction

However, - should not be used at the beginning of a sentence
- Why not? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  - That's apparently improper grammar and will make FAC unhappy. --Rs chen 7754 05:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    - This column appears to suggest otherwise. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      - Maybe, but also see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 56/archive1. --Rs chen 7754 05:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
        It appears that Sandy's concern was that it was overused and added nothing to the article when used, not that it was ungrammatical. "However" only appears four times in this article. In two of those cases, it serves to connect two sentences and illustrate a contrast between them, a legitimate use of the word; a third instance of it is mid-sentence. I'm removing the fourth instance because I feel less confident in it. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Is Richard Ridings notable enough for an article? --Rs chen 7754 04:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would say so. He appears in multiple independent, verifiable sources, like dozens of these Tulsa World articles; I just didn't really have much of a need to quote him over the course of this article. Heads of road agencies are generally notable; the current occupant of the position, Gary Ridley has an article. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposition

Didn't really find any issues, though the one child header seems a bit odd to me. --Rs chen 7754 06:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The opposition section is in chronological order. Having the heading there helps organize the article; the paragraphs about the lawsuit are also in chronological order, but in a separate chronology than the rest of the opposition section. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Environmental concerns

As I told Imzadi1979 on his other review, when possible I would move the main citation before the inflation citation.
- Only found one place where this was needed; fixed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Extensions

$5,700,000,000 - $5.7 billion? Also for the other large inflation numbers.
- Fixed using {{formatprice}}. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
was scheduled to open August 16. - year?
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Tolls

Two citations to 98 in a row. --Rs chen 7754 09:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 08:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

California State Route 75

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.

This article has been promoted. -happy 5214 09:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/California State Route 75/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This just passed GA, and since it's comprehensive, I believe it could go to FA. It's about the same length as the CA 67 one. ~~Note: I have a new map uploaded, but Commons is acting strangely tonight so it won't display.~~

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 07:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 23:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Extended content

I will review this article. Dough 48 72 23:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

The sentence " In Imperial Beach, SR 75 curves to the north, becoming Silver Strand Boulevard and crossing into Coronado and continuing onto the peninsula containing Coronado Island, separated from the mainland by San Diego Bay." is very wordy.
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 01:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"The first contract for widening the highway between Coronado and Coronado Heights was awarded in 1944, as this part of the row was "now too narrow and dilapidated to meet traffic requirements.", is row correct or is that supposed to be road?
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The inflation template should be in 2013 dollars and not 2010 dollars.
Inflation series only goes up to 2010. --Rs chen 7754 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The speed limits in the article should have a metric conversion.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 01:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Overall, decent article. Dough 48 72 00:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 01:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I will now support the article. Dough 48 72 01:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

Review by T C N7JM

After Dough, of course. T C N7JM 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Bold the first usage of the abbreviation.

Route description

It's never mentioned in the beginning of this section that the route begins in San Diego, so saying "SR 75 crosses into the city of San Diego again" makes no contextual sense.

History

I'd spell out the single-digit numbers in the second sentence.

That's all. T C N7JM 02:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 02:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

There's still one more single-digit number I think needs spelling out. T C N7JM 02:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see that that has been fixed. Great job on this article, Rschen! I support promotion. T C N7JM 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

Just going to reserve this. Sounder Bruce 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

File:California 75.svg - PD, uploaded from Caltrans
File:California State Route 75.svg - PD, uploaded by authors (shields are also PD)
File:San Diego Coronado bridge01.JPEG - PD, uploaded from PD repository
File:CA SR 75 Orange Avenue.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author

As the GA reviewer and seeing the images all coming up good, I support. Sounder Bruce 01:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Resolved issues

Lead

"Coronado Highway" is used in |alternate_name in the infobox, but is not sourced nor mentioned anywhere in the text of the article
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"However, none of these proposals have gained support as late as 2010." – doesn't sound right. Maybe something like "However, none of these proposals have gained support, including the latest attempt in 2010."
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Route description

"The one-way couplet is brief, and SR 75 briefly becomes..." – consider rewording as "briefly" is only three words away from "brief"
- Removed briefly. --Rs chen 7754 04:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Through traffic is directed onto I-5 south or north in Logan Heights, and SR 75 ends." – consider changing "and" to "where"
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"SR 75 is part of the National Highway System" – Consider changing to "also part of", to connect this sentence to the previous one, and so this sentence is less similar to the first one of the paragraph
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

History

Section seems under-wikilinked... Consider wikilinks where a different term may be used in other countries (eg sidewalk, traffic signals, pedestrian crossing)
- Added links to those three. --Rs chen 7754 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Conversions to 2010 should probably have a footnote, such as is done in the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System article
- I've gotten this on over 75% of the reviews that I've had over the last few months. Generally I've said that it would be too repetitive, but I'm considering adding them. --Rs chen 7754 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
"Tent City in Coronado" – Either wikilink "Tent City" to the appropriate section of the Coronado article, or explain at the first mention that it's a summer resort (avoid confusion with Tent city, which is mainly about those for homeless people)
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Edward Butler stated that the state had the ultimate authority to decide whether or not to build the bridge, and that the city of San Diego could not interfere." – Does the source have a direct quotation that can be used, or included in the reference?
- No, it just said "According to..." --Rs chen 7754 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"The speed limit was decreased to 25 miles per hour (40 km/h)" – what was the speed limit prior to the decrease?
- Unfortunately, that was not available in the source. --Rs chen 7754 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Traffic barriers along Third Street to block traffic from turning onto intersecting streets were removed in November 2004, after voters approved their removal" – consider changing the last part to ", following voters' approval" (or similar) to avoid repeating "removal"
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Following this, the Coronado City Council voted to abolish the Tunnel Commission." – Paragraph ends with the Tunnel Commission, which hasn't been mentioned before - when was it established?
- Added a bit of explanation. --Rs chen 7754 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Efforts were underway ..." – by whom?
- Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"It was described as a "hodgepodge ... " – change "it" to "the area" or similar
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"In September 2012, the Imperial Beach city council raised concerns over the Caltrans decision to change the speed limit on SR 75 to 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) due to concerns about safety"
- Change one of the "concerns" to another word
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I assume the decision was to raise the speed limit - the article should specify this, and the amount it was increased by
  - Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Has anything happened since the council raised its concerns? Were the concerns raised specifically with Caltrans, or with the general public, or with other people/organisations?
  - Haven't seen anything. --Rs chen 7754 04:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

- Evad37 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll get to this over the next few days. --Rs chen 7754 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved - Evad37 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Scott5114

Reference numbering from this version.

2: good, though I'm not quite sure I understand how exactly it's referenced in the RJL.
- It's more or less to corroborate the official length and routing of the route. --Rs chen 7754 09:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
8: wording is very close, not sure if this is an issue since the source is PD
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 09:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
11: source doesn't support that 6 miles of road were affected, it only mentions that 6 miles of curbing and 3 miles of sidewalk were to be installed (and that six miles may well be referring to the curbing on both sides of a three-mile segment)
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 09:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
14: good
31: good
34: Website appears broken or incompatible with my OS. I selected "1967" from the "statutes" dropdown and was given a blank one-page PDF, sections of which turned yellow when moused over.
- Emailing a screenshot. --Rs chen 7754 09:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  - good, might want to use a more accessible link if one is available though
    - I've been unable to get a better URL, unfortunately. --Rs chen 7754 09:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
41: source only states that 3rd and 4th streets are truck routes, not that they're SR 75
- Removed. --Rs chen 7754 09:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
42: good
43: good
44: good, but "100,000 Expected to Greet Presidents" is probably a better source for the info
45: good, but might want to include information on another point of opposition: if passed, Prop N would have prevented Coronado from making changes to traffic while the periphery road was investigated
53: good
56: good
58: mentions nothing about a change in the toll rate
- Citation was in wrong place. --Rs chen 7754 09:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
61: good
65: may want to say "the San Diego Union-Tribune described the area as...". Doesn't back up the paragraph's first sentence.
- Done, and the first sentence is just to summarize the rest of the paragraph. --Rs chen 7754 09:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
68: good
69: good

—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC), updated 09:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Some non-spotcheck notes that you might want to look into:

"$533 thousand" is non-standard usage. Most of the time this would be written $533,000.
Coronado mayor's name is McNeely, not McNelly, according to ref 45.
"it would require approval from over 30 government agencies": thirty is such a short word you might want to spell it out.

Fixed extra points. --Rs chen 7754 09:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't consider this a review, I just thought you might like to know. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck cleared —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Pennsylvania Route 652

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.

Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania Route 652/archive1

Suggestion: Demote from A-Class

Nominator's comments: Previous review: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Pennsylvania Route 652

Like Interstate 37, this is entirely sourced to either the NBI or maps, which is fine for GA, but fails "comprehensive" for the FA criteria. If it would not have a chance of passing at FA (as it failed in 2009), it should not remain A-Class, unless substantial work is done.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 10:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred:

Don't even bother asking for consensus, go right ahead. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 15:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We can work as a project to keep this at A-class rather than demoting it. Dough 48 72 17:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not completely sure it's worth it. All the sources are maps/National Bridge Inventory, and we've already got two other articles at ACR looking for collaboration, both of which are more important than this article simply because of the roads they're about. This can stay at GA, but it definitely doesn't meet the A-Class criteria, and it will take way too much digging through news sources to keep it where it is. T C N7JM 18:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Officially voting Demote as it will need a complete resourcing of the history, unfortunately. No problems with it staying GA. --Rs chen 7754 20:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Demote If someone wants to work on this article to bring it up to the higher-than-they-used-to-be A-Class standards, they are welcome to, but it will be assessed with a new A-Class Review. V C 21:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I, too, think this should be demoted. It's not that there are issues with the article, it's just that there isn't enough for it to be A-Class. It should remain a GA. T C N7JM 21:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

Washington State Route 104

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.

Withdrawn per user request. Dough 48 72 13:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I think its time I came back and nominated a second A-Class review. It will need work, but I'm confident that the foundation in this article is solid and can become Washington's third A-Class. Pretty interesting highway too: a floating bridge and a ferry thrown in.

Nominated by: Sounder Bruce 22:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing this ACR due to a lack of time and the fact that this article isn't really my "best work" since coming back in January. Sounder Bruce 04:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Infobox

Auxiliary route of US 101. We'll come back to this one in the RD section. I'm just noting my concern in the infobox.
See below.
We may want to go through the innards of Infobox road and change it so RCW links to Revised Code of Washington. I'd change it so it would read "Defined by RCW 47.17.175
Changed in Template:Infobox road/law/USA.
Do you have the exact date the 1964 renumbering took effect?
No real date for it that I can find. December 1, 1965 is when the records of the renumbering were published by the Department of Highways and 1970 is the year that the renumbering was added to state law (RCW).

Lead

No abbreviation definition? (and yes, it should be bold)
Added and bolded
In the past, I've read that it's a bad idea to have three-plus wikilinks in a row. Consider revising the sentence listing the counties.
Split up into three regions
You should use a wikilink ([[#spur route|spur route]]) to the section about SR 104 Spur when you mention it in the first paragraph.
Done
The second paragraph reads like it is out of order.
Re-ordered
If you disagree with the above, at least change one of the instances of "established" in the first sentence.
Try rewriting this paragraph as best you can to use the active voice.

Route description

"SR 104 begins at an at-grade partial cloverleaf interchange with US 101 in rural Jefferson County south of Discovery Bay, located on the Olympic Peninsula.[3]" strikes me as wordy. I think we'd be fine with two of the three locations listed in the sentence.
Moved Jefferson County to next sentence
I'm not sure how exactly I would describe the US 101 intersection, but "at-grade partial cloverleaf interchange" is not it.
Removed the whole description, just an intersection
Look over where you use "..., <verb>ing ..." Most of the time, these can be rewritten.
Unless I read it wrong, the "second longest" link is wrong because the Hood Canal Bridge was third on the list.
Fixed
It may go without saying, but you should say that the SR 3 intersection is on the east side of Hood Canal or at least near the foot of the bridge.
Mentioned
"...the northern Kitsap Peninsula..." sounds like there are two Kitsap Peninsulas.
Removed "northern"
Any reason Port Gamble is linked twice so close together? Port Gamble redirects to Port Gamble, Washington.
Removed the redirect
"The ferry, operated by Washington State Ferries (WSF), is on a 5.95-mile-long (9.58 km) route and is approximately a 30-minute crossing. ..." Rewriting this paragraph, but I had some questions:
1. Is 5.95 miles statutory miles or nautical miles?
  I did a quick check on Google Maps with a distance measurement tool, and it seems that it is just statutory miles. Google also says that 5.95 miles ≈ 5.1 nautical miles.
2. Are the 26 crossings really just 13 round trips?
  Point taken and fact corrected
Would it be better to say SR 104 resumes in Edmonds?
Agreed and corrected
to Woodway -> towards Woodway?
Fixed
Intersecting an interchange with 5th Street?
Added a better explanation
I'm not sure if a high school is the best landmark.
Removed
You kinda glossed over a part of the city. You went from the HS to SR 99 kind of abruptly and it reads like they're right next to each other. They're close, but not that close.
Removed HS, so it doesn't seem so close
Instead of "as Ballinger Way" you should say "along Ballinger Way". This occurs a couple more times earlier in the paragraph.
Removed as many instances as I could find
Are the creeks relevant? I don't think they're worth mentioning.
Removed creeks
Would it be OR to take the ferry's 2.025 million vehicles, divide it by 365.25 and use that as an AADT figure? That is, we should have comparable figures for the highway and for the ferry. Right now it's sorta like comparing apples to orchards.
What makes SR 104 a "Highway of Statewide Significance"?
Added an explanation of the system and a ref
Like I said in the infobox section. The infobox states that SR 104 is an auxiliary route of US 101, but nowhere in the article does it mention how that is the case. We USRD members know how Washington's numbering scheme works, but does the casual reader? I would assume not.
Added a ref explaining the numbering system

History

Instead of a picture of the ferry, which is very nice, I think a map of SR 104 showing the former designations would be more useful.
The history should be in chronological order. However, I see potential in the first sentence of the section. You could possibly rework that into a mini-lead for the whole section and then start a new paragraph with the 1915 establishment.
"The east span of the bridge was replaced between 1997 and 2010, ..." That reads like you don't know when it happened. You could say it was replaced in sections between 1997 and 2010 and that would sound better.
Now that I looked into it, 1997 is not mentioned at all in your sources. You should remedy that.
The early tolls should be inflated to 2013 dollars.

I will come back to this section and review it again after it's in chronological order.

Spur route

You already mentioned that WSDOT "conducted a series of surveys to measure traffic volume" in the RD. Just give us the AADT.

Overall, a decent effort. –Fredddie ™ 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I plan to review this too, but after Fredddie is finished. --Rs chen 7754 03:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing that I can say right now: please add shields and labels to give context to the map. --Rs chen 7754 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will also review once Fredddie and Rschen are done. Dough 48 72 03:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Image check by TCN7JM

I am starting an image review now. –TC N7 JM 21:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Image check by TC N7 JM

Image check

File:WA-104.svg – CC-BY-SA Good
File:Washington State Route 104.svg – PD Good
File:USS Ohio (SSBN-726) at Hood Canal Bridge.jpg – PD Good
- Consider removing the last clause of the caption. It seems extraneous and makes the caption five lines long
  - Done Sounder Bruce 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    - Get rid of the period. –TC N7 JM 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Washington State Ferry 6415.JPG – CC-BY-SA Good

Alright, that'll about do it! –TC N7 JM 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see you got rid of the period. The images are now good to go!

Support –TC N7 JM 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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 37

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.

Suggestion: Demote from A-Class

Nominator's comments: Prior review: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 37

This article passed our ACR in April 2008. Besides the obvious problem with the deadlinks and the missing mileposts, the history section is almost entirely sourced to the National Bridge Inventory, which only tells us when the bridges were built. This would fail at FAC under "comprehensive" and as such should not remain at A-Class within USRD. Unfortunately, since this would require entirely re-researching the article, and because the original nominator has left, I don't think we can fix this.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 20:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 20:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I'll go ahead and take a look at this one in a little while. T C N7JM 20:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is just a cursory look and that there are most definitely more concerns to be addressed by other reviewers.

I will be fixing TCN7JM's issues. –Fredddie ™ 01:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

What is the point of writing out "U.S. 281" and then abbreviating it as "US 281"? You have to write out the full name of the highway first.
Fixed. –Fredddie ™
"The highway's southern terminus is located in Corpus Christi at US 181 and SH 35, and heads north to San Antonio, where it ends at I-35." - By the way this sentence is written, it seems like the southern terminus heads north and ends at I-35.
Fixed. –Fredddie ™

Route description

General comment: What's up with all the whitespace at the bottom of this section? Can't the pictures be somewhere else?
Gone. –Fredddie ™
The second sentence doesn't make much sense. It reads like a run-on and should probably be split. Mention that the route connects to Brownsville and McAllen via US 281 and US 77 in the second sentence.
Not sure how to fix this one. –Fredddie ™
I attempted to fix it myself. Somebody should check it, though. T C N7JM 02:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Same with the last sentence in the first paragraph. It would read better as two split sentences.
Fixed. –Fredddie ™
Ugh, the repetition. Use different nouns to portray I-37. "I-37" is used way too often.
Took out a few. –Fredddie ™
As with other good content, the "<verb>ing" phrases need to go.
How's that? –Fredddie ™
I think it's worth mentioning what types of interchanges these are. Just saying the highway intersects SH 358 doesn't give the reader enough of a mental picture. This doesn't need to be done for all the intersections, but at least a few.
This is a really short RD overall for a 143-mile route. Consider adding a few more details to make it a paragraph or two longer.
You should have started out with this one. I would have rewritten the whole thing. –Fredddie ™ 02:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. T C N7JM 02:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

History

I feel like we don't need five or six citations for one statement. I think any more than three is overdoing it.
" In 1971, I-37 reached FM 888 and service to the city of Mathis." - What exactly does this mean?

Major intersections

Obvious missing mileposts are obvious. What I'm wondering is: Why are mileposts available for the first few exits but not any of the others?

That's it for my short look. These are just general fixes. Others are going to scrutinize this article a little more. T C N7JM 00:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove - Nobody's trying to fix this and it has so many problems that it shouldn't remain at A-Class. T C N7JM 23:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A Texas contributor's Comments

I will go ahead and try to fix this, since I am one of the main Texas contributors. I was planning to fix this in the future, but I guess I need to get around to it now. Luckily, I already had already gathered a few sources to expand the history section. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 20:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

30 day notice being left. --Rs chen 7754 23:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Demote. The list of things to fix is long while the list of people willing to fix them is short if it exists at all. –Fredddie ™ 23:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Demote per Fredddie - basically the entire rewriting of the history is what concerns me. --Rs chen 7754 23:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Demote - Needs a lot of work and no one interested in working on it. Dough 48 72 00:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear agreement to demote this article from A class status. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

Mitchell Freeway

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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This is Oceania's and Australia's first GA class article, and now it will be the first road article from outside North America to go to A-Class review. Please note that the article currently uses {{Infobox Australian road}} instead of {{Infobox road}}. While I am not against the use of {{Infobox road}} as a concept, the template requires further work to customise it for Australian roads, and I'd rather not bring up the issue here considering what happened last time it was raised. As far as I am aware, {{Infobox Australian road}} is compliant with the MOS.

Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 16:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 16:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Maybe some more historical detail can be added to the lead.
The sentence "The original plan took the route, then known as the Yanchep Highway,[2] inland from what is now known as Karrinyup Road to the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Balcatta Road,[1] but the first gazetted edition of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, from 1963, shows a controlled-access highway along the current freeway alignment" is long and needs to be split.
The sentence "Ground improvement works began in 1964, which included the installations of 43,000 sand drains,[5] and demolition of buildings in the freeway's path commenced in 1965." sounds awkward and may need to be split.
The sentence "Construction of the extension, initially planned for May 2006, began on 14 December 2006, managed by Main Roads in conjunction with Macmahon Contractors." reads choppy and needs to be reworded.
The sentence "Construction of the third lane is scheduled for the first half of 2013, with the existing lanes to be resurfaced later, during the summer months of 2013-14." is wordy. I would remove "later" and the comma.
The statement "The project is scheduled to start in January 2013, with completion expected to be in December 2013" is outdated.
The sentence "The report recommends a staged approach, including intersection improvements from 2013–15, followed by extending the freeway to Hester Avenue by 2017, and then building an expressway standard extension to Romeo Road, Alkimos by 2021" is long and needs to be split.
The sentence "The main northbound exit to Hay Street is via an access road, beginning from the Mounts Bay Road exit ramp, that rejoins the freeway as an outside lane on the shared Riverside Drive and Mounts Bay Road entrance ramp." sounds awkward.
The sentence "Charles Street, and further north, Wanneroo Road, are major arterial roads that provide an alternative route, State Route 60, to Perth's northern suburbs, and to areas north of the Perth Metropolitan Region." is long and choppy and needs to be reworded.
The heading "Exits and interchanges" sounds redundant. I would use either "Exits" or "Interchanges" or you could possibly use "Exit list" like USRD. Dough 48 72 23:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I have made changes to fix all the issues above. - Evad37 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - My concerns have been addressed. Dough 48 72 15:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

I, too, will review the article. –Fredddie ™ 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to welcome you to ACR. If you're not aware, I like to divide up my reviews the same way the article is split. I'll then go over each line and make sure the prose is tight. Sometimes I will just have a question that may or may not inspire you to clarify something written. I'll post the whole thing once I'm done. –Fredddie ™ 03:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, I look forward to your review - Evad37 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

Is there an article for Allocation? From our infobox "discussions", I've learned what it means, but that doesn't mean John Q. Public knows what it means.
I don't think there's an article. I have thought about moving the route numbering info from Highways in Australia to a separate article, but references haven't been easy to come across. The info in the field is linked to the appropriate table row in List of road routes in Western Australia - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Route number? That's basically what it is (though the article could do with a section on Australia). - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
There is inconsistent usage of the direct article (the) when you mention other highways. Example sentence: "Along the way are interchanges with several major roads, including the Graham Farmer Freeway and Reid Highway."
I've been thinking about this and am not sure which way to go in this one. In common usage, eg radio traffic reports, I would generally expect "the" to be used for freeways, but not highways... probably stems from the road (along with Kwinana Freeway) being referred to simply as "The freeway" for many years prior to the opening of the Graham Farmer Freeway. I will give this some more thought and come back to it later. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Done - removed from mentions of other highways - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
During the six years it took to build the first section, did parts of the road open as crews finished them or did it all open at once?
I think it all opened at once... will have to go back to the library to check. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Done - Turns out I was wrong. Info added to article. - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

History

"The Mitchell Freeway began as a proposed highway included in the..." or "The Mitchell Freeway began as a highway proposed in the..." Which sounds better to you?
Done: changed - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
"Initially, three new rail and road bridges were constructed at Vincent Street, Powis Street, and Scarborough Beach Road.[20]" Was it one bridge at each street or three bridges at each street?
Done - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Future works

I would remove the sentence "The timing and staging of future extensions beyond 2017 are not yet known." There is nothing wrong with it per se, but once a post-2017 plan is introduced, it will be out of date.
Done - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Along those lines, have you used {{Update after}} for every future date? It will provide a footnote reminding you or whomever to update the article once we reach that date.
Done: added - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Route description

My major concern with the RD is the use of distances. I would recommend using them equally across both sections (the first section doesn't use them at all) or not at all. Consistency is the key.
Done, added distances to first section - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Secondary to the point above is that there are 14 separate instances of {{Google maps}}. While that too is not wrong, I think you could get away with combining a few.
Done, combined all distance refs in the RD into a single ref - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Interchanges

I don't have an issue with the name of this section.
Am I right to assume that "<city 1>, <city 2>" means that the road forms the boundary between the cities? If that's the case, I didn't see much mention of those cities in the RD.
Yes, I use commas when the road and/or intersecting roads were at the boundary of LGAs or suburbs(locations). Will fix later the RD later. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Done, added LGAs to RD - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I was looking more for adding the cities, unless you think the LGAs add more value. –Fredddie ™ 05:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Doing.... Sorry, just saw this now (and they are actually suburbs, not cities (while most of the LGAs here are called cities)). - Evad37 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done - Evad37 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Very good. –Fredddie ™ 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

General notes

I think the RD and history sections need to be switched; not because I think what you have is wrong (it isn't), but because it would give someone unfamiliar with Perth (read: everyone reviewing this article) some geographic context of the area without having to read a map at the same time. It's kind of jarring to read the history without any context and then see it all there in the RD. Just my opinion, though.
Done - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I like that there are a bunch of pictures and I love the video, but I'm not sure if how they are presented is the best way.
- The central Perth interchange graphic is informative, but since it takes up a lot of vertical space, is it the best picture?
- Try interspersing the best photos into the article instead of in the galleries. I'm not saying you have to change it, but try it out and see if you like it.
Changed, reduced effective height of interchange graphic. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice work, overall. –Fredddie ™ 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I will start working on the article now. - Evad37 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's everything from your review now - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one issue remaining. –Fredddie ™ 05:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Done - Evad37 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. –Fredddie ™ 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

I'm trying not to review every article that comes through here, so I'll just do an image review for now. If needed I'll pick up the third review, but I'll see if someone gets it.

File:Mitchell Freeway map.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0, sources noted
File:Mkt st to mill pt gnangarra.ogg - Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia - looking at the license page I don't see any issues.
File:Mitchell Freeway Perth city ramps.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0, sources noted
File:Mitchell Freeway 112 N Gwelup Karrinyup Rd.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Mitchell Freeway 286 S Joondalup Moore.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Narrows Interchange under construction.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Mitchell Freeway 147 N Walter morning peak.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:MitchellFreewayExtMooreDriveMay07.jpg - PD

Review done, no issues found. --Rs chen 7754 07:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nbound

I will also review the article. -- Nbound (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Prose:

Lead:

(minor)"Mitchell Freeway is a 30-kilometre-long (19 mi),[1] north–south freeway in the northern suburbs of Perth, Western Australia, linking central Perth with the satellite city of Joondalup."

Could perhaps be better written as:

"Mitchell Freeway is a 30-kilometre-long (19 mi),[1] freeway in the northern suburbs of Perth, Western Australia, linking central Perth with the satellite city of Joondalup, and running in a north–south direction." (or similar)

Essentially, it isnt a "north-south freeway", its a freeway that runs north-south.

I couldn't find any phrasing I liked, so I removed "north-south" - the last sentence of the paragraph explicitly states "southern terminus..." and "northern terminus..." - Evad37 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(minor)"Along the way are interchanges with several major roads."

Could perhaps be better written as:

"Along its length there are interchanges with several major roads." (or similar)

Changed - Evad37 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Route Description:

The link to State Route 2 should probably link to the State Route subsection of the List of road routes in Western Australia page.

Hmm... I think routes should generally link to their actual entry in the list - when a reader clicks on "State Route x", they probably expect information about State Route x, and not necessarily the general information. - Evad37 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have to concur - whenever we link other road designations it always links to the info about the road itself. --Rs chen 7754 09:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree Evad, though at this stage it just links to the page itself, not to a subsection, or better yet: to the listing of the road. -- Nbound (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I see where the confusion might be... Im referring to the link in the prose, not in the infobox (which is linked correctly). Ill make the edit for you, feel free to revert if there is reason to do so -- Nbound (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rest of article appears to of good standard

Imagery:

Shielding has already been updated to more correct images.
A map of the approximate route of the future extension would be a welcome addition
The general amount/positioning of pictures looks good, and the captions are clear and concise.

The issues from previous reviews appear to have been adequately covered. Particularly Fredddie's very in-depth analysis.

This article is probably already at or very close to A-Class. And I am happy to take any objections to my above comments.- Nbound (talk)

Support - The few issues not addressed in earlier reviews have been addressed. Consider the addition of the extension map a comment or potential guidance for even further improvement. -- Nbound (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Making a drive-by comment - the citation for the length of the road really should go in the infobox, not in the lead. While there's nothing specifically prohibiting citations in the lead, they're typically frowned upon when the lead summarizes information found elsewhere in the article. --Rs chen 7754 09:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, ref 27 is dead. Finally check your page numbers - they don't seem to be formatted consistently (I'm not an expert, but something seems off - sometimes you have Pg. and sometimes you don't; sometimes you have pp.) --Rs chen 7754 09:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the dead ref. Will do more later - Evad37 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Length ref is now in the infobox - Evad37 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers are now formatted consistently: "p." for single page, "pp." for multiple pages (but just the numbers when inside {{rp}}, per the template documentation). I've also seen that I forgot to note the page number for ref 15, so I'll have to go back to the library to look it up. - Evad37 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the last paragraph of 1.2 is a bit long - can it be broken up? --Rs chen 7754 09:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken into two paragraphs - Evad37 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

After some discussion I've agreed to take up the spotcheck (hopefully I'll have it up today or tomorrow). How these work is we pick 25% of the sources (with a 20 source limit), to check for verifiability and plagiarism. If sources are not online, we ask for any electronic copies over email; if they are not available that way (it's a book, for example) that's fine. It seems that most of your sources are electronic though. After the spotcheck is done the article will be promoted.

Reference formatting isn't my strength, but I know enough so that whatever issues are left should be easily fixable at FAC.

General formatting notes:

For newspapers, the city should be mentioned, unless it is included in the title already.
I'm not entirely sure what the sources at the bottom are for - could you clarify?
Compare references 26 and 31 - some inconsistencies in formatting. --Rs chen 7754 09:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added locations to newspaper refs that needed them. The refs at the bottom were general refs, first added in ~2005-06, when the article had no / very few inline refs. However, as they are not detailed enough to be of any use in verification, I've removed them. Ref 26 has been adjusted (was using {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}}, and the author parameter instead of publisher) - Evad37 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Source 3: map, so no plagiarism; passes V.
Source 5: map, so no plagiarism; passes V. But the overall map sources that you are using for the base of your RD should be cited at the end of each paragraph.
Source 10: map, so no plagiarism; passes V.
Source 13: good on V and CP.
Source 17: unfortunately this link is now dead. I found it on archive.org, however and repaired the link. Good on CP, but not seeing where the Vincent Street part is mentioned in the source.
- Thanks for finding the archived version. I've moved refs [11]:261 and [16] to after "first extension of the freeway was to Vincent Street", as [17] just supports "splitting the suburb of Leederville in two" - Evad37 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Source 24: see source 17 for the archival format, but V and CP good.
Source 32: cites could be combined. Some stuff doesn't seem to match with the source.
Source 35: good on CP and V.
Source 38: link dead, try [8] Good on V and CP.
Source 41: [9] Good on CP and V.
Source 42: Good on CP and V. --Rs chen 7754 01:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done --Rs chen 7754 06:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

Interstate 496

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.

Article promoted. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Interstate 496/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Working on photos, but this would link the Capitol Loop to Interstate 96 and improve Michigan's place on the FA/A list for WP:USRD/CONN. Also, like I-696, it has some interesting history documented in newspaper articles, making it a good future FA candidate.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 03:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 03:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 03:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Is I-496 the Oldsmobile Freeway, the Olds Freeway, or the R.E. Olds Freeway? The article is inconsistent about this.
I don't see how the MDOT map and Google Maps can support the claim that Lansing Road was formerly US 27. Maybe a historical map can be added as a reference here.
"The south side of the freeway is park land adjacent to the confluence of the Grand and Red Cedar rivers." maybe could mention the name of the park here.
"I-496 runs parallel to the north side of the rail line while Malcolm X Street follows to the south as far as the Clemens Avenue overpass. I-496 crosses into East Lansing near the Red Cedar Natural Area" you begin two consecutive sentences with I-496.
Some details about the planning of I-496 should be added to the history. The freeway did not just pop up one day.
The history may need to be reorganized to keep events in chronological order. The details about the controversies planning the freeway should be before the opening and subsequent history.
There are some route designations mentioned in the history that do not intersect the current I-496. Maybe you should mention what these routes are called today. Dough 48 72 13:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Replies:

Officially, in the eyes of the state, it's the R.E. Olds Freeway, also signed as just the Olds Freeway. (Except for the two separate Ford Freeways in Michigan, most of the others can be found with the first name or the initials of the honoree dropped for simplicity.) The City of Lansing named their section the Oldsmobile Freeway after the car, but the state superseded that as the other freeways in the state are named for the founders of auto companies, not the brands of cars their produced. This is all explained in the history section.
Will add.
Added.
Fixed.
The planning is in the now-first paragraph of the history. I added some 1955 and 1958 details, but that's what I have.
The history is organized by topic since the events overlap. Either we jump around in time but keep the topics together logically, or we split everything up to keep it chronological. In this case, a strict timeline doesn't work well, but I did flip two paragraphs around in order to minimize the effect.
I'll look over these in a little while to see if I can't insert street names. Imzadi 1979 → 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for comment #7 to be addressed. Dough 48 72 00:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And done. Imzadi 1979 → 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - The article looks good now. Dough 48 72 02:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

I will do an image review in a couple minutes. Sounder Bruce 03:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

File:I-496.svg - PD, uploaded by author using MUTCD
File:Interstate 496 (Michigan) map.png - PD, uploaded by author
File:I-496 at MLK Boulevard.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:I-496 US 127 SB.jpg - CC-BY-SA, uploaded by author
File:Olds Mansion blueprint.jpg - PD, published prior to 1923
File:CapitolLoop.svg - PD, uploaded via OTRS, verified

I would love to see a picture of the road itself, but the current images are in order. Just waiting for a person with OTRS access to verify the Capital Loop shield is PD. Sounder Bruce 03:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed --Rs chen 7754 03:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Sounder Bruce 03:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added two photos to the RD, so you might want to update to clarify those as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Both images look good, still supporting Sounder Bruce 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I'll review once Dough is done. T C N7JM 14:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"The freeway was built starting in 1963 and completed on December 18, 1970." sounds a bit awkward with the gerund followed by the -ed verb. Maybe reword it a bit.
"two-thirds mile" looks wrong. I'd change it to "two-thirds of a mile" or some such.

This isn't it, I'm just getting exhausted. I'll finish later. T C N7JM 02:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Both are tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 07:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was the freeway named I-496 as opposed to I-296 as it was originally planned?
I'm a bit confused with the turn of events in 1966. Was a new freeway opened altogether or was US 127 just rerouted onto the I-496 freeway? Or was it both? If so, it should be made a bit clearer.
What exactly is a weave-merge lane? It isn't explained, and the redlink that's there to accompany it doesn't help with that issue.
You don't use "the I-496" anywhere else in the article, it seems, so using it that once near the end of the second paragraph of the History is inconsistent.
So, it was never officially named after Ralph W. Crego?
The Capital Loop section bothers me a bit. Almost none of it is sourced at all. You'd think with the main article being a FA you could duplicate some of the sources.

Well, that is all for my review right now. T C N7JM 23:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Replies:

I-296 was used for an Interstate in the Grand Rapids area; the original numbering plan had that as I-196 and what is now I-196 was going to be I-67.
Tweaked
A weave-merge lane is where the entrance ramp from one interchange continues as an additional lane and forms the exit ramp of the next interchange.
Looks like that's an artifact from some other older wording. Not sure why it's there, but it's gone now.
Nope, it wasn't.
Added. Imzadi 1979 → 14:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it at all possible, for #1, to mention why the name was switched? It just switches from it being planned as I-296 to it being constructed as I-496. T C N7JM 21:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
There's little documentation on the why for the switch, other than the fact that the feds just switched the numbers. Most of the 3dIs in Michigan received different numbers from Michigan's original proposals, either to follow the even/odd rule, or to remove proposed 2dI numbers in favor of 3dIs. I've added what I could though. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks good now. I will support the article's promotion to A-Class. T C N7JM 03:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review once TCN7JM is done. --Rs chen 7754 08:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox, reference reliability, RJL checked.

Lead

Two sentences starting with It in a row.
Ditto with The freeway.
The area south of downtown Lansing where it was built - seems awkward
The city originally approved one name in honor of a former mayor, however the demolition of Olds Mansion prompted the local historical society to propose a memorial to Olds. - run-on
More later. --Rs chen 7754 10:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- All done so far. Imzadi 1979 → 15:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Route description

before the trunkline angles to the northeast a bit - sounds informal.
What is a downtown core?
which is located on its southern service drive
The two highways run concurrently,[5][6] and they cross a line of the Canadian National Railway that is also used by Amtrak. - really could be condensed a bit
Following that, two uses of "freeway" as the subject
between BL I-96 the Trowbridge Road interchange south of US 127 - comma missing somewhere --Rs chen 7754 06:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

History

Personally I think the first reference should say African-American. I'm not entirely sure that foreign language readers will get what "black" is.
speeds motorists were driving in speeds studies - redundancy

That concludes the review. --Rs chen 7754 08:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And copy edits have been applied. Imzadi 1979 → 20:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 21:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Source 8: Good on V and CP.
Source 13: Checks out on V, map so no CP.
Source 16: Good on V and CP.
Source 18: I would reword it a little more, and "steered" doesn't quite make sense anyway without saying what they were steered towards.
- Tweak applied. Imzadi 1979 → 17:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Source 26: Good on V and CP (assuming the rest is in source 27 which was not checked).
Source 28: Good on V and CP.
Source 30: Original link is dead, and I don't see how the webcite archived version supports the statements.
- It's still working at http://mdotcf.state.mi.us/public/ROWFiles/files/Ingham/sheet180.pdf and just above the legend, it states: "JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF 'CAPITOL LOOP' 10-13-89. CORRECTED 12-06-89". Imzadi 1979 → 16:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Good now. --Rs chen 7754 17:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Source 34: Good on V and CP.
Source 36: Good on V and CP.

Unfortunately I do not have access to the remainder. --Rs chen 7754 04:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You should have the other articles in your in box by now. Imzadi 1979 → 16:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Done --Rs chen 7754 17:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

Ohio State Route 161

The article was not promoted. T C N7JM 21:24, 22 June 2013 (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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Here's the peer review, that no one responded to.

Nominated by: —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 23:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

OK, will begin reviewing right away. –Fredddie ™ 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to ACR, CycloneIsaac! Normally, I go line-by-line and review thoroughly, but there are a number of things that need to be addressed before we can consider doing that.

The lead is far too short. Ideally, it should be at least a full paragraph longer than what you are presenting. However, there are no hard and fast rules for writing a lead so others may disagree with me.
The route description is, to be blunt, not very good.
1. It's too short. Again, another paragraph that same size would be nice.
2. It needs to be reorganized. If I were to rewrite this, the first paragraph would be from the west end to I-270. The second would describe between the two I-270 junctions; the third east of I-270. Each paragraph should be about the same length.
3. Word repetition is pretty bad.
  Interchange 13 times
  
  Intersection appears 9 times
  
  Concurrency 6 times
  
  Freeway 4 times
  - I am not saying you should never use these words, but they should not be used in consecutive sentences; especially not FIVE sentences in a row as is the case with interchange(s).
It does not appear that there was much research put into the history of SR 161.
1. With just a little bit of digging, you should be able to find the exact day SR 161 was designated. A trip to the DOT library in Columbus would be a great place to start. I'm not saying they will, but they should have a dedicated file for every route.
2. There is a significant lack of sources that are not the DOT or DOT-related. Maps are generally fine to use, but at ACR we really need to demonstrate notability. It is almost impossible to do that with maps alone. It's time to go to the library and look through old newspapers. Any library worth its salt will have made an attempt to make their microfiche archive searchable.

The junction list is a bright spot, but I helped out with that part in earlier stages of the article's progression.

With all this, I have to oppose this article attaining A-Class as-is. Please don't be discouraged. This is a stepping stone to improving your writing and researching skills. I am confident that all of the people who will comment after me would give you some tips. –Fredddie ™ 00:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rs chen 7754 02:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I will have to Oppose this as well. The main issue is that this fails the FAC criteria for "comprehensive", as not all of the information that can be reliably sourced has been found and included in the article (see WP:WIAFA). Notably the history is only sourced to maps; it provides no information on why the road was built.

I have to concur with the comments about the lead, and there is no map. The route description needs work as well. Again, as mentioned above, don't be discouraged, as GA in itself is an accomplishment; I would work on getting more practice with GA before working towards ACR. --Rs chen 7754 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

A map of the route should be added to the article.
The lead of the article is awfully short.
The route description is very dry. More detail could be added pertaining to physical surroundings and attractions so it doesn't read as simply a listing of intersections and towns.
The prose has several awkwardly-worded sentences such as "SR 161 starts off in Mutual as Milford Road, at a T-intersection at SR 29", "There would be no more major intersections until SR 161 has reached Plain City, as it meets U.S. Route 42 (US 42).", and "The next two interchanges, Hamilton Road and New Albany Road, uses diamond interchanges."
I am sure there is more detail that can be added to the history about the construction of the SR 161 freeway. When was ground broken for the freeway? How much did it cost? Was there any opposition or controversy? A little hard research may need to be done here.

As such, this article has several issues before it can seriously be considered for A-class. Therefore, I will have to oppose. I would suggest doing some more research, do some copyediting, and expand the article as suggested before renominating it here again. Dough 48 72 19:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

D21 road (Croatia)

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.

Passed with 3 net support votes (3 support, 0 oppose). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I'm nominating this article for ACR, because I would like to prepare it for a FAC, and based on the experience gained here submit several articles on Motorways in Croatia for ACR.

Nominated by: Tomobe03 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 20:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 20:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

I would reorder "Kaštel border crossing to Slovenia Slovenian G11" in the infobox to say "Slovenian G11 at Kaštel border crossing to Slovenia."
In the infobox, is "A9 in Medaki, Vodnjan north and Vodnjan south interchanges" supposed to indicate that D21 intersects that road at those three locations? If so, I would list each instance separately in the proper order.
The sentence "The northern terminus of the route is located at the Croatia–Slovenia border at the Dragonja River—connecting to Koper, Slovenia, and Trieste, Italy, via the Slovene route G11 and forming a part of the European route E751" is very long. Also, you do not mention where the southern terminus of the road is.
The sentence "As the D21 reaches Kaštel, it assumes a southern orientation, taking route to the city of Buje about 3.5 kilometres (2.2 miles) down the road." sounds awkward.
The sentence " In Buje, the D21 forms at-grade intersections with the D200 linking the Plovanija border crossing with Slovenia, the D300 road to Umag, an eponymous interchange of the A9 motorway, as well as county roads Ž5007 and Ž5008." seems unclear to me. It seems to imply that the interchange with A9 is at-grade. I would perhaps fix this by removing the comma after the D200 clause and replacing it with "and" and clearly indicating Ž5007 and Ž5008 are at-grade in that clause. Also, how is the A9 interchange "eponymous"?
In the sentence "At Baderna, the D21 connects with the D302 state road connecting Poreč and the A9 motorway, located west of the road junction, as well as the D48 road leading to Pazin east of the D21." you use the verb connects twice. Can of of these instances be changed?
The sentence "After approximately five kilometres (3.1 mi), the route reaches a grade separated intersection with the D303 state road the Kanfanar interchange of the A9 motorway, situated east of the D21, and the city of Rovinj located at the coast, west of the intersection" is long and reads awkward.
Overall, the route description reads as a listing of junctions and towns. Do you think you can add some details about the physical surroudinds and any landmarks near the road?
The sentence "The Via Flavia connected Tergeste, present-day Trieste, to Pula via Poreč, before turning back north along the eastern coast of Istria to Nesactium and Tarsatica, modern-day Trsat, itself a part of Rijeka today" is long and choppy.
The sentence "Around year 1030, only Via Sclavonica is recorded in the region—running from west to east, connecting Poreč and Pazin." needs to be reworded.
The major intersections list is hardcoded. I would recommend converting it to the {{jctint}} series of templates so a conversion from kilometers to miles will show up.
Is it possible for some pictures showing the actual road to be added to the article?
There is an error with the ISBN in reference 12. Dough 48 72 18:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I tried to address issues 1-7, 9, 10, and 13, could you take another look at those and suggest further improvements if needed. Regarding the photo (issue 12), I found zero available photos at the Commons, but I'll try to find one at Flickr or Panoramio and ask the uploader(s) to permit use on the Commons. Unfortunately, I'm not quite near the road (and it is not a very practical option for me to snap a photo myself), but I'll post a note on the Croatian wiki asking for a volunteer - that worked before for another photo request.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "In Buje, the D21 forms at-grade intersections with the D200 linking the Plovanija border crossing with Slovenia and the D300 road connecting to the town of Umag and Umag interchange of the A9 motorway." is very long. Maybe split the part about the A9 interchange into a new sentence. Also waiting for issues 8 and 11 to be addressed. Dough 48 72 16:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Re JCT table (issue 11), I'm not sure how to avoid county column (omitting it completely messes up col headings and contents (km goes under location and location to county etc), and I'm not sure what to provide under location for row 2 - it's located outside any settlements, it is not numbered or named junction - right now there's "-" as a placeholder. Also, 2 junctions in Buje at 6.6km are actually a single intersection, D200 is reached turning right from the D21 and the Ž5008 turning left (for southbound D21 traffic), should the two be merged in a single template (like Ponte Porton), with this explanation in the notes instead? Furthermore the Ž5008 now wraps in the table cell - is there a way to include a nowrap option?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As a possible way out of the blank "location" cells, would it be acceptable to use name of the municipality/city area or settlement area (which includes not only built up area but also adjacent undeveloped land administrated as a part of the settlement) where the junction is located instead of the specific settlement name? In addition, the name= parameter does not seem to produce anything when used at the "Medaki interchange" the only named intersection along the route. What did I do wrong there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re photo, an editor living in the vicinity of the D21 volunteered to snap a few shots for the article, so those should be up in a reasonably short time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on issue 8 to be addressed. Dough 48 72 21:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I added a general description of the settings now. Nothing spectacular along the road, I'm afraid. Most of the route runs through a patchwork of agricultural land interspersed with small settlements and occasional grove or shrubland patch, except for a section between Bale and Baderna where forests are predominant (still other types of land use exist too), and the last leg of the route ahead of Pula, running through city suburbs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - My issues have been addressed. This article sets a model that other Croatian road articles can follow. Dough 48 72 17:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

I will review this article as well. –Fredddie ™ 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to ACR, Tomobe! Usually, I do a line-by-line review of the text, but first I want to address the junction list. For some readers, it's what draws your eye the most. Whenever I work on an article, I fix the jct list first.

Review by Fredddie

I fixed the county column issue for you. You're not familiar with the templates, so I can understand your frustration with them. We should create a Croatia-specific template, probably {{HRVint}}. That way the km column comes before the miles column.
The most jarring thing to me is the width of the notes column. Reducing the width means we need to move or remove some text.
1. For instance, if I were editing the notes, I would only keep "Kaštel border crossing to Slovenia[21]; northern end of E751 concurrency" The route description should tell the reader that D21 traffic defaults to G11, not the notes column.
2. Cities should be listed in the Destinations column as such:
  Ž5007 – Šterna, Oprtalj, Karojba
3. I'm wondering why each instance of {{Jct}} is on a separate line. Typically, they can be combined as such:
  D200 / Ž5008 – Plovanija border crossing, Grožnjan

I will continue once the junction list is in order. –Fredddie ™ 00:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance on the Jct template. I'm not sure how to combine the first line entries (Kaštel border crossing) though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I expected to do something else in the JCT list?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No. It looks great. I will continue my review in the next day or so. –Fredddie ™ 11:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuing my review...

Lead and infobox

The only issue I have with the infobox is that on the map, I'd like Croatia to stand out from the other countries. This is a wish and not a demand, so don't worry if this can't be done.
I am seeing a lot of direct articles that may not need to be there. "The D21" and "the Istria County" stuck out the most in the lead.
Hope I got them right this time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
"The D21 route is generally parallel to the A9 motorway and the two form several junctions, ..."
"The D21 route is generally parallel to the A9 motorway. The two meet at several junctions, ..."
Do both routes serve Buje, Bale, and Vodnjan directly or do the junctions serve the cities?
I'm not sure what do you mean. The D21 runs through those towns (or along outskirts of the settlements as in case of Vodnjan), but the motorway obviously runs close by and not through those towns. Could you please clarify?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
"...at the southern tip of Istria Peninsula." I'd suggest either calling it the Istrian Peninsula or simply Istria.
Done.
The sentence that first mentions Hrvatske ceste should be a new paragraph.
Done.
The last paragraph should start out with "In classical antiquity, the western Istria route..."
Done.
"The present-day D21 route was a part of the M2 Adriatic Highway route since after the Second World War."
Removed.
1. I'm not sure since is the right word here, but I don't have a suitable replacement just yet. I'm thinking it would be best to remove "since".
2. Was M2 a Yugoslavian designation? That should be mentioned in the lead.
  Yes, that was a Yugoslav designation, but also adopted by Croatia. The road marking system only changed in 1997.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

More to come, but feel free to work on these. –Fredddie ™ 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I already addressed some of the issues raised, and will continue to work on those.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the Buje, Bale and Vodnjan junctions question?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This is the sentence in question: The two form several junctions, either directly or via short connectors, while serving the towns of Buje, Bale and Vodnjan directly. If you get rid of the clause in the middle, it reads The two form several junctions while serving the towns of Buje, Bale and Vodnjan directly. I don't suggest getting rid of that clause, I was only demonstrating. That shortened sentence reads like both the A9 and D21 serve all three towns directly. If you look at a map, only D21 serves all three directly. Hope that helps. –Fredddie ™ 22:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Route description

I don't think it's necessary to mention that D21 is in Croatia in the first sentence. The article's title and the first sentence of the lead demonstrate this enough already.
The final 2.2 kilometers... "final" is ambiguous since most roads have two ends. You should use southernmost instead.
Not a big deal, but you can probably get away with abbreviating kilometers in each instance of {{Convert}} and {{Convert/spell}} after the first sentence of the RD. I'll double check the MoS. In the US, we typically do not abbreviate since mile is such a short word anyway.
I should have been more clear above, but I added back some direct articles where D21 is an adjective and not a noun, ("To the north of D21 terminus...", for example) and removed some where they should not have been.
Since the Dragonja does not have "River" in the link, I don't think you have to include it, but if you decide to keep "River", it should be piped in Dragonja River.
After you say ...the county roads Ž5007 and Ž5008... any mention of the Ž roads don't have to say they are county roads.

Done all except abbreviating kilometres - I'll also check once more what the MOS says and fix accordingly. I don't really care one way or another, as long as it conforms to the MOS.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

History

No issues that I can see.

Traffic volume

The only issue I have is what do the numbers at each counting site (the 2702 in "2702 Kaštel") mean?

The 2702 in that case is the number of the counting site, specified in the source. Each counting site on the Croatian road network has a unique four-digit number ID as well as the name.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Your Google Maps links should use a more specific title than the default "D21 road (Croatia). Use |title= to do that.
After the first Google Maps citation, you don't have to link to Google, Inc. Use |link=off to do that. There is a link to Hrvastke ceste that can be removed the same way as well.

Done as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Looks great. –Fredddie ™ 04:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check by TCN7JM

I reviewed this at GAN, so I probably shouldn't review it here. I'll take the image check instead. T C N7JM 16:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Državna cesta D21.svg Public domain
File:Croatia State Road D21.svg CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Arènes de Pula.JPG CC-BY-SA 3.0

I'm sure that if I don't notice when you add new pictures to the article somebody will probably ping me, but for now, they're all good. T C N7JM 00:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A Croatian wiki user living near the route was kind enough to snap a photo of D21/Ž5042 intersection (view from the D21, facing north) at an approximate position of 45.285855 N, 13.755102 E. I identified the Ž5042 from the image description, signposts and distances indicated there in the image, and confirmed the identification using Google Street View.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

That one's covered under CC-BY-SA 3.0, so it's good. I still (but now officially) support. T C N7JM 12:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Infobox and lead

"Part of <E751 image>": Using an image in place of text causes accessibility issues - this is why MOS:RJL requires and {{Jct}} is programmed to output the image, followed by a textual equivalent (which is the used for the link). Additionally, the route marker icon should probably be at the beggining of the line, per the principle behind Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do_not_use_icons_in_general_article_prose: "Icons should not be used in the article body...This breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader." (taken from MOS:RJL, but it also applies here)
- I am not sure if this is an actionalbe issue. The line and the image is produced by the infobox template (e-road= parameter), and I don't think there's anything I can do about it. Do you propose a specific course of action on that?
  - That's a problem... looking into this. --Rs chen 7754 09:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    - Done You have to add the link after the image; it's not done automatically. --Rs chen 7754 09:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      - Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
        I've put in an edit request at Template talk:Infobox road that should allow the route marker image to be placed at the beginning of the line. - Evad37 (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
        Done - Evad37 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
"Present-day D21 route was a part of M2 Adriatic Highway route after the Second World War": Add "The" to the start of the sentance
- Added.

Route description

"After approximately five kilometres (3.1 mi), the route reaches a grade separated intersection with D303." - What type of grade separated interchange?
- I think it would be best described as two-ramp partial cloverleaf. Does that make any sense? The intersection consists of the north-south D21 route crossing the east-west D303 via an overpass, with one ramp connecting the two in the NW "corner" of the intersection. The ramp forks in wyes as it joins the routes (both of them) allowing left and right turns and requiring traffic weaving - i.e. northbound D21 traffic has to take a left turn to access the ramp (and switch to westbound D303) and eastbound D303 traffic has to take a left turn to reach the ramp and switch to the D21 (both directions), once again taking a left turn if it continues north along the D21. The second ramp is in the SE "corner" of the intersection and carries northbound D21 traffic switching to eastbound D303. Just in case my description here is confusing, the intersection is located at 45°06′30″N 13°46′04″E / 45.108363°N 13.767843°E / 45.108363; 13.767843
  - That description is okay, just needed a bit more detail than only "grade separated", which isn't very descriptive considering the how many different interchange types exist. - Evad37 (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    - Description as "two-ramp partial cloverleaf" added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

History

"By 1830, the road network in Istria expanded to a degree that would not change for a century and a half" - seems like it should be "... had expanded ..."
- Amended as suggested.

Traffic volume

"Since 2002, the road lost a significant portion of the north–south traffic as A9 motorway was gradually extended since 1991,[17] running parallel to the route." Two "since"s in one sentence doesn't sound right, try rewording
The table caption should mention the year the data was recorded, ie "D21 traffic volume (2011)"
The abbreviations AADT and ASDT aren't explained anywhere in the article - link the table headings to the relevant articles and/or add the abbreviations in brackets after the first time the full terms appear in the article text.
- All done. I thought to fix the AADT/ASDT issue using {{abbrlink}}, hope that works for you.

Major intersections

~~The route marker image for E751 is different for the first intersection compared to others - is this intentional?~~
I did that. I set up the Slovenia Jct subtemplates. ENWP didn't show any European shields on Slovenian articles, but DEWP showed that one. –Fredddie ™ 17:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, was just checking. - Evad37 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Other

The Commons box links to a non-existent category page
Dash style should be consistent (per MOS:DASH): The junction list uses spaced en dashes " – ", whereas the rest of the article uses unspaced em dashes "—"
How is the external link to Brijuni National Park relevant? Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject should normally not be linked, per WP:ELNO#13
- All done. The EL and the commons box removed.

The rest of the article looks good. - Evad37 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking time to review the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I trust the above issues are addressed by now, I need your feedback on the interchange description though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support – all issues resolved. - Evad37 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

The spotcheck's going to be a bit difficult for this due to the language issues, so I'll take it. --Rs chen 7754 23:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Going to write a few notes while the third review is concluding. How our spotchecks work is that we check 25% of the sources, maxing out at 20. We check for plagiarism and for verifiability. If the selected sources are not available online, I ask for them by email - if there are no electronic copies then we choose other sources.

This spotcheck will prove to be a bit unusual as this is the first highway article from a country whose native language is not English. I don't think plagiarism will be an issue here for that reason, but we still need to check verifiability. Croatian is a Google Translatable language, so I will check there first and see if the material can be verified that way. If not, then we'll go from there - we can be flexible since the language issues can be difficult. --Rs chen 7754 21:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Source 3: Good on V and CP.
Source 6: Map, good on V.
Source 11: should link to actual URL at [10] (will fix this).
Source 18: Good on CP.
Source 22: Map, good on V.
Source 23: assuming this backs up the other source used for the table, with the general highway layout.

Will work on this later today. --Rs chen 7754 09:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Done --Rs chen 7754 09:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Source 23 is used to reference names, listed in "naziv izlaza ili čvorišta" (exit or interchange name) column of named interchanges along the A9 motorway accessed via the D21.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan)

The article was promoted.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 04:11, 25 June 2013 (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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Site of the first highway centerline in the US, I present to you CR 492. (Scott5114 was there this past summer, btw.) Anyway, I know there aren't photos of the roadway, but that's also being rectified as soon as possible.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

It's nice to see a CR at ACR. I'll go ahead and take a look later on. T C N7JM 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Only one comment here: I've never heard of a terminus being on another highway. Maybe use a different preposition?

More to come, though I must ask if it is at all possible for a map to be made. No GIS data for county roads? T C N7JM 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Route description

Isn't "residential neighborhoods" redundant?
I would propose just linking "tuberculosis". Not sure the "tuberculosis sanitarium" redlink is going to turn blue anytime soon.
In the very next sentence, you use "before" as a preposition twice and it doesn't read very well.
Why have you linked CR 550, but not CR 500?

History

I'm a bit confused. You say in the RD that drivers at the US 41/M-28 intersection have to the Michigan-left-esque thing, but in the History, you say that they no longer have to. Could you please explain?

That's all I have to say. T C N7JM 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, copyedits applied. CR 550 has an article started in a sandbox because it's one of the last primary CRs in the county I plan to give an article. As for the history, I applied a copy edit to clarify that there is a new option to connect the two segments of CR 492. Thanks for the review, and let me know if further tweaks are needed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the last one, you now have a sentence that switches from past tense to present tense: "After the project was completed, motorists have a second option..." T C N7JM 01:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokes, you've fixed that sentence. I support. T C N7JM 01:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

File:Michigan 492 Marquette County.svg - PD, uploaded by author and is ineligible for copyright
File:M-15 centerline 1917.jpg - PD, released to PD by author via OTRS (confirmed)

Without a map or some modern pictures of the highway, I'm not sure if I can approve the article. Sounder Bruce 21:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed --Rs chen 7754 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A map should be made, even if it's just using the KML. --Rs chen 7754 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Map added. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 23:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

"Several historic sites line the roadway as it runs south and parallel to the main highway, U.S. Highway 41 (US 41) through the Marquette Iron Range in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.", perhaps also mention M-28 here.
"The highway was later a part of M-28 before being transferred back to county control.", wasn't US 41 also signed along this road?
In the first paragraph of the route description, you overuse "Maas Street". Can you try to cut down on the use?
"M-35 approaches the county road from the north before yielding to the country road.", what is this supposed to mean?
"Traffic crossing between the two sides have to use the main highway through median turn arounds in a maneuver similar to a Michigan left.", how is this maneuver different from a Michigan left.
I would remove the redlink to CR 550 since CRs are generally not notable enough for articles.
When was the Trunk Line 15 designation first assigned?
" The western end of CR 492 was moved by 2001. Before this realignment, CR 492 followed Brookton Road, parallel to US 41/M-28 before turning to the previous terminus just west of the border between Marquette Township and the City of Marquette." isn't this supposed to be the eastern end? Dough 48 72 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Replies:

Added
No, actually, it wasn't, despite what certain historical markers and news articles that parrot them say. M-15 was routed along the Marquette–Negaunee Road, but when M-15 was redesignated US 41, the latter number was run concurrently with M-35 from downtown Negaunee out into Negaunee Township and then along a county road previously not a state highway into Marquette. M-28 was extended eastward from its terminus in Covington along US 41, but used the former route of M-15 between the two cities before rejoining US 41 in Marquette. So yes, the maps I have prove the historical marker at Dead Man's Curve wrong: CR 492 was never part of US 41.
I don't think four mentions in one paragraph of that size is "overuse", and in any case, the first two usages can't really be separated out.
Traffic along CR 492 has the right of way, and cars on M-35 have to stop before turning onto the concurrency.
The median crossings are connected differently, and the turnaround in US 41/M-28 that northbound traffic along CR 492 would have to use is quite a bit farther away and downhill from the main crossing.
Actually, I have plans to write a CR 550 article based on the news coverage from when MDOT was paying remove several series of curves. Dominic Jacobetti died in office before the state completed the last section of the overall project, but he had previously attempted to get MDOT to take jurisdiction of CR 550 as well.
Unknown at this time; I've been unable to pin down when the MSHD switched from internally designating state trunkline highways as "Divisions" and "Branches of Divisions" and applied that "T.L." numbers were redone as the M- numbers.
Good catch. Updating shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - The article looks good now. Dough 48 72 22:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

Since I won't be doing a full review on either of the non-US ones that are currently up I'll take this one. --Rs chen 7754 09:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary check (infobox, RJL, references) turned up no problems. --Rs chen 7754 12:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Route description

Through this area, the Iron Ore Heritage Trail, a new multi-use trail system, will follow CR 492. - seems a bit vague/crystal ballish - what is the status? or maybe "has been planned to follow" or something to that effect?
near the Eagle Mills location in the township. - not sure what this means
M-35 approaches the county road from the north before yielding to the country road. - ditto
Is CR 550 notable or should it be redirecting somewhere?
East of this intersection - starts two consecutive sentences.

History

and in the curves - along the curves?
After this transfer, it carried the CR 492 designation. - what is "it"?

Should be a support after it's done. --Rs chen 7754 00:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979:: Ping. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754:. All of the above have been copyedited. CR 550 has notability, but I haven't finished working on the article in sandbox. Let me know if I need to tweak anything further. Just a note, but in that area of the UP, we have "locations" which, like Eagle Mills, are named areas that sprung up around the older mines and other industrial sites. Unlike unincorporated communities, they didn't get post offices of their own and are more like disconnected neighborhoods from a larger community. Imzadi 1979 → 14:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I am beginning a spotcheck immediately. The source numbers are as of this revision. I am reviewing the following sources:

Source 7: Great
Source 13: Awesome
Source 18: Superb
Source 23: Fabulous
Source 24: Cool
Source 25: Nice

This will be done within the next couple of hours. T C N7JM 03:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm out of adjectives, so, uh...Support. T C N7JM 04:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

Interstate 196

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.

Passed with 3 net support votes (3 support, 0 oppose). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Interstate 196/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The next item in the I-x96 series to come here. It's also the last highway in my previous city of residence that isn't already at least an A-Class or higher on the assessment scale. Please note that I'm going to do a little digging to replace some map citations with newspaper citations for the history section in the next day or so.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I will review this within the next few days. T C N7JM 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I-196 is signed north-south for the first part and east-west for the second, as opposed to that just referring to the direction it runs?
I think it would read better if you put the length of the route in the first sentence. It looks a bit choppy just sitting there in the middle of the paragraph with its own sentence.
While I'm not too excited about two links to business route in the same sentence, I can't really think of anywhere else to link it and I think both links should stay. Can you think of anywhere else one of them could link to avoid redundancy or are the links just best left alone?
The business spur/loops aren't really designated "along the length of I-196" per se. They're designated on different roadways.
Which city are you referring to when you use Lane Avenue?
To say US 31 enters I-196 sounds a bit weird. I would switch this to "merges with" or something similar.
Mentioning the county line, but not which county it passes into until the next sentence reads pretty weirdly. Try to reword this so that you can mention Allegan County in the sentence with the Black River.
Shouldn't the phrase read "transferred to the City of Holland" or was that intentionally omitted?
The first sentence of the Grand Rapids BL subsection does not look grammatically correct. The highway "serves the Godfrey-Lee Area of Wyoming and into Grand Rapids". I'm not sure how I would fix this myself, so you can try to reword it.

That is all I have to say. T C N7JM 06:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy edits applied. Imzadi 1979 → 06:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Support --T C N7JM 07:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article once TCN7JM is done. Dough 48 72 23:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Or not. Dough 48 72 03:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Is it really necessary to indicate I-196 is a state trunkline highway? You already indicate that it is an Interstate.
The traffic counts are as of 2011, are any more recent traffic counts available?
The sentence "The freeway passes to the south side of Hudsonville and intersects A-37." sounds awkward.
"About two miles (3.2 km) past Hudsonville, the trunkline has an interchange with M-6, the South Beltline Freeway for Grand Rapids" I would reword the later part of the sentence to say something like. "the South Beltine Freeway that bypasses Grand Rapids to the south"
"The freeway opened at the end of 1957 or in early 1958", do you have a more exact date for this?
Why does I-67 link to Future Interstate Highways? That article does not seem relevant to link to.
In the history, you mention I-67 being withdrawn and a sentence later mention it being rejected. Mentioning it twice seems redundant.
The sentence "After the designation switch in 1963,[11] and and additional 35 miles (56 km) was opened from the northern end of I-196 near Benton Harbon to Holland as I-196." sounds awkward.
The article mentions M-21 moving to the freeway. Was there a reason the freeway was designated M-21 and not I-196? When was M-21 removed from the freeway? This should be clarified.
The history of the article seems quite short for an Interstate. It basically mentions when the stretches of freeway opened and when the designations changed. Are there any more details that can be added such as planning, groundbreaking, and possible controversies?
Why does the Holland business route have a junction list but the South Haven and Grand Rapids ones do not? Dough 48 72 03:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Replies:

Yes, as it is still a part of the State Trunkline Highway System. Remember, Interstates are still component highways of their respective state systems. Similar wording should appear in both the I-96 and I-696 articles' leads. Also, it's necessary to allow the usage of "trunkline" as a synonym in the rest of the article.
MDOT's traffic counts lag by about 18 months; later this summer I should have access to the 2012 numbers.
That sentence is fine as currently worded.
Um, and then it repeats "South" twice". I reworded it a bit differently and eliminated the freeway name completely.
Not at the moment.
There isn't a separate I-67 article, but there is an I-67 section in that list. Someone apparently bypassed the redirect at some point though...
Fixed that up a bit.
Seriously, there was a typo there that could have been fixed without comment. I would understand if you weren't making any edits to the article, but you had already changed one typo and fixed one link in the RD section previously.
Added when M-21 was removed.
Unlike its sisters, I-496 and I-696 or even M-6, I-196 wasn't controversial.
Well, originally I only included the one because Holland's loop has the freeway segment. I'll insert the other two here in a little while. Imzadi 1979 → 05:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I will now support the article. Dough 48 72 16:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nbound

This is my first US road review, so I apologise if I miss anything or otherwise stuff up! :P

Review by Nbound

Infobox:

Done Looks fine

Lead:

Done Seems ok, but it would be good if you could rewite the bit about the designation and construction a little clearer. Probably best in chronological order.

Route Description:

Done (reworded instead) - The freeway starts northeast of Benton Harbor in Berrien County as I-196 runs north from an interchange along I-94 adjacent to the Point O'Woods Golf & Country Club. - change "as" to "where"
Done The inland side of the freeway is forested while the lakeward side is either forest or fields predominantly. -> The inland side of the freeway is forested while the lakeward side is predominantly either forest or fields.
Done North of the plant and park... -> North of the power plant and park...
Done BL I1-96/US 31 is this meant to be BL I-196/US 31?

All else:

Done Appears ok.

The other guys will likely pick more up, but, thats me done - Nbound (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I implemented some fixes, and we discusses the lead on IRC. Imzadi 1979 → 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - Looks good :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

File:I-196.svg PD as a US government work
File:Interstate 196 (Michigan) map.png GIS sources noted, PD
File:1-196 BLACK RIVER BRIDGE SOUTH HAVEN.jpg PD
File:I-196 near Hudsonville,MI.jpg PD
File:I-196 entering Grand Rapids, MI.jpg PD
File:GRFordFrwybridge, BPandRHC.jpg CC BY 2.0, Flickr upload

All good. --Rs chen 7754 10:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I have conducted a spotcheck of sources on this article. I looked over eight sources as of this revision. The sources I reviewed are:

#5 +
#6 + *laughs a bit* - "For reasons that cannot be explained, this law omitted the small portion of the route that passes through Berrien County."
#11 +
#12 +
#13 + Is a map, so plagiarism is irrelevant.
#14 + Is also a map.
#18 +
#26 +

I must support. Great job! T C N7JM 07:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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.

Kwinana Freeway

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.

Featured article candidates/Kwinana Freeway/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Another Perth freeway is the second WP:AURD article to go to ACR

Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Article promoted -- Algorerhythms (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check by Dough4872

I will review the images in the article. Dough 48 72 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

File:AUS national route 1.svg - Released into PD by creator.
File:AUS state route 2.svg - Released into PD by creator.
File:Kwinana Freeway map.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0, has source data.
File:Kwinana Freeway, viewed from Cranford Avenue bridge, April 2006.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Perth,Kwinana freeway.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Mt Henry south gnangarra.ogg - CC-BY 2.5 Australia.
File:Kwinana Freeway from Leeming SMC.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Narrows Interchange looking south while under construction.jpg - CC-BY 3.0.
File:Mount Henry Bridge, April 2006.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:NarrowsTransitway.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Cockburn stn2.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
File:Kwinana freeway S from murdoch works.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Captions look fine
Support - Images look good. Dough 48 72 15:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've changed some images around, per Nbounds review below:

File:PerthskylineKwinanaFreewaySatuSuro.jpg has been added to the article in the "Bus transitway" section.
File:Cockburn stn2.png has been moved to the "Southern suburbs of Perth" section, with an altered caption.
File:Kwinana Freeway from Leeming SMC.JPG has been removed from the article

- Evad37 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The first is CC-BY 2.5 Australia, the second and third are CC-BY-SA 3.0. Images still check out fine. Dough 48 72 03:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rs chen 7754 06:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The link to the instructions for the infobox looks really goofy in the article. I can't think of any other infobox on this site that does that, and also, Wikipedia is written for the reader, not the editor. --Rs chen 7754 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have BOLDly removed the link from the infobox -- Nbound (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary look-through

RJL - while the first word in a notes section should be capitalized, generally the ones after semicolons should not, unless it's a proper noun or something like that.
Sources are reliable.
The lead comes off a little short - maybe add a sentence or two to the history? --Rs chen 7754 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Adjusted the RJL notes, expanded the lead - Evad37 (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Route description

with all the line's stations north of and including Cockburn Central also built on the strip - bit difficult to understand.
Removed, as redundant to the railway line being in the median strip - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What is a foreshore?
Wikilinked, clarified that it is the river's foreshore - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The interchange is a diamond interchange - could be condensed
Reworded - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What is a dogbone interchange?
Wikilinked, reworded the rest of the sentence that explains it - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
although Vine Road is a minor road that terminates at the Serpentine River - doesn't seem like a necessary detail. --Rs chen 7754 07:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

History

Probably should specify which state, for State Government.
Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
a further 11.7-kilometre (7.3 mi) - should be plural
Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Two sentences in a row starting with This
Reworded - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
What is a Member for Canning?
Wikilinked Member to Member of Parliament, Canning to Division of Canning - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Did a copyedit (with VisualEditor, hope it didn't mess things up!)
No problems with the VisualEditor edit - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't have any other issues, so this concludes the review. --Rs chen 7754 08:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Support, issues resolved. Just a note that it may be worth considering adding inflation templates, if that is possible (I don't know what the support is like for Australian currency). But plenty of road FAs have passed without this, so it's definitely not required at FAC. --Rs chen 7754 09:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nbound

Pre-review comments:

I would re-suggest the same wording complaints in the lead from Mitchell Freeway's ACR.

Changes to the lead made - Evad37 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If no other editors volunteer I will write a full review in the next few days -- Nbound (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I promise I will! LOL probably tomorrow or the long weekend. If still havent heard from me here, remind me on my talk - Nbound (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox:

Add suburb information to the start and end junctions. (Happy to discuss this one here or at WP:AURD if any issues - though its what we have been doing over on the AU east coast, and seems to be IR standard practice also).

Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth replacing the establishment section with a history section either listing staged dates, or a summary like, progressively completed between 19XX and XXXX and variations upon that depending on how long breaks were in the works. If possible to find out the original gazettal date (or acceptance by the state's naming board) would also be a good indicator or a rough "birth" date for the road.

Note: These could probably apply to Mitchell Freeway aswell in preparation of any future FA nomination also. Note 2: I have modified {{infobox Australian road}} just now to better describe our usage of the establishment parameter so far (it's now labelled "Opened").

I think the history is best left to the prose of the article, rather than the infobox - its hard to summarise eight paragraphs into just a few words. I haven't yet found any relevant gazettal info - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead:

Rather than "The Kwinana Freeway has been progressively widened and extended south since then, and now reaches beyond the boundary of the Perth Metropolitan Region.", perhaps: "The Kwinana Freeway has been progressively widened and extended since then, and now reaches beyond the southern boundary of the Perth Metropolitan Region"

Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Route Description/History:

Round mph figures to nearest 5 (Ive asked a few USRD guys about this, and this was what they felt was best), {{convert}} can be switched to do so by adding |disp=5

Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"There is a southbound exit to South Terrace which provides access to the local areas" - drop the "s"

Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"There are plans to extend Roe Highway west to Hamilton Hill, which would necessitate upgrading the interchange." - Confirm the extension and/or confirm the interchange upgrade. (Google Maps source does confirm, but I doubt we should be considering Google Maps a reliable source for upgrades)

Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"There is a pocket of developing urban land near Safety Bay Road, south of the freeway." -> "There is a pocket of newly developed urban land near Safety Bay Road" - requires less vigilance to keep upto date while essentially saying the same thing. (happy if you or others disagree on this one)

Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Imagery: (When viewed at 1920x1200)

"Kwinana Freeway from Leeming..." extends into the History section
"View facing south at Cockburn..." extends into the Future Works section
The pics on the right hand side which refer to the northern section of the road are pushed down into the southern section. (might not be too much that can be done with this)

Done. I've changed the images around so that it should work better on wider screens - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think thats just about done -- Nbound (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Support - Image alignment now almost perfect, all other issues have been dealt with. When can we expect to see an FA? ;) -- Nbound (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Other comments and uncompleted reviews

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Review by Fredddie

Comments by Fredddie

I'll review this article after Rschen and Nbound (possibly) do so. –Fredddie ™ 16:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will begin reviewing in the next few days. –Fredddie ™ 04:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

"A 4-kilometre (2.5 mi) section between Canning Highway and Leach Highway is also part of National Route 1." Maybe between Canning and Leach highways to avoid repetition?
Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
At the start of the second paragraph, the subjects of the first two sentences are "the route" and "the K.F." Might be good to switch them.
Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The freeway has been adapted to cater for public transport, with the introduction of bus priority measures in 1987, and the opening of the Mandurah railway line, constructed in the freeway median strip, in 2007."→"The freeway has been adapted to cater for public transport, with the introduction of bus priority measures in 1987, and the 2007 opening of the Mandurah railway line, which was constructed in the freeway median strip." also avoiding repetition
Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

RD

Km/h can be abbreviated after the first use
Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
"and a shared pedestrian and bicycle path is built alongside the freeway." should be a separate sentence.
Done, though the sentences seem a bit short now... - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I am a little uncomfortable with the "600 metres (2,000 ft)" conversion. Not because it's wrong (it isn't), but because nobody who uses imperial units can tell you how far 2000 feet is. I don't have a solution for you, though. #Ironically, I don't have a problem with a similarly-long bridge listed in feet.
Other options would be "600 metres (0.37 mi)", or "600 metres (660 yd)". I don't know if these are any better? - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to stop there for now. –Fredddie ™ 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I will not be completing my review, so I am Neutral just so it doesn't screw anything up. See my talk page if you have any concerns. –Fredddie ™ 23:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion(s) regarding unit conversions

One of the issues raised by Fredddie was

I am a little uncomfortable with the "600 metres (2,000 ft)" conversion. Not because it's wrong (it isn't), but because nobody who uses imperial units can tell you how far 2000 feet is. I don't have a solution for you, though. #Ironically, I don't have a problem with a similarly-long bridge listed in feet.

My response was

Other options would be "600 metres (0.37 mi)", or "600 metres (660 yd)". I don't know if these are any better?

Does anyone think that converting to miles or yards would be better than converting to feet, and if so, what should be the upper limit for converting into feet? - Evad37 (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We discussed this on IRC back when it was originally pointed out; IIRC, the consensus was for miles (but wait for someone else to confirm). It was also pointed out that what unit was used was largely upto tradition (like altitude in feet, certain sporting pitches in yards, so on and so forth). Man I love metric :P. -- Nbound (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat that 2,000 feet is bad, but 660 yds isn't a bad value either. That's 5.5 times the length of an American football field (which is 120 yds including end zones). Any of the options works ok by me, if pressed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If all the options are okay, I might just leave it how it is, unless someone really thinks I should change it. - Evad37 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Scott5114

I will likely not formally review this article, considering there are several other people volunteering for reviews ahead of me, and this should not be construed as an oppose vote (at least not at this point in time), but it gives me pause that an article is at ACR using nonstandard templates (i.e. not {{Infobox road}} and {{Attached KML}}). The reason is because the Australian infobox has not been vetted for MOS compliance as well as the standard infobox has, and MOS compliance is one of the major things that ACR checks for. ACR is meant to serve as a test run for a FAC, essentially, and MOS compliance is part of that. If the standard infobox were in use, we could mostly disregard it because it has been found good multiple times at FAC. I understand that the Australian roads project feels that it is necessary to include certain extra features in the infobox, but the proper way to do it is to have those added to the existing template, not make a fork of it. There are some instances where I feel the verbiage used in the Australian template is demonstrably inferior to that of Infobox road, such as use of "Major towns/suburbs" instead of the more concise "Major cities" that Infobox road uses. It is not the purpose of the infobox to list the exact legal categories of all of the major administrative entities it passes through (this is the only reason I can conceive for the current wording to have been chosen), that is for the prose to do; the infobox should use a short, generic term like "cities".

Likewise, I don't understand what benefit there is in eschewing {{Attached KML}} in favor of integration with the infobox. Though it was borne out of a discussion at WT:HWY, Attached KML is no longer a template specific to roads, and it can be found on pages in many topic areas on Wikipedia. Currently, it is transcluded in 4,284 pages. (You can even find it on 2013 Moore tornado, complete with KML data provided by the National Weather Service.) Google uses data provided by Attached KML in its search results. (Google "Creek Turnpike", for instance—it displays a map with our KML overlaid on it. Googling "Kwinana Freeway" also displays a map with the KML at time of writing, but I would wager that it will disappear when Google recrawls the page, as the KML has only been moved to the infobox today.) My understanding of the way that Infobox Australian road works is that the KML data is being stored as subpages of the infobox, not Attached KML. This is a poor decision because it splits up KML data across multiple locations. Were all KML data at Attached KML, it would be trivial for a reuser of our KML data, like Google, to see if an article has a KML; all they have to do is visit "Template:Attached KML/[pagename]". If the KML data for Australian road articles is stored elsewhere, that data is "off the grid". It is not as easily discoverable. Data reusers will have to code their software to look for data at multiple locations. They might decide to not bother to use Australian KML data (or simply not know that they must take the extra step to get to it), or scrap plans to use Wikipedia's KML data over concerns that its location is unstable (especially if this opens the door to similar infobox-KML storage schemes in the future). The end result of all of this is that this article breaks compatibility with a Wikipedia-wide convention, which may ultimately detract from its chances at FAC. Breaking convention is not something ACR should be encouraging.

In short, while I don't necessarily feel that there is anything wrong with the template (at least, without seeing the results of a MOS expert going through it with a finetoothed comb), I wouldn't feel comfortable passing an article through this process with a template that is untested, when there is little reason that templates that are known to pass FAC muster are available and can be used. Likewise, I have concerns that the decision to handle KML data in the infobox harms the utility of the data for little discernible benefit. I feel that the creators of this article have made several questionable decisions, and although I am sure they had reasons for doing so, I don't feel that those decisions should be validated by getting an ACR pass. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of the {{Attached KML}}, which I wouldn't done myself. I intend to respond more later, but I've been sick this week, plus a bit busy in real life. I'll be able to spend more time onwiki/online after next week. - Evad37 (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a while to think about this, so I'm going to share my thoughts now. This is really directed at everybody, not just Scott5114. Firstly, WP:CONSENSUS is pretty much a fundamental policy. The current consensus is that Australian road articles use Infobox Australian road – the recent proposal to adapt and switch over to Infobox road ended with no consensus. I was one of the people pushing for Infobox road, and I would probably !vote to switch over to (a specifically modified/adapted version of) Infobox road in future discussions. However, I would not feel right switching articles over to Infobox road and just ignoring the current consensus. Also, as far as I am aware, there is no A-class or FA criteria that would require the article infobox to be Infobox road. Of course, Infobox Australian road should be up to A-class/FA standards - any comments left here can be taken over to Template talk:Infobox Australian road, though changes of course require consensus. So if there are objections over the infobox, please be specific per the instructions near the top of the ACR. I'll also note that Infobox Australian road has mostly the same fields as Infobox road (or Infobox road with the proposed modifications from the recent discussions at WP:AURD), so there would also be "untested" aspects if using Infobox road. The KML issues seems to be basically resolved at the moment (and I agreed with the points you made regarding the previous situation) so I don't see any need for further comments regarding KML here. - Evad37 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This article, nominated in May, still needs one more review, and a source spotcheck - Evad37 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it seems that after our activity spurt this spring/fall, ACR has gone dormant. Perhaps you can ask frequent ACR reviewers to take a look? I've tried to no avail. --Rs chen 7754 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I can review this article either later tonight or tomorrow morning (that's UTC-6). T C N7JM 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It bothers me that some citations are out of numerical order. I've been lectured on this at GAN, and I've been told that they're always supposed to go in numerical order.
"660-metre (2,170 ft) long" should read as "660-metre-long (2,170 ft)". You can do this by typing {{convert|m|ft|660|adj=mid|-long}}.
I've never heard of ordinal directions being hyphenated like they are in this article, and I don't think it's common usage. Consider dropping the hyphens.
"deviates out of the" doesn't sound correct. I would switch this to "deviates from the" or something similar.
The penultimate sentence of the route description doesn't read correctly the part about the interchange with Lake Road and the part of the sentence after it don't really flow into each other.
"12-kilometre (7.5 mi) long" should use the same parameters I typed above.

This is all for my review. T C N7JM 22:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

All fixed except the compound compass points, which is actually an WP:ENGVAR issue (as mentioned in MOS:COMPASS). - Evad37 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. I support this article's promotion to A-class. T C N7JM 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck (also by TCN7JM)

Since there seem to be no other takers, I will also be conducting the spotcheck for this ACR. I am reviewing nine sources (29-37) as of this revision. I will do this immediately. T C N7JM 03:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Source #29 - Good
Source #30 - Good
Source #31 - Good
Source #32 - Good
Source #33 - Good
Source #34 - Good
Source #35 - Good
Source #36 - Good (Yes, including the table on the right.)
Source #37 - Good

It seems that all sources I have checked are citing verifiable statements in the article and that the statements are not plagiarizing the sources. Good job. T C N7JM 03:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Kansas Turnpike

The article was not demoted. –Fredddie ™ 22:49, 22 August 2013 (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.

Suggestion: Review only; can't promote or demote here

Nominator's comments: This is a current FA that is here per WP:IAR. I think this could benefit from a good ACR and a set of four comprehensive reviews, as this was a FA promoted in 2007, and does not meet current FA standards.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 00:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

This isn't a conventional ACR, so I'm going to note what I see offhand and the major obvious issues before doing a complete review.

References ~~15, 46,~~ 48, 74 are not reliable.
Refs ~~35, 30, 66 are dead.~~
~~Refs 9, 14, 29 are dead, but there is a WebCite archive available.~~
~~Ref 42 is incomplete.~~
~~Ref 25 has an incomplete year.~~
References to the NBI need to be corrected; ask VC how his efforts to build a template for that are going.
- The template is done, although the documentation could probably be improved. Let me know if you have trouble with it. V C 14:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
~~Section 1.3 is really short.~~
- ~~Section 1.4 is also short.~~ --Rs chen 7754 18:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
~~"In July 2011, the speed limit on most of the Kansas Turnpike was raised once again to 75 mph." uncited~~
~~RD citations need to be added.~~ --Rs chen 7754 04:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - We should also include a MOS:RJL compliant exit list in place of the prose list of intersections. Dough 48 72 05:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I fully endorse Rschen7754's concerns along with my own. If these are not fixed in a timely matter, I would advocate sending this to FAR. Dough 48 72 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I cannot conceive why any rational USRD editor would rather advocate seeing one of his project's featured articles hauled off to FAR than pitch in and help fix it to avoid such an outcome. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Reference 25 corrected. Replaced Reference 35. Reference 42 completed. References 46 and 74 removed. Reference added for 2011 speed limit increase (new ref 28). Unreliable references 15 and 48 still remain but need to be replaced as they cite information that needs to remain in the article (managed to wipe out a few instances of ref 15). Please note that this set of fixes changes most of the reference numbers. We also need a reference for the original Belle Plaine burning down. Would welcome suggestions as to what to do with section 1.3. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The links to current references 9 and 30, which are both for Driven by Vision: The Story of the Kansas Turnpike, are both dead. There are working links to chapters of the book at http://www.ksturnpike.com/about/history. I suggest looking through them again because they might be able to fill a lot of holes. I may do this myself if I can get myself enthusiastic about it. V C 17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I endorse VC's suggestion. --Rs chen 7754 20:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Try [11] for the dead reference 14. For reference 15 you may be able to use [12] to help. All dead links remaining are because ksturnpike.com changed its website structure around. As far as replacing the email, I'd try VC's link first and see if you can get info out of there. --Rs chen 7754 20:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Noting new link found: [13] Warning: popup city. --Rs chen 7754 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that the Interchanges section needs to be merged into the Route description section. Otherwise, we have this unnatural split of information; the RD is fairly incomplete by itself. --Rs chen 7754 19:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Also found a historical archive: [14] This article directly fails the comprehensive criterion of the FA standards. --Rs chen 7754 08:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
~~[15] directly contradicts the email regarding exit 92; the exit is clearly there next to KS-13 (modern-day KS 177).~~ --Rs chen 7754 08:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind, a close-up in 1964 shows that indeed, it isn't there. Working on the other two citations of 48 (which is now 50). --Rs chen 7754 09:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dough4872

Here is what should be fixed in order to prevent this article from going to FAR:

Is it possible for a better map to be made? Preferably a map of only Kansas showing the Kansas Turnpike and the other major highways in the state.
One was already made, it's further down in the article. --Rs chen 7754 02:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Both are fine maps that meet WP:USRD/MTF criteria. I see no reason to change either one. –Fredddie ™ 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I would preferably replace the map in the infobox with the one in the Route description. Dough 48 72 02:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
At FAC, I was asked to give geographic context to the infobox map. The current infobox map does not need to do that. –Fredddie ™ 03:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
~~The lead mentions that a speed limit of 80 mph was initially imposed. Perhaps it should also mention what the speed limit is today.~~
The third paragraph of the Early history section needs citations.
~~Citation needed for "The turnpike originally had 14 interchanges; as of 2006, there are 27 interchanges."~~
Done, and it's 22. --Rs chen 7754 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The second paragraph of The southern terminus section needs citations.
Are there any historical events that occurred along the Kansas Turnpike since 1956?
The statement "nor with neighboring Oklahoma's PikePass." needs a reference.
Why?—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It cannot be assumed that PikePass is not compatible with K-Tag. A reference is needed to verify this. Dough 48 72 20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it not the default for things to not be compatible instead of that they are compatible? Things usually have to be specifically designed to be compatible, and K-Tag was not. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
There are/were several ETC systems that are/were compatible with E-ZPass, such as I-Pass, I-Zoom, and Fast Lane. Dough 48 72 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Again—transponders are specifically designed to be compatible with EZ-Pass because it's the big one. Outside of the EZ-Pass consortium, everyone has their own standard. EZ-Pass is the exception to the norm. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There are numerous uncited statements in the Route description, such as most of the first paragraph, "I-335 has only one interchange (with U.S. Route 56) along its section of the turnpike other than the two end junctions.", and the last two paragraphs.
Got some of them. --Rs chen 7754 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not see the need for a redundant map in the Route description. As mentioned above, a better map should be made for the infobox.
See comments above. --Rs chen 7754 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "This is similar to what the Pennsylvania Turnpike did in the 1970s, as that highway has an even narrower median. In both cases, as with all other toll roads that predated the Interstate Highway System, the highway is grandfathered from Interstate standards." needs a citation. Also, the Pennsylvania Turnpike completed adding a median in 1965.
~~The speed limits in the Design section are redundant to the Speed limits section. Perhaps the Speed limits section could be integrated here.~~
~~I do not get why "*KTA (*582)" and "511" are formatted differently. It could always be in normal text with quotes.~~
I see no problem with this. --Rs chen 7754 18:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
There are numerous citations in the Interchanges section that need to be completed.
~~The article is inconsistent with capitalizing "turnpike" and "Turnpike". The lowercase form should be used if Kansas is not in front of it.~~
There are numerous uncited statements in the Interchanges section.
~~There are a few dead links in the article, check the tool.~~
References 15 and 48 are unreliable sources and need to be replaced.
Got 15. --Rs chen 7754 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Overall, I think the article needs restructuring to meet current USRD standards. The order of the sections should follow the standard, with the Route description before the History. The other sections, such as Design, Speed Limits, Tolls, and Services, should be placed between the Route description and History. Also, as stated above, I would suggest that a MOS:RJL compliant exit list gets added as that is what all other USRD articles should have. I would recommend getting rid of the Interchanges section and folding the information into the Route description and Exit list, with relevant historical information added to the History section. Pennsylvania Turnpike can perhaps serve as a model for how this article should look. Dough 48 72 02:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:USRD/STDS does not explicitly specify an order that the sections must fall in; History falling before Route description is a characteristic common to several FAs. I still have not seen an acceptable argument for including an exit table that is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you are going to have to craft an argument with a bit more substance to persuade me of that. The Interchanges section exceeds the standard by including more information, a classic application of WP:IAR. If you still intend on proving your point by taking this to FAR, I would expect these objections to be ignored there.

Frankly, using a GA as a template to improve an FA seems like a really poor idea. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I find the objections to the current structure unconvincing, except for the lack of RJL table, which seems to me to be a serious omission. I find the table much easier to read. --Rs chen 7754 18:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The History can come before the Route description, but i would prefer if the Route description would come second after the History if it is desired to keep the History first. I still strongly recommend that a RJL-compliant exit list gets added, even if it is decided to keep the Interchanges section. Dough 48 72 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Your circular logic makes me dizzy. –Fredddie ™ 19:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand what's being suggested here. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of reviewing Pennsylvania Turnpike for ACR (offline, I might add). I can assure you, Scott, that it is not a model for a turnpike article. –Fredddie ™ 03:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have what may be a more convincing argument for putting the Route description before the History than "I don't like it" or "this is what we do elsewhere." The reader who reads the prose of the article from top to bottom needs to gain context. The Lead is helpful in this regard for important details and general themes, but not for less important details. I find it easier to understand the history of a road if I first learn how the road is in the present, then learn how the road originated and what changes were made to the road over time. If the Route description comes first, the present context is provided before the reader enters the History. If the History comes first, the context that is not provided in the Lead needs to be provided in the History; otherwise, the reader will get lost. V C 17:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes completed

Since we have two reviews with some of the same issues above (and will probably end up with more), I am just going to list the changes I am making below so I don't have to post them to two different reviews. It would be appreciated if you would strike the relevant section of your review as issues are fixed, so we can see what's left to do. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Driven by Vision reference URLs updated, 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Current speed limit included in lead, 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
"Speed limits" section moved to subheading of "Design" and redundant content merged/removed, 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Reference 66 corrected (last remaining dead link). 23:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Capitalization on "Turnpike" removed when not preceded by "Kansas" 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Restructured article to merge Interchanges section into route description. Also added exit table. 12:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

~~Noting that reference 66 is the only remaining dead link. --Rs chen 7754 18:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)~~

Rewrite coordination

Unfortunately, large portions of this article will need to be rewritten to comply with modern USRD and FAC standards. Interested editors should sign up below:

Part A of RD (TBA) -
Part B of RD (TBA) -
Part C of RD (TBA) -
Exit list (need mileages) - –Fredddie ™

Other than the missing history cites, after that we can probably do a final sweep and call it good. --Rs chen 7754 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. There's serious holes in the history and there's other sources with information that isn't in this article. I'm significantly concerned that this may have to be sent to FAR; while we should try and see what we can do, I'm concerned. This article would not pass GA in the shape that it is in. --Rs chen 7754 08:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not every day you see someone argue with themselves... What holes in the history are you finding? If we can get some tangible details as to what we're missing, we can get a better start on fixing it.

If there is anyone else interested in collaborating on this article, it would be helpful to step forward, so that we can parcel out some of the work. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to work on the NBI references. Ideally they should be used in conjunction with the KDOT maps or other sources. V C 18:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I just see details in some of the sources I've found that aren't in the article at all. --Rs chen 7754 18:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can try to work on the RD. It'd be nice if someone could collaborate with me, though. –T C N7JM 10:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can possibly help too. Dough 48 72 14:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started a sandbox at User:TCN7JM/Kansas Turnpike. I'm going do my portion of the rewrite there because I'm not the type to do it all at once, so it's best to sandbox it until it's done and then transfer it. T C N7JM 05:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I will rewrite the route description for the I-35 portion of the turnpike. Dough 48 72 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So I guess that means I have the I-335/I-470/I-70 half. T C N7JM 03:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I will write the route description for the I-335/I-470 portion. Dough 48 72 21:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...okay, just so there's no confusion, we have this figured out. Rewrite coordination is as follows for the RD:

I-35 portion - Scott5114
I-335/I-470 portion - Dough4872
I-70 portion - TCN7JM

T C N7JM 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My portion is written at User:Dough4872/sandbox2. Dough 48 72 21:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing a bit of prose tune-up and added some information that is in the article now that was removed from the rewritten version. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I should point out there are some details that could be added here: the crossing of the Neosho River north of Emporia (probably a minor stream at this point but it becomes a major river as it heads south, so it's worth noting), and mentions of the no-access crossings with K-99 and K-37. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Route description rewrite is done. All sections are complete and sandboxes have been copied to the article. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Brycecordry's two cents

Hatting off-topic discussion. --Rs chen 7754 07:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The I-70 exit number change needs to be addressed, because we were instructed to take exit 356, and the numbers jumped from 410 to 224 over a three mile path. So we turned back and back, until a police officer pulled us over, and he redirected us west along the turnpike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycecordry (talk • contribs)

This article isn't about I-70. It's about the Kansas Turnpike. –TC N7 JM 22:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering that the KTA overrides all exit numbers of other roads is very unusual. The Will Rogers and Turner in OK match I-44's mileage, and the Tri-State in IL matches I-94, then once I-94 exits off, changes to match I-294. Brycecordry (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a point with the Tri-State, but the Will Rogers and Turner turnpikes both follow I-44 for their entire lengths, so not using the correct exit numbers would be a faux pas on OTA's part. –TC N7 JM 21:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually addressed it with less words on the article. It is in two spots. See if you can find it, because I'm not going to right now.Brycecordry (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It could be that KSDOT considers the turnpike to be a lower "number" than I-70. Since it "ends" at Bonner Springs, I-70's exit numbers take over. –Fredddie ™ 02:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

KDOT doesn't maintain the Turnpike, KTA does. The most likely reason (getting into OR territory here) is that KTA doesn't want to go through the effort to coordinate numbers with KDOT, or just wants one consistent set of numbers so they can refer to "milepost 4" and not have to clarify whether that is 4 miles north of Oklahoma or 4 miles north of Emporia. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the turnpike runs North-South for most of the way, it is considered a North-South route, and therefore has precedence of the mile posts. I-35 would have the same mileage, since it is the southern 127 miles for both routes. I-335 is only on the turnpike, so it does not need its own mileage. And that takes you to 177/236 which is more than half. Bonner Springs is only the end of the toll road, so many people forget the turnpike designation, so it is easier to call it I-70 mileposts. Actually, for the longest time (until 1980s-1990s, dont know which) the turnpike used its exit numbers until 18th Street, and before that, it was an open toll road from the old eastern terminal (then the eastern terminus of the closed system) to 18th Street Brycecordry (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

People don't forget the turnpike designation. It's still signed on I-70 and, if I remember correctly, there's a service plaza or two on the I-70 portion. There are also a pretty good amount of signs telling you where to go to stay on the turnpike. –TC N7 JM 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. It is signed and Tolled on I-70 from 183 to 224. There are two service areas on I-70's turnpike segment. I am talking about the Bonner Springs to 18th Street Portion. Lots of people that I talked to say that the turnpike ends at Bonner Springs, when really it ends at 18th Street. Since it is not tolled anymore, and people have forgotten about that segment, they changed the mile markers to match I-70's mileage. This was a decision made by the turnpike commission, as they still maintain it until 18th street, as marked by signs. 23:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to prove this? –TC N7 JM 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It has been changed on the page for quite some time, and no one has complained yet. As for your question, the only reference I have is word of mouth and a 1972 Rand McNally atlas. It shows I-70/KTA as a toll road the whole way (until 18th Street). Nowadays it is only tolled west of Bonner Springs. The 18th street exit is 13, which is too low to be on I-70's mileage. (Kansas used sequential exit numbering back then), and the Bonner Springs exit is 12. There were many more unnumbered exits between 12 and 13. Brycecordry (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then...but back to the question at hand. Why should we address the I-70 exit number change when the article is about the Turnpike? –TC N7 JM 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I said that it has been briefly described on the page for quite some time now. Check the page under route description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycecordry (talk • contribs)

Heh...then why are we arguing about this? :) –TC N7 JM 03:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to know if what I said is okay! Brycecordry (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What are FA Standards? Brycecordry (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA. –Fredddie ™ 00:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, then what does the history of tolls fall under, that makes it unneeded? Brycecordry (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was unneeded; I said you needed to cite your sources. More exact dates would be helpful, too, rather than just a random guess by decade. –TC N7 JM 04:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I only have a 1972 Rand McNally Atlas, no later date until 2012. How should I know when the tolling was pushed back from 236 to 224? I know when the second pushback from 224 to 217 was, as noted here. Brycecordry (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why didn't you cite that as a source? –TC N7 JM 04:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did; did it not show up? I copied the template for a 2010 RMN atlas and replaced 2010 with 1972. Brycecordry (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the page from 2000...why didn't you cite that? –TC N7 JM 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know what I was doing! Brycecordry (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Recap

In short, here's what needs to be completed:

~~The RD still needs to have parts rewritten.~~
The history needs to have missing details incorporated, see Driven by Vision link and map archive above. For example, [16] - discussion about "is this toll road thing really gonna work after all?" It's really best if someone reads through the whole thing (it's only 40 pages and an easy read) and adds the details.
The tags need to be removed and associated issues need to be fixed - basically any NBI citations that remain after the rewrite, ~~the sourcing to the email, and the citation needed tags. I think the mileposts tag can go, in my opinion.~~
- To update: the only things needing citation are ~~the description of how the route was chosen, Belle Plaine service area (which could be removed if it comes to that), and the transfer of the OK roadway to OKDOT~~.
~~Information about the 2003 flood should be added; there's a separate article where most of it would go, but the basics should be at least mentioned.~~

We're getting close. --Rs chen 7754 08:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If all these things are done, I will be declaring "Keep", but I will pull my "Send to FAR" declaration if something is done on the article, even as early as tonight. --Rs chen 7754 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through some of the references to tweak their formatting. I am going to see about replacing the MSR Maps citations in their entirety in the near future. Microsoft was supposed to shut down that website a year, and the USGS has created their own archive of topographic quadrangle maps. I used that archive to pull a historic quadrangle of the Gwinn, Michigan, area for the M-553 article, and I think it would be better to cite USGS topos direct from the source. That way we get full bibliographic details (scale, series, etc) to add to the footnotes. Imzadi 1979 → 17:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have updated almost all of the NBI references. There are three problems yet to be resolved:

I was unable to find a reference to the 1966 bridge in the previous unusual configuration of the Emporia interchange. This needs a non-NBI reference.
I was unable to find a reference to support the KTA ramps at Exit 42 only extending to 47th Street. The 47th Street bridge was replaced recently and there are no other I-135 bridges in Sedgwick County with a date of 1961. This needs a non-NBI reference.
In footnote A, there need to be several NBI references (probably five or six) to adequately cover all of the bridges referenced in the footnote. I really think you should find a way to incorporate footnote A into the prose, even if the sentences that explain when parts of the highway at the state line were built are not contiguous. V C 01:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a way to track down a previous version of the NBI data (say, the NBI as of 2006 when most of these citations were added)? If so, we might be able to fill in the gaps there. With exit 127, we may be able to cite the old configuration with an old version of the KDOT map, since Emporia has an inset on the back of the map. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  - Unfortunately I took a look at the old KDOT maps and there was no Emporia inset on the appropriate years. --Rs chen 7754 10:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  - It may be possible to find an archive on a government website or through something like the Wayback Machine, but really you should try to find other references to support the statements and, if possible, complement the NBI references. The NBI references are gradually going to become less useful as bridges are replaced. V C 23:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    - We found the old NBI and have cited it to that. The suggestions to move off NBI are good ones for the future, but I doubt that there is much momentum to continue for now. --Rs chen 7754 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Declarations

~~Demote/send to FAR.~~ It has been almost 9 months, and while much work has been done to improve the article, it is still quite far from the FA standard. Unfortunately, interest in fixing this article has trickled off, even from those who have agreed to work on this article. I highly doubt that this article would pass GA at this state. Of course, if editors followed through on their commitment to work on this article, I would strike this declaration and reconsider, but for now, there appears to be no interest. In the meantime, having this as a Featured Article reflects poorly on the roads projects, and I cannot support its retention as a Featured Article in good faith. --Rs chen 7754 22:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Striking this for now, as some progress has been made. --Rs chen 7754 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

With permission from Scott5114 I'm hatting the unnecessary commentary, unnecessary on both our parts. --Rs chen 7754 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

- You're the one who's read the history sources, dude. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Sure, but that's not the only thing wrong with the article. --Rs chen 7754 22:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    - But it illustrates that you're among the editors not following through here. All you have done is just sort of vaguely waved your arms at sources, saying "There's some stuff in this book somewhere! I'll be damned if I'll tell you what exactly is missing though! Read it yourself, teeheehee!" I think it's rather...I dunno, untoward, I guess, to advocate taking this to FAR in that position. You remain the only one to have actually read the sources but not done a damn thing to put what you have read in the article, so you're just as guilty as the editors you condemn. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      - Well if you're going to pull that card, then I'll point out that this isn't my FA, after all. Not to mention the many times I've mentioned this substandard FA of yours on IRC, only to be blown off the vast majority of the time. And that PDF book is a very easy read, and is easily available to you, and the link has been posted on this ACR for several months. In short, as the only remaining nominator you should be the one taking the lead on fixing the article to meet current standards - if you notice, it's been me taking the initiative for the vast majority of this ACR, which I am quite unhappy about. The only thing more I could do is rewrite the entire history section for you, which I am not going to do, as that would also result in my having to write the route description as everyone else assumes that I'll take the initiative in that too. Well, I have other article writing priorities, and I have to draw the line somewhere. --Rs chen 7754 23:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
        Once articles get to the FA level, it's not any individual editor's FA—I know it's been bandied about a lot lately, but that way of thinking is WP:OWN—it's the project's to maintain. That's why we have had a bunch of USRD editors all over Pulaski Skyway. It's why I've called for collaboration here—at this level we need people to collaborate. (Or is actual collaboration fundamentally something beyond the grasp of Wikipedia?) Since this review started, we've gotten an exit list, we've gotten a lot of the route description rewritten, and the only thing left untouched is the history. You haven't identified any actual, specific deficiencies in the history section. That's your job as a reviewer to do. You can't just say "A PDF exists!" but not give specifics about why that's important. It could be that you're referring to some exceedingly trivial detail that would be best left out of the article anyway, but we don't know because you won't tell us what's missing. That will discredit your FAR, so it would behoove you to give up the goods at some point. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
        The route description rewrite has barely started, and has been dead for months. And as for why all those sources are important: because "comprehensive" is part of the FA criteria, and it's quite obvious that when that many sources exist that aren't even touched upon in the article, there's a problem. Finally, look at the length of the history of constructing the road: for one of the most important roads in the state of Kansas, there's only 4 paragraphs on how it was built (and one that's entirely uncited?) Most USRD FAs on much less cared-about roads have longer history of construction sections than that. You don't see a problem there? Also, you've gotta read the sources for yourself - it's not my job to copy and paste them to Wikipedia.

- - - - Finally, while we do look out for all the USRD FAs, when the nominator's still around, it's been the defacto understanding (as it is across Wikipedia) that the nominator take a critical part in fixing the article - look at how Imzadi1979 and I take care of our many FAs, and how the nominator *must* be notified when an article is sent to FAR. It is fair to expect the project to be of assistance - yet when the nominator vigorously defends their position 1) that this article is very close to the FA standard, when it is currently littered with tags, and 2) when the nominator expects the other members of the project to do the vast majority of the work for him—that is what I find quite unacceptable. --Rs chen 7754 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Send to FAR unless someone is willing to fix the article. Dough 48 72 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
~~Note: please be aware that a third demote vote will close this review and send the article to FAR, so please think before voting. --Rs chen 7754 00:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)~~
Comment. I seriously considered the Send to FAR option, but I am not confident enough to pull the trigger at this time. However, I may be if there is not significant progress in 10 days. Consider the above discourse a last chance to act or start demonstrating some work before this (sadly) gets kicked to FAR. V C 23:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep The most pressing issues have been addressed, and I believe we have an article that meets the FA standards, even if barely. The article is not perfect, but at 11 months into this ACR, I doubt that there is enough momentum to keep making changes, and I think it meets the standards. --Rs chen 7754 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep (if this even counts). This article has seen substantial changes in the last year, and all major deficiencies have been fixed. Most of the remaining concerns are just would-be-nice-to-haves or polishing. I think that the most pressing concern people had, which is that this article could be sent to FAR, has been allayed. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - After the rewrite of the route description and the fixing up of sources in the history section, among other things, I think this article is back up to modern FA standards. T C N7JM 21:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep and move to close—as Scott says, we're at a stage of minor polishing now. Anything additional to be done is minor, and the article now meets modern expectations of a FA. This ACR no longer needs to remain open to accomplish the minor polishing left to be done. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

U.S. Route 8

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.

Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 8/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This would be the first A-Class article for MN and WI if promoted.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 04:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I will begin a review of this article immediately. T C N7JM 04:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Two decimal places for "280.00 miles" looks weird, even though it is exactly that long. I don't think this needs any decimal places.
I feel like the first mention of Taylors Falls should be linked and that that couple of sentences should be reworded using a different adjective where Taylors Falls is linked now.
Splitting the second section of the RD into two paragraphs seems a baffling thing to do. Also, those two sentences in the second paragraph don't really flow into each other.
Just before this, in the first paragraph, you have three sentences in a row starting with "US 8", and it's mentioned like that four times in those three sentences.
In the third section, two straight sentences begin with "The highway".
Norway is never linked to in the last section of the RD.
Do you mean Taylors Falls when you mention Taylor Falls in the history?

I'll leave this here for you to fix. T C N7JM 06:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy editing and fixes applied. Imzadi 1979 → 06:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Support T C N7JM 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough 48 72 17:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I will do the image review instead since I reviewed this at GAN. Dough 48 72 16:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

File:US 8.svg - PD by author, shouldn't it be PD-MUTCD?
File:US 8 map.png - PD by author
File:Taylors Falls.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:US Route 8 Rural Lincoln County Wisconsin.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:US8EastTerminusNorwayMichiganNov2009.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Rhinelander WI area, 1924.png - PD not renewed, image caption could use some more context.
File:US8 Junction US51 Looking East.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0

Noted a couple concerns above. Dough 48 72 16:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Borrowing a trick from my US 23 work, I highlighted WIS 14's routing on the map and updated the caption to reflect that fact. The map was included because the text in that section discusses routing changes in the 1920s, so context was already in place. Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - Images look good now. Dough 48 72 00:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Royalbroil

I came across the article while being a Wikipedia consumer something caught me as wrong while I was reading the lead. I noticed that the lead describes 2 areas with an undivided surface road. However, there is another short divided segment at US51 as shown in my photograph - where it is a diamond interchange. I've driven most of the route and that's the only segment that I can recall off the top of my head. Royal broil 13:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I can tweak the mention in the lead, but I don't think calling out a segment of highway that's only divided to pass through an interchange is the same as the other segments. Imzadi 1979 → 02:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nbound

Lead doesnt mention divided section in Rhinelander, despite specifically excepting two other areas
- Tweaked along with a minor change to deal with Royalbroil's comment above. Imzadi 1979 → 03:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The highway continues east through Center Lake between North and South Center Lakes, curving around the north shore of South Center Lake. On the eastern edge of town, it turns due east... -> "The highway continues east between North and South Center Lakes, curving around the north shore of South Center Lake. Upon reaching the eastern edge of the town of Center Lake, it turns due east" or similar (Optional)
- The second town isn't Center Lake, it's Shafer... the town of Center Lake is back between the two lakes... I've added "town of", but I can't move the town's name because the two sentences reference separate locations. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind, different changes applied int he vicinity of that sentence. Try that. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is a constitutional route, and a legislative route, is there a significance to these titles? Is it just the nth route mentioned in an amendment?
- Wikilink to Legislative route (Minnesota) added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
forest lands -> "forested land" ?
- Either is appropriate in AmEng, so I'm leaving that one alone. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The highway continues due east for five miles (8.0 km) -> "The highway continues due east for an additional five miles (8.0 km)" or similar. Im assuming this is an extension of the previous straight; if not, that should be made clearer.
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
on a twisting northeastward road -> "on a twisting northeasterly alignment"
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Contractors had install metal sheeting to stabilize the marshy ground. -> "had to install" or "have installed" depending on actual scenario.
- Good catch, done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
bypass of town -> "bypass of the town"
- That's a bit comme ci, comme ça in AmEng... in this case, it's a bypass of the general "urbanized" area that is Rhinelander, so the generic "town" works... technically if I wanted to refer to Rhinelander in specific, it would be "the city"; "the town" would refer in Wisconsin to governmental unit equivalent to a township in Michigan or Minnesota. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Tweaked it to "downtown". Imzadi 1979 → 03:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Might be worth adding a {{-}} or {{clear}} below the last image in the RD. (Optional)

As always, all my points are open for discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Nbound (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rs chen 7754 16:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Precision does not match between mi and km.

RJL

No issues.

References

Several dead links, but I think you're aware of that already.

Future

No issues.

Lead

before being returned to Forest Lake ... ?

More later. --Rs chen 7754 08:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding that the route description seems to have too many subsections. --Rs chen 7754 22:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Route description

continues running - redundancy
The highway turns along a more easterly path in Lindstrom between North and South Lindstrom lakes, then it crosses into the town of Center City. - run-on
diamond interchange should be linked.
section 1.2 - too many uses of "highway"
US 8 turns northeast into Oneida County and onto a twisting northeasterly alignment passes through Woodboro and expands to a divided highway into Rhinelander. - restructure
US 8 intersects with US 45 south in Monico and WIS 47 follows US 45 south while US 45 north follows US 8 for one mile (1.6 km) before splitting to the north. - needs some commas somewhere

History

the remainder of what is now US 8 was unnumbered secondary highways and WIS 14 ran north of Armstrong Creek to Florence. - trying to do too many things with this sentence.
The highway... thrice in a row.
was then redesignated MN 98 until 1998. - until?
plans on their books - too informal
in 2011, not 2013 for the inflation
Bill and Jerri Osberg sued the state and seven other parties over runoff from the construction in April 2003. They claimed that the runoff killed hundreds of trees and polluted ponds on their property. - could be tightened
The contractor was seeking the return of its retainer. - same here
should Northern be capitalized? --Rs chen 7754 22:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Corrections applied. As the name of a region of the state, I left "Northern" capitalized in the last bullet point. Imzadi 1979 → 07:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Support though having the dead links fixed would be necessary for a support at FAC. --Rs chen 7754 07:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Once the deadlink issues are fixed I will spotcheck. --Rs chen 7754 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Checking 17 sources:

Source 8: No issues.
Source 22: Not really seeing it on the attached map.
Source 29: ~~It's clear that US 8 was extended, but the street intersection is not indicated anywhere.~~
Source 35: No issues.
Source 39: No issues.
Source 40: No issues.
Source 41: ~~Having difficulties verifying this, but other maps (1977-78 for example) do verify it better.~~
Source 46: Maps do not verify this - perhaps the wrong years are used?
Source 48: No issues.
Source 53: No issues.
Source 55: ~~Where does November 1 come from?~~
Source 56: No issues.
Source 57: No issues.
Source 58: No issues.
Source 59: No issues.
Source 60: No issues.
Source 64: No issues.

Spotcheck done, just a few minor issues. --Rs chen 7754 00:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FN22: Powers isn't explicitly labeled on that map, but that is the location where US 2, US 8 and US 41 meet or cross in that five-way intersection on the map. Cross referencing with any general map of Michigan with cities and villages labeled will verify that.
FN29: text altered to be less specific.
FN41: a-ha! The sentence was saying it that MN 98 was decommissioned in the 1990s, so I restored that and inserted a before cite to go with the after cite.
FN46 47 whatever it is now... OK, re-reviewed that stuff... and changed that around a bit.
Regarding FN55 56 whatever it is now..., we have have an issue with variations between the version originally consulted online and the version retrieved from the microfilms. I altered this accordingly (I have not had time yet to re-read all 8 articles I retrieved from the library today, but that is one of the articles where the publication date is one day different between the two versions.)
Looks like we're done then, I think. Imzadi 1979 → 05:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

U.S. Route 141

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.

Passed with 3 net support votes (3 support, 0 oppose). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 141/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This could be the first A-Class article for WI if promoted

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 04:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check by TCN7JM

~~I will begin a review of this article immediately. T C N7JM 04:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)~~

I guess I reviewed this at GAN, I'll image check instead. T C N7JM 04:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

File:US_141_(WI).svg PD
File:US_141_map.png CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:BeecherWisconsinSignUS141.jpg CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:US141NorthernTerminusUS41M28.jpg CC-BY-SA 3.0

That's it. Support. T C N7JM 04:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough 48 72 17:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

"The highway runs from an interchange with Interstate 43 (I-43) in Bellevue, Wisconsin, near Green Bay to a junction with US 41/M-28 near Covington, Michigan." you should indicate what direction the highway runs from Bellevue to Covington.
The sentence " There are access roads on either side of the freeway to provide access to the properties immediately adjacent to either side of US 41/US 141." uses access twice and should be reworded.
I think the headers in the history may need to be renamed. It implies the "US highway era" ends in the 1950s when they still exist today. "Freeway era" doesn't sound appropriate either as some of the stuff in that section does not necessarily deal with freeway construction. Maybe use year ranges for the header as the history seems to be in chronological order.
Citation needed for "US 141 was fully paved in Wisconsin in the early 1930s; the last segment paved was between Pound and Abrams."
The sentence "Wisconsin started the process to convert US 141 between Milwaukee and Abrams into a freeway starting in the 1960s." uses the verb start twice.
Is there any more detail about the planning and construction of the freeway available? The history just seems to mention when the freeway segments open. Dough 48 72 00:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The requested changes and additions have been included in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 07:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - Article looks good now. Dough 48 72 17:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Floydian

Lead

"The highway runs north-northwesterly from an interchange with Interstate 43 (I-43) in Bellevue, Wisconsin, near Green Bay to a junction with US 41/M-28 near Covington, Michigan."
- A few things jump out at me here in the sentence: "...an interchange with Interstate 43 (I-43) in Bellevue, Wisconsin, near Green Bay to a junction..." - First is the use of interchange and junction in a single sentence, which in many places are synonymous but in others well defined and distinct; junction being another word for interchange or for a "T"-like intersection (or simply an at-grade intersection of two or more numbered roads). This should be clarified in some way. Second is the unclosed aside, "near Green Bay", which should have a comma following it.
  - Adding the missing comma. As for the rest, I don't know that it quite matters, per se. The two words can act as synonyms for word-choice variety while still implying technical difference in meaning that does exist. We could link to interchange (road) and junction (road), but I normally avoid that as they are common-enough terms. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Fair enough. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"Since the 1960s, the section south of Green Bay was converted into a freeway in segments."
- These clauses clash; "was" should be "has been".
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"This freeway is now I-43, and since the 1980s, US 141 has ended southeast of Green Bay in Bellevue."
- This is an odd sentence in the context of the previous one. Something like "Since the 1980s, US 141 has ended southeast of Green Bay in Bellevue - the southern freeway segment having been redesignated as I-43." may be more appropriately worded.
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"divided-highway"
- Should this be hyphenated? Normally it isn't.
  - When "divided highway" is by itself, you'd be right, but in this case, it's a compound adjective describing the word "section". Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

RD

"and the two highways run concurrently through residential subdivisions."
- Should "run" be linked as well?
  - This is a tip Tony1 gave me back a few years ago. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"at the interchange for exit 170."
- Isn't the interchange itself exit 170?
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"The two highways run together north and northeasterly"
"The two highways run together westward"
- You may want to be more consistent with the word concurrency, as an average layman would undoubtedly confuse the two.
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"US 141 turns to the northwest to run along River Street into Niagara."
- Shorten to "US 141 turns northwest along River Street into Niagara." Increase concise index by OVER 9000!!!
  - Done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"US 2/US 141 makes a 14.5-mile (23.3 km) run through Florence County, passing the Spread Eagle Chain of Lakes."
- Is Spread Eagle Chain of Lakes the name of the geographic feature or should "Lakes" be lowercase?
  - It is the name per the Wisconsin Department of Conservation. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Cool, just wanted to check. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"...transitions to forest, and the freeway..." and "...farm fields and forest to the county line." (in the Green Bay to Niagara section), "...the trunkline runs through forest land near several smaller bodies of water..." "continues through forests to the community" (in the Qunnesec northward section)
- Note different approaches: forest, forest, forest land, forests.
  - Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

History

"In 1919, Michigan signed its highway system,[12] and the state did not have a highway running south from Quinnesec to the state line."
- and should be replaced with but or possibly yet, as the second thought is a negative.
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"The routings though for two highways were different in Michigan in the 1925 than on the final 1926 map."
- Though essentially equals however. Interchanging the two helps determine the best location for either. In this case, "However, the routings for two highways were different in Michigan in 1925 than on the final 1926 map." - Also note removal of the preceding 1925.
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"US 102 was to have replaced M-15 from US 2 at Rapid River, continue via Marquette into Baraga County, where it would have ended at US 41 near Covington."
- This sentence is constructed very odd. A comma splice I believe.
  - Changed. Let me know if that helps. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Looks good! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"US 141 in both plans was only routed between Milwaukee and Green Bay..."
- Should be "In both plans, US 141 was only routed between Milwaukee and Green Bay..."
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"Later, a new routing from the state line north to Crystal Falls was opened in 1940"
- Using later and then supplying a year seems redundant
  - I fixed this as I figured you missed it. Feel free to implement your own wording if you desire. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"This terminus location was..."
- Redundancy again methinks. Location can be tossed here.
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"divided-highway"
- Two more instances of this. See my note for the lead.
  - See above. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"...opened the next year..."
- "...opened the following year..."
  - Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"This request was rejected in the 1960s, but it was approved in the 1960s, and the state started the process to convert US 141 between Milwaukee and Abrams into a freeway."
- Was rejected in the 1960s, but it was approved in the 1960s? Use of it in the second clause is a parallelism issue. The remainder should be split into a second sentence.
  - Missed commenting here, sentence was split up already. Imzadi 1979 → 10:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"The next year, an extension of the freeway opened southward from Locust to North Avenue."
- "The following year..."
  - Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"By 1965, the bypass of Sheboygan was opened,[45] and the Milwaukee area freeway was extended northward to Brown Deer Road the following year."
- Comma splice. Works better as "By 1965, the bypass of Sheboygan was opened;[45] the Milwaukee area freeway was extended northward to Brown Deer Road the following year."
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"The last section of US 141 opened as a freeway in the city of Milwaukee opened in 1968"
- Some redundancy. Better as "The final section of US 141 in the city of Milwaukee to be converted to freeway opened in 1968"
  - Tweaked Imzadi 1979 → 10:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"...the southern terminus of US 141 was moved again, shortening the highway to end in Bellevue by 1983."
- Shortening sounds odd. Try "...by 1983, the southern terminus of US 141 was moved again, truncating the highway in Bellevue."
  - Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Exit list

Looks good, no issues that I can spot.

Overall

- Ref 11 - Missing cartographer
  - Added. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 12 - Missing author?
  - No author for the article. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Refs 13, 19, 20, 24 through 30 and 39 - Missing the map section. Is this intentional or are there no grids on these maps? (I notice the NHS maps do not at least)
  - No grids. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Refs 31 and 32 - Seasons shouldn't be capitalized
  - Except that this is part of the title... so it's appropriate to capitalize them when they're part of the edition. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Ah, that makes sense under those circumstances. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Refs 29 though 36 - The titles for these maps are very inconsistent. Is this intentional?
  - Yes, Michigan switched the naming scheme around a bit over the years. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Refs 43 and 44 - "1 in:14.5 mi." - other refs use "1 in=xx mi.", these two are the odd ones out. On the same topic, you seem to provide scales on a very inconsistent basis.
  - The scales provided are as they are printed on the map; if the map didn't give a printed equation, it wasn't included.Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Fair enough for the ones without scales. I'd still personally recommend making 43 and 44 consistent in format. A colon or equals sign are interchangeable in this instance without changing the scale. YMMV. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      - I already changed them to equals signs, sorry if I forget to mention that earlier. Imzadi 1979 → 08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 43, possibly 44 - Uses "Michigan Department of State Highways" / "MDSH" as the publisher / cartographer. However, the MDOT article states that the department wasn't renamed until August of 1973. Generally the official map is published much earlier in the year (only the 1934 and 1955 editions appear to have been published after July, at least among the refs on this article), but at the very least I believe 43 is incorrect.
  - I know it's odd, but that's how it's printed on the maps though! Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Works for me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 45 and 63 - Is ref 63 an updated version of ref 45? If it is and has all of the material that the earlier doc contains, use the new doc for all four citations.
  - Looks like it, good catch. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 71 - I don't believe the XLS format should be indicated unless the document is being linked...
  - I indicated it lest someone ask why that document lacks page numbers when the other has them. (Yes, it's weird, but I only have two of the five regions in print and the rest in XLS.) Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    - Makes sense. Perhaps I should begin doing this. FYI, you can change the view in Excel to Page View to view it as if it were a printed document. I did this with the connecting link and 97/98 download tables I was provided by the MTO. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two unaddressed issues remaining above (both involving the History section). Pending the resolution of those, I am throwing down my Support towards promoting this article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- One was done already, but I missed replying, and the other has been fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 10:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

I will review this article. - Evad37 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead

...crossing the state line one last time. The last Michigan section... – Two last's in close proximity, would read better if one was changed
- Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the 1960s, the section south of Green Bay has been converted into a freeway in segments. Since the 1980s... – Reword so that "Since the" isn't repeated
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Route description

As a bi-state highway, US 141 is a state trunk highway in the state of Wisconsin... – Seems a bit reppetitive, do you really need "the state of" in there?
- Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
National Highway System, – shouldn't there be a (NHS) abbreviation here?
- Added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
From the I-43 interchange in Howard – link Howard here, instead of the next paragraph
- Swapped around. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
at the interchange at exit 170 – sounds awkward... maybe "via the interchange at exit 170"?
- Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
From Howard northward, the freeway runs through suburban Brown County to Suamico parallel to a line of the Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad (ELS) through a mixture of farm fields and residential subdivisions. – Could use commas after Suamico and (ELS)
- Added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
There are frontage roads on either side of the freeway to provide access to the properties immediately adjacent to either side of US 41/US 141. – Change one of the either sides to "both sides" to avoid repetition, or just have "...provide access to the properties immediately adjacent to US 41/US 141"
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
North of the line, US 141 continues to the Marinette County communities of Coleman and Pound as an expressway. North of the latter town, US 141 transitions from expressway to a two-lane undivided highway. – Could you reword so that the two sentences don't both start with "North of the".
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The two highways run concurrently westward into Iron Mountain along Stephenson Avenue passing through a retail business corridor and into downtown – needs punctuation, a comma after "Avenue" should do.
- Added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
14.5-mile (23.3 km) run → 14.5-mile run (23.3 km)
- The length is an adjective for the noun run... the noun shouldn't precede the conversion. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
...several smaller bodies of water like... – I think "including" or "such as" sounds better than "like"
- Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

History

US 141 was fully paved in Wisconsin in the early 1930s; the last segment paved was between Pound and Abrams. – Change the second "paved", maybe to something like "to be completed"
- Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
At about the same time in Wisconsin, two-lane bypasses of Manitowoc and Port Washington were opened in 1957. – It troubles me that you don't say what the same time is in relation to within this new section, which is somewhat disconnected from the last paragraph by the heading. Something like "At about the same time as the realignments in Michigan, two-lane bypasses of Manitowoc and Port Washington in Wisconsin were opened in 1957" would be better
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The first segments of freeway were opened in the Milwaukee area starting in 1963 between Locust Street and Good Hope Road. – Needs a comma after "Milwaukee area"
- Added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

RJL

Why do some rows have a "—" in the exit column, while others are blank?
- The dashes are for exits without a number, while the blanks aren't exits at all. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Distances are listed in both miles and kms, so the table doesn't need a conversion key (can be switched off using |conv=off)
- I'm leaving this alone... the template will be switched to default with the key off in the near future. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

In the Highway System section, there's a blank line between the sets of links for Wisconsin Highways and Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, but not between United States Numbered Highways and Wisconsin Highways – should be consistent
- Well, it used to break things if I removed that line break.. and apparently now it doesn't... Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

- Evad37 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Evad37:, all items are addressed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, looks good :) - Evad37 (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

I'll handle this as well. --Rs chen 7754 23:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Need to check 17 sources, ordinarily. I do not think that there are 17 available sources, so I will just check all available and feasible sources:

Source 1: Fixed issue myself.
Source 2: No issues.
Source 4: No issues.
Source 5: No issues.
Source 6: No issues.
Source 23: No issues.
Source 45: No issues.

If any electronic copies of the print sources are available, that would be helpful. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not much more is available. I don't know that I would support this article going to FAC for this reason due to the high percentage of sources that are maps, so the usual disclaimer here. But will spotcheck this evening. --Rs chen 7754 04:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

List of Recreational Roads in Texas

I'm going to be bold and close this review. The nominator has made no attempt to address the outstanding opposes in a month, and suspending the review would not be an optimal outcome here. --Rs chen 7754 09:27, 13 October 2013 (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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: As a part of my attempt to get Recreational Roads in Texas to a good topic, I've decided to go ahead and try to nominate this to be the first A-class assessed list. I'm not sure if this is allowed, but per this discussion and this one, it seemed like nominating the list at ACR was suggested instead of going straight for FLC.

Background aside, here is the main article for Texas' Recreational Road System. The state's smallest highway system (out of 10, counting FMs and RMs separately and not including special routes or toll roads), it contains just 10 designated routes and 1 former route. Four of the routes have separate, stand-alone articles, while the other were all merged from probably the shortest good articles ever. ACR and FLC comments appreciated.

Nominated by: Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Image Check by Nbound

File:Recreational Road 2 map 1940.png - PD-US-no notice - Need to move down to RE2's section
File:USACE Proctor Lake Texas.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE - Not sure this image is needed, the road cannot be seen.
File:Rayburn Dam1.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE - Caption might read better as "RE 255 passing in front of Rayburn Dam (bottom right)" (or similar)
Texas Recreational Road shields (all) - either ~~PD-MUTCD~~ or PD by Author (await new tags)

I will further hold off on giving a formal support until others have looked into this list article first (and how we will assess it). As the is the first list here and therefore a guinea pig, I dont not want to support prematurely. -- Nbound (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. I swapped the RE 2 map for one of RE 11 (another image needs review now), and moved it to RE 11's subsection. I'm holding off removing the Proctor Lake picture while I look for a better image. Thanks for the review, I can understand your uncertainty about this. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed RE 6 image. I couldn't find a replacement. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

5. File:Recreational Road 11 map 1961.png - PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed - extends into RE255 on wide displays, consider using {{-}} or {{clear}} to fix. -- Nbound (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I've also replaced all of the shields licensing to PD-MUTCD, as its the proper license. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't say PD-MUTCD for state highway markers except the circles, as they aren't listed in FHWA's MUTCD. They may be listed in a Texas MUTCD, or they may be in a Texas supplement to the federal MUTCD that also bears the same copyright release. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

They are listed in the Texas MUTCD, which has basically the same copyright release. Texas MUTCD Introduction, page I-1, section 04 states: "Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain. Traffic control devices contained in this Manual shall not be protected by a patent, trademark, or copyright, except for the Interstate Shield and any items owned by FHWA or the State of Texas". Since there's no PD-MUTCD-TX or something like that, I believe that it is still correct to use PD-MUTCD. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC).

You will need to create your own PD-MUTCD-TX tag, or use an applicable generic one. While technicially the right license type, its inappropriate to use it if its information is not directly applicable. Thanks for the help with that one Imzadi1979 :). -- Nbound (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to copy what was done with Michigan's markers, such as File:M-28.svg. Imzadi 1979 → 07:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Updated all using the new PD-MUTCD-Tex license. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As currently stands:

File:Recreational Road 2 map 1940.png - PD-US-no notice
File:USACE Proctor Lake Texas.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE
File:Rayburn Dam1.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE
Texas Recreational Road shields (all) - either PD-MUTCD or PD by Author PD-MUTCD-Tex See note below...
File:Recreational Road 11 map 1961.png - PD-US-no notice or PD-US-not renewed

I would like a US opinion on whether the Rec shields are owned by "except for the Interstate Shield and any items owned by FHWA or the State of Texas"? -- Nbound (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been suggested these shields are possibly PD-textlogo, Im feeling a bit out of my depth on this, so Ill leave a neutral response and defer to someone else, the bulk of the work is already done. -- Nbound (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutral - Someone more familiar with US shielding/copyright should take over. (Otherwise it would have been a tentative support pending reviews) -- Nbound (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Update

I'm going to be on a wiki-break from the 22nd until the 27th, and will have no Internet access, so I'll be unable to respond to any comments for a while. Sorry for any inconveniences. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review the article. --Rs chen 7754 04:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I was planning on giving this a full review, but there still remains a grand total of only one secondary source, with a very passing mention of the system. All we have here are raw statistics, which is useful, don't get me wrong. But we have no clue as to why the system was built or anything like that. Without that information, which was specifically asked for repeatedly and by multiple reviewers at the last FLC, I don't think it's worth my time to do a full review. --Rs chen 7754 09:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

I looked over the article's changes from the last time I reviewed the article, and I still don't see any serious effort made to add secondary sources. Of the 55 references in use, 36 of them are TxDOT (including its predecessor) and 11 of them are online maps (Google and Bing). That leaves 8 references that are not obviously DOT- or map-related. Let's review them.

Parent, Laurence (2008). Official Guide to Texas State Parks and Historic Sites (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-292-71726-8.
If it had a section about the highway system, I would expect this book to be cited more than once.
A.I.D. Associates (1972). Sam Rayburn Reservoir and Dam B (Map). Cartography by A.I.D. Associates (1972 ed.).
Map.
National Park Service (2013). Amistad National Recreation Area Map (Map). Cartography by National Park Service. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
Map.
Shell Oil Company (1956). Highway Map of Texas (Map). 1 in=26 mi. Cartography by H.M. Gousha Company (1956 ed.). Section K7.
Map.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (August 2004). Proctor Lake (Map). Cartography by U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved June 23, 2012.
Map.
Staff. "O. H. Ivie Reservoir". Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
This doesn't mention the RM designation at all, so it can rightfully be tagged {{Notinsource}}.
Kerr, Sharon (July 18, 2007). "Hutchinson, Cornyn introduce federal corridor". Jasper Newsboy. Retrieved September 6, 2012.
Doesn't really mention the system, just RE 255, and not even very well.
Staff. "Texas Update". A Multi-State Coalition for Transportation Improvements. Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition. Retrieved September 5, 2012.
Doesn't really cite anything about the system.

Turns out four of the ones that weren't so obvious were maps. So let's recap. 55 sources and all but four of them are the DOT or a map. None of the four are used particularly well, either. Now, I understand the value of maps, but they can't really tell you much about the system – just where the highway is.

At the last FLC, I asked for secondary sources. You found four, but they're not very good. I suggest finding more. Until then, I still oppose. –Fredddie ™ 04:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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.

Tonkin Highway

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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Welcome to Tonkin Highway in Perth, Western Australia, a controlled access highway^* with more than a dozen sets of traffic lights. It is an important route connecting Perth Airport to the city's north-eastern and south-eastern suburbs. While the road itself is in the process of being upgraded into a modern gateway into WA, I believe that recent upgrades to the article merit consideration for an A-Class rating.

* Technically, a highway with control of access... but I thought I'd have a little fun with the nominators comments - Evad37 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Overall

~~Just a reminder to double check if the definite article is used (or not used) consistently before highway names.~~
The style I'm using is to use the definite article for bridges, but not highway names (which is also what the book source The Vital Link uses). I have fixed the one inconsistency that I saw. - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

~~Infobox looks good~~
~~ENGVAR question: Is "north-eastern" and "south-eastern" common usage in Australian English? I'm more familiar with the unhyphenated versions.~~
Hyphenated or separate words are more common than the compound form, as noted in MOS:COMPASS (Australian English is very similar to British English) - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the answer I was looking for, thanks. –Fredddie ™

Route description

In a GAN review by Nbound (talk · contribs), I was suggested to convert a 1/2 mile to 800 m as opposed to 0.8 km. In a similar vein, I would suggest converting 800 m back to a 1/2 mile instead of 2600 feet.
~~" A further 750 metres (0.47 mi)..." inconsistency with the above. Maybe we should come up with some guidelines as to what proper conversions should be. (See WT:AURD#US_distance_conversions)~~
I'll see if anything comes out of that discussion. Also, as long as {{convert}} is used, conversion would have to be to decimals, not fractions, so it would be 800 metres (0.50 mi). - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Naturally. I just like the look of 1/2 mile over 0.5 mile. –Fredddie ™
Changed converted units so that under 400 metres → feet, 400+ metres → miles - Evad37 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
~~We could use a little more variety in your choice of prepositions (After <distance>... or Another <distance>...) They're fairly evenly spaced, but still seems repetitious.~~
Adjusted wording - Evad37 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

History

~~This is probably not actionable, but take it as a wishlist item. It would be great if we had map of the Perth area circa 1955 with all the proposed highways and freeways.~~
The plan is available here: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/plate9complete.pdf

Similarly further maps from the plan are here: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/5308.asp

Evad may already be aware of these sources anyway :) -- Nbound (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Added the 1955 map as an external link (whilst now public domain in Australia due to it's age, as far as I can tell its not PD in the US) - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Copyright law is not my specialty, so this will do.
Dollar figures from the past should be inflated to 2013 numbers.
How? (Template:Inflation's documentation specifically warns that it "is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses,..." and "incorrect use of this template would constitute original research.") - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I was worried that there wouldn't be template support for this... we've had several FAs pass without inflation, for this reason, during the years that we didn't have the proper US figures. --Rs chen 7754 19:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's make this a long term goal to have. –Fredddie ™
~~The word 'stage' is used too many times in quick succession.~~
Adjusted wording - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Future works

~~I'm a big fan of mini-leads for sections when there are third-level headers. A couple summary sentences might be a good idea here.~~
Added a mini-lead - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
~~When you say construction "officially began on 1 February 2013..." did construction begin unofficially before that?~~
Some service relocation works started earlier, added the info to the article - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
~~Since the 2001 federal election caused some changes to construction plans, will the new government do the same?~~
Add some info re the election & change of government - doesn't appear like there will be changes - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to either make a mental note to check on this again in a year or two or add a {{Update after}} to remind you.

Junction list

~~A little bit of overlinking in the Destinations column.~~
Reduced - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all. Overall it's a great article, but with a few tweaks I don't see why this can't become a featured article. –Fredddie ™ 23:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I am satisfied with the changes I requested. –Fredddie ™ 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rs chen 7754 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As you're probably aware, I tend to break my reviews up into several parts, so here goes:

Infobox - no issues.
RJL - no issues.

Lead

wasn't -> was not
Done - Evad37 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
will see the central section of the highway upgraded - assuming it all goes to plan...
Wording adjusted - Evad37 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Seem reliable. --Rs chen 7754 08:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Traffic volume

I remember there were comments regarding this at your FAC (including where it should be placed) - I would take those into account.
Changed to the highest and lowest traffic volumes (for each end). I have merged it into Route description, per the FAC (for now at least - I'm still a bit on the fence on the placement issue... will see how the discussions develops) - Evad37 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Route description

The highway heads south as the border between the residential suburbs of Beechboro and Noranda. - forming the border?
which is also the border between the suburbs - the city is the border?
From this point... on?
urban houses - seems a bit odd.
Two sentences starting with "Tonkin" in the last paragraph. --Rs chen 7754 09:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The above issues have been fixed - Evad37 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It was my full intention to give this article a review in good faith, but due to the unnecessarily combative behavior I've seen exhibited on several Australian road article-related discussions, and due to the fact that I'm already behind on several other Wikimedia projects, I don't have the time to fight this one. I'm sorry, Evad37, as this isn't fair to you, but I have to draw the boundaries somewhere. --Rs chen 7754 00:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

After further discussion on IRC and Nbound's subsequent appreciated clarification of his comments, I have decided to review this article again. Since Fredddie is in the middle of his review, and Nbound was in line after that, I will move to the third slot. I may have to re-review the sections that I have already completed, but it should go faster than starting completely over. --Rs chen 7754 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that Nbound is unable to review this article, I guess I'll go. I don't think I need to re-review what has already been done, and that part of the review will still stand even though it has been hatted. --Rs chen 7754 04:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

History

Stage 4 - was it actually called that?
Quote from the book source (The Vital Link) is "Stage 4 completed the link between Stage 1 and the Great Eastern Highway." - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "pedestrian subway"?
Wikilinked to Subway (underpass) - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Check for nonbreaking spaces all over - they should be used between numbers and units, and in figures such as $140 million.
Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Future works

A number of improvement works are planned for Tonkin Highway, which will most of the central and northern sections upgraded to a freeway-standard road with grade separated interchanges. - something's missing
Added "... which will see most ..." - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
the State and Federal governments - should that be capitalized?
Uncapitalised - Evad37 (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Same with Opposition.
Uncapitalised - Evad37 (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Accused... by who? --Rs chen 7754 09:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 03:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nbound

Extended content

Hatting original opening and discussion in good faith after IRC discussions with rschen7754

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I will review this after Rschen7754.

As a start I do not wish to waste everyone's time with potential multiple reverts one way or the other, in regards to the odd content placement claims made by an editor(s) at the FAC and elsewhere, I will likely oppose if these (or similar) opinions are followed as they:

ruin the readability of the article
cause loss of information
are not MOS/policy/guideline based
are not based on the wider WP community's consensus
are not followed by A-Class/FA articles in general
are often not followed by roads A-Class/FA articles

The actual review will follow once Rschen7754's review has been completed (or completed as much as possible) -- Nbound (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

For one, this could have been conveyed more diplomatically (or not at all), and secondly, I fail to see the relevance as there are no traffic counts or environmental impact sections here. --Rs chen 7754 23:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I will add that comments like this don't encourage editors to review Australian road articles. --Rs chen 7754 00:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am quite happy to discuss concerns, and that invitation will remain open. Though specifically in reply to the latter half of the first point, the traffic volume section has already been merged. - Nbound (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained my viewpoint, and you responded to that with more unnecessary emotion and rhetoric at this review. --Rs chen 7754 00:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And to further explain, you quite openly threatened to oppose promotion of this article if I requested any changes that you choose to disagree with. That is not how ACR is intended to work, and I cannot review this article with that on the table. If I'm going to review this article, I want to be able to draw on what I honestly believe this article needs to pass FAC, and not be limited by politics; I cannot review this in good faith with the above comments on the table. Mathematically, net support + net oppose = 0. Not to mention criticizing the reviewer in the process; since I have had several successful road FACs, I don't think I deserve to have my comments treated as if they will damage the article if followed. --Rs chen 7754 00:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I had attempted to move this discussion to a neutral place (WP:HWY) outside of the article review (which to me appears inappropriate to have such discussions). This has been reverted, and I will not be moving it back. I would kindly request that no further comments are made here (In good faith - Im also going to not respond to the final point made by rschen7754, therefore he has had last say prior to this request). I make this request so as not to further detract from any future review. I am of course still very open to discussion in regards to this matter, just in other locations -- Nbound (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion in regards to this, I have advised Fredddie I think its best if he reviews first, he has accepted. This should allow a break of sorts. -- Nbound (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In good faith I am re-posting the opening post of this section:
As some are aware I dont agree with the issues raised at the FAC and the Kwinana Freeway talk page - I am quite happy to discuss this further, at a location such as the WP:HWY talk page, with invitations to all major roads projects. -- Nbound (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am delaying my review until the discussion has run its course. -- Nbound (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Got too much stuff going on IRL to do this any time soon - consider this review slot open. -- Nbound (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 04:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Since the entire length of Tonkin Highway is State Route 4, I would make sure that it redirects here and I would bold "State Route 4" in the lead.

Actually theres quite a few good reasons why this should not be done, but the main ones are:

All Australian states at one time or another used the same State Route shield
There was/is other State Route 4s

-- Nbound (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this the only State Route 4 that existed in Western Australia? If so, it should be bolded. It should also be helpful to note that designations are bolded even if they have been used multiple times. For example, "Delaware Route 4" is bolded in both the article about current Delaware Route 4 and the article about Delaware Route 299, which was formerly called Delaware Route 4. Dough 48 72 00:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Current AURD practice is to only bold names that were commonly used for the road (See also: WP:AURDNAME). Its unlikely that this road has ever been referred to as "State Route 4" (Evad, correct me if Im wrong), even by local residents - At best it may have gotten something like "Highway 4". Ask almost any Australian where "<route>" is, and they'll probably give you you a "dunno mate". Similarly the fact that these two are entirely concurrent is more coincidence than anything else, equating the route number with the name isnt correct within the Australian context. The routes are not the roads themselves, and barring few exceptions are never treated as such, they are applied to roads to ease navigation. Im not overly familiar with Perth, so if it is actually commonly called SR4 there outside of roadgeek circles then by all means he should bold it. -- Nbound (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

State Route 4 redirects to List of highways numbered 4, with "*

State Route 4 (Western Australia) – Tonkin Highway" listed under the heading == Australia ==. In the article lead, I have bolded State Route 4, because, it this case, both the name and route describe exactly the same bit of road – that is, all of Tonkin Highway is State Route 4, and all of State Route 4 is Tonkin Highway, without exception. Normally this isn't the case, hence Nbound is correct that standard AURD practise is not to bold the route designation. As for almost no-one knowing or caring about the route designation, WP:COMMONNAME applies to the title of an article, not the bolding of alternate (and not necessarily common) terms for the subject of an article, which is covered by MOS:BOLDSYN.

I think this is at risk of setting a poor precedent (and somewhat ignores AURDNAME). The reference to AURDNAME was also to the specific lead section (Im actually not referencing COMMONNAME at all). In other words that we equate the title with common names used to refer to the road itself (which can occasionally include route designations [eg. F3 Freeway for the Pacific Motorway (Sydney-Newcastle)]), rather than other names such as route numbers or internal designations. Similarly the secondary name section of the infobox has the same prerequisites, so names in bold should actually be listed in both, but again there its not really appropriate to equate the two. Route numbers and internal designations have their places within articles and leads where appropriate, but equating one with the other isn't correct. Unlike many areas around the world, routes and roads are not synonyms by virtue of alignment alone, the fact that these two happen to be entirely concurrent is a coincidence. I suspect this might be less of an issue if in our imaginations we equated a road with a concurrent Tourist Drive, Overdimensional Route, Detour Route, etc. You would never say that one is the other, bolding implies the words are true synonyms, which they arent, neither are SR4 and Tonkin Highway - In most cases internal road numbers would be more true as synonyms, but even then we dont bold those, because they are unused in the general public (even if the article later introduces them). Im not going to further interrupt Dough's review, but please take these considerations into account :) -- Nbound (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay we do not have to bold State Route 4. I understand that Australians favor names over numbers and that numbers are rarely used and hardly known to the general public. Dough 48 72 00:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "A further 400 metres (0.25 mi) takes the highway to a traffic light controlled intersection with Benara Road." sounds awkward.
The sentence "After 500 metres (0.31 mi) the S curve ends, along with the residential area, leaving the highway travelling between industrial and commercial properties." needs to be reworded.
"traffic light controlled intersection" seems like an unnecessarily long phrase and is repeated several times in the route description. You could use "signalized intersection" instead or simply "traffic light".
The sentence "A 1.1 kilometres (0.68 mi) section takes Tonkin Highway to Leach Highway, as it curves back to the south-east." sounds awkward.
The sentence "Over the next 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi), it curves back to the south, and meets Welshpool Road East, now entirely within Wattle Grove.", the last couple of clauses need to be reworded as it sounds confusing. Dough 48 72 03:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I've made changes for all of the above, if you could take another look (diff). - Evad37 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Article looks good now. Dough 48 72 13:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Media check by TCN7JM

I will conduct an image check now. T C N7JM 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Tonkin Highway route map.png – OpenStreetMap OBdL
File:Tonkin Hwy 005 S Noranda Matthews.jpg – CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported, good caption
File:TonkinHighway.JPG – GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0, good caption
File:Tonkin hwy sth end gnangarra.JPG – CC-BY-SA 3.0 AU, good caption
File:Tonkin hwy gosnells gnangarra-115.jpg – CC-BY-SA 2.5 AU, good caption
File:Tonkin Highway, Redcliffe Bridge to Great Eastern Highway.ogv – CC0 1.0 Universal, good caption
File:Tonkin n Leach hwy 2013.webm – CC-BY-SA 2.5 AU, good caption

Support - All good. T C N7JM 04:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

I will do the spotcheck, checking 9 sources. --Rs chen 7754 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Source 21: Good on V and CP.
Source 22: The source says that it was planned to open, not that it opened.
Added the transcript of the speedch from the opening as a citation to show that the opening did occur (the source numbers below are now off by 1) - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Source 24: Good on V and CP.
Source 27: Dead, should be tagged accordingly. Otherwise fine.
Removed |deadurl=no from citation template - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Source 32: Good on V and CP.
Source 35: Good on V and CP.
Source 36: Good on V and CP.
Source 37: Good on V and CP.
Source 38: The opposition, or the opponent?
Clarified that it was the opposition's candidate - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck done, waiting for fixes. --Rs chen 7754 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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.

Baltimore–Washington Parkway

This is a bit out of process, but I am going to go ahead and archive this as keep. Editors have had almost two months to object to keeping this article, and have not done so. In my view, there is no prejudice to bringing this article back here, if concerns arise again, or for additional FAC prep. --Rs chen 7754 11:06, 16 November 2013 (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.

Suggestion: Demote

Nominator's comments: This is a current A-Class article, but I have some concerns with it that need examination. The previous review is at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Baltimore–Washington Parkway.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 01:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred:

Review by Rschen7754

Many of the paragraphs are too long, and are bloated with unnecessary information.

More later. --Rs chen 7754 01:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

~~Ref 11 is dead.~~

Replaced dead link. Dough 48 72 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Some sources need page numbers.
~~Is source 8 reliable?~~ --Rs chen 7754 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Replaced. Dough 48 72 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

30 days has passed, notifications given. --Rs chen 7754 10:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting closer to a keep vote, but maybe use some abbreviations throughout the RD? --Rs chen 7754 09:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Dough4872: --Rs chen 7754 07:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  - I have gone ahead and used consistent abbreviations throughout the article. Dough 48 72 00:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I doubt that the article would pass at FAC due to comprehensive concerns, but I also don't think that it's so bad that it needs to be demoted right away. I also think that continuing this ACR will probably not result in substantial improvements. In other words, largely the same as my +1 on Kansas Turnpike. --Rs chen 7754 03:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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.

Ontario Highway 55

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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Highway 55 is a relatively minor former highway in the Niagara Peninsula. I feel the article is well written, well sourced and comprehensive, meriting a promotion to A-Class status.

Nominated by: Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 02:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 02:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Are there any shields available for the Regional Roads?
What is "fruitland" supposed to mean?
The sentence "Highway 55 began at an intersection with the old Iroquois Road, which later became Highway 8, until 1970, when it became Niagara Regional Road 81; it is also known as Queenston Street to the west and York Road to the east." is wordy and should be condensed and/or split.
"The roadway carrying Highway 55 continued south as Taylor Road (Niagara Regional Road 70).", didn't the lead say Highway 55 became Regional Road 55? Why does it refer to the former Highway 55 as Regional Road 70 here?
The sentence "Pressing north, the highway passed beneath the QEW, which ascends over the Garden City Skyway to cross the Welland Canal" sounds awkward. How does the road ascend over the skyway to cross the canal? Better wording is needed there.
The sentence "By 1959, a route down the new Kenilworth Access, north along Kenilworth Avenue and along what is now Burlington Street to the QEW; both routes existed simultaneously between 1957 and 1958." sounds awkward.
"The entire route is located in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.", shouldn't this be past tense as Highway 55 is now decommissioned?
How is East & West Line a major intersection? Dough 48 72 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There is for RR 55 and RR 81, but not the others. Do you think I should put the RR 55 shield in the infobox, or as a thumb in the article?
1. You could add the RR 55 shield in a mini infobox in the prose. If possible, you can also request shields for the other RRs. Dough 48 72 00:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure a mini infobox is needed; RR55 is exactly what ON55 was... But I'll figure out some way to incorporate it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Orchards, in this case wineries.
1. Do you think you can change "fruitland" to "orchards" or "wineries"? It would sound better. Dough 48 72 00:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. No problemo, fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed.
Highway 55 became RR 55, but the road that continues south at the highway's southern terminus is RR 70. I reworded these first few sentences to make this clearer, I hope.
Fixed. Now "which ascends over the Welland Canal on the Garden City Skyway."
Fixed.
Indeed. Have to override the template for now.
No clue, but I'm doing as the note says. Sometimes the MTO distance tables (in this case the 1989 version I own) provide distances for the most minor of crossroads, often while neglecting a nearby major one. When an important road is missing, I measure from the nearest given road in Google Earth and calculate it... but if the MTO lists it, I generally include it, as the note says.

- Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dough4872: have the concerns been addressed enough for a support? --Rs chen 7754 10:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Awaiting the mini-infobox to be added then I will support. Dough 48 72 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, a mini infobox would be redundant since ON 55 and Niagara RR 55 are the same chunk of roadway. I could add the RR 55 shield as a picture thumbnail, beside/under the provincial shield, or as an icon in the infobox / junction table where appropriate. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You can add a thumbnail of the RR 55 shield to the History. I would be fine with that. Dough 48 72 01:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Concerns have been addressed. Dough 48 72 00:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article after Dough. --Rs chen 7754 09:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

~~Map?~~

References, RJL, lead

No issues. --Rs chen 7754 06:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got a nice map made in qGIS from KML, but can't seem to export it to an svg. I'll see if one of the USRD Map Task Force members can convert the file... short of that I'd have to take a screenshot and upload as a png. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem seems to have solved itself, and a map is now in the infobox. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RD

dead-straight?

History

Why the italics for Niagara Stone Road?

Images

Captions should end with a period if a complete sentence, and should not if not. --Rs chen 7754 08:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like every caption has a subject and verb, so periods for all! I never liked "straight-as-an-arrow"; figured "dead-straight" made sense, but I've changed it to the simpler "completely straight". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 18:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Review

I will review this article - Evad37 [talk] 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

"The route divides..." – change to past tense: divided
Mississauga Street is mentioned in the infobox but not the lead, and Black Swamp Road is mentioned in the lead but not the infobox
Are there route markers for former highways 54 and 56?

Route description

Any information on traffic volume?

History

Have there been any notable accidents, or criticism of the road (safety or otherwise)?

Major intersections/References/External links – no issues

(The last two points depend on whether reliable sources can be found, if you can't find any then that's fine)

That's all - otherwise a short but good read. - Evad37 [talk] 08:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed
Added the latter to the lead, removed the former from the infobox as it is merely the local name of the last half a kilometre within Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Not at the moment, but I will be making markers for all the remaining highways in Ontario that lack one in the near future.

Unfortunately not. I only have traffic volume information for current highways.

Nothing that I've found. I'm sure there's something out there, but it would be very isolated. TBH I'm surprised it was even a provincial highway with Niagara Region in place.

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Image check by Rschen7754

File:Ontario 55 map.svg - please indicate sources.
File:Ontario 55.png - PD in Canada.
File:Highway 55.png - CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr.
File:NiagaraRR55.png - needs more information as to how this design is PD (it's not CC-BY-SA). --Rs chen 7754 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

All fixed. I've made the assumption that the RR55 shield is covered by {{PD-simple}}, but barring that it didn't exist any earlier than 1970 and would have to be fair use for this article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, image check

Done. --Rs chen 7754 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Source 15 - good on V and CP.
Source 8 - does not cover Iroquois Road.
Due to the small number of sources, this is probably enough. --Rs chen 7754 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Source 8 was more to back up the rest of that blurb, but now that you've pointed it out, I added a source for that section of Highway 8 being known as the Iroquois Road. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay,

Done and ready to close. --Rs chen 7754 04:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan

Promoting. --Rs chen 7754 20:21, 5 December 2013 (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.

Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 45 in Michigan/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This is the last of the interstate (lowercase "i") highways in the UP of Michigan to come to ACR. There isn't a lot to say, so the article should be an easy review.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

In the lead, you should mention what road it ends at.
- Added. —Imzadi1979
"US 45 crosses the river near a roadside park south of Rockland.", what is the name of the park?
- The park is not named. —Imzadi1979
Maybe you can mention where US 45 was extended from in 1935.
- Added. —Imzadi1979
Maybe you can provide a little context about the Paulding Light.
- Added. —Imzadi1979

Overall, a decent article. Dough 48 72 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

All items above addressed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Article looks good now. Dough 48 72 02:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I will review this after Dough's review is completed. T C N7JM 02:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"...and the junction with M-28. The trunkline runs northward..." – It is hard for one to tell if "the trunkline" is US 45 or M-28. I originally thought it was supposed to be M-28 given their juxtaposition.
In the second sentence of the History section, I believe using both "previously" and "before" is redundant. I'd try to reword the sentence to get rid of one of them.
I think the part about the Paulding Light could be explained in a bit more detail, if not reworded. If possible, try to explain a bit more what significance this has/had to the route before it was debunked in 2010.

All in all, this is a great article. Doesn't need much for promotion. T C N7JM 04:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tweaks and additions applied. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Support --T C N7JM 05:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-review comment

I see we have a photo of downtown Ontonogan, but is there any chance we can get a photo of the actual terminus, preferably one with the END 45 marker if there is one? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of inquiries out there for relicensing requests on Flickr. One was for a photo of the wooden sign at the terminus (much like US 41's Copper Harbor terminus). Maybe a little drive is order though to get the US 45 ENDS marker assembly photographed if I can't get a photo relicensed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by Floydian + image/source check

Review, image and source check by Floydian

Consider this review to be a source check

Lede

The article title is U.S. Route 45 in Michigan, but the article doesn't use the periods. I know the current discussion will hopefully clarify this, but is there some explanation behind this
- According to The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., 2010, p. 489), periods are no longer preferred in the abbreviation "US" unless being used in a publication using traditional state abbreviations, but even then, CMOS recommends using two-letter postal codes instead of the older traditional abbreviations. Because of that, MOS:ABBR recommends the undotted form saying the other is an option. WP:USSH hasn't been updated, nor has USRD had a discussion yet about renaming the affected articles. (In fact, the project name itself should actually be changed to eliminate the periods.) In any case, the Michigan articles have already switched in the prose and templates, but not yet for titles. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"In between, the roadway crosses the UP running through the Ottawa National Forest and running along the Ontonagon River." - Any way to avoid the double use of running?
- Yup, and done. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"The highway dates back to the 1930s in Michigan. At the time it was extended into Michigan,.." - Again, this feel like a double use. The first use almost seems redundant with the article title and lead sentence.
- Applied a change there. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"...and some realignment changes in the 1970s moved the path of US 45 around before it was returned to the previous alignment." - This is awkward. I understand what it is saying, but the wording is certain to raise eyebrows at FAC.
- Tried something with that wording. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  - These all look good, and I can accept your reasoning regarding point 1. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Route description

Do refs [4] or [5] show the time zone line?
- Yes, the MDOT paper maps show the line. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"North of here is Bruce Crossing and the junction with M-28. US 45 runs northward parallel to the Middle Branch of the Ontonagon River. The highway crosses the river near a roadside park south of Rockland. East of Rockland, US 45 meets the southern terminus of M-26 and turns northwesterly parallel to the Ontonagon River[4][5] and a branch of the Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad (ELS).[6]" - This reads as a series of points with no continuity.
- I made some copy edits there. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  - These points look good, though I believe refs [4] and [5] are better placed at the end of the sentence, even if they don't mention info indicated after the point where they are placed. The sum of the sources verify a sentence IMO. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    - The only thing is that FN 4 and 5 are for everything in the paragraph before them, and shifting them backwards would imply FN 6 also cites the whole paragraph. (It doesn't since it's only about the railroad...) Imzadi 1979 → 07:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

History

"As part of the project, tons of waste copper rock..." - I suggest working in some link to tailings here, as this is what I assume you are referring to as waste copper.
- The source doesn't specify that it was what we'd call tailings though. I know in this part of the UP, tailings from the iron mine is a sandy material left over after the rock is ground finer than makeup powder and separated, but not anything rocky enough for that type of road construction. In the Copper Country, their tailings is usually in the form of stamp sand. They could have been using the overburden, but again, the source isn't specific enough to specify what it was beyond "waste copper rock". Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Source check: 11 - All good.
"In late 1973, MDOT reversed the rerouting. US 45 was restored to its previous routing on Rockland Road between Rockland and Ontonagon. M-26 was re-extended south from Greenland to Rockland. M-38 was extended west along Ontonagon–Greenland Road." - I made an adjustment to this to make it read as a list as opposed to independent thoughts without flow between them.
"The local folklore says that the light is from the ghost of a railroad brakeman according to signs in the viewing area." - May read better as "According to local folklore and indicated on signs in the viewing area, the light is from the ghost of a railroad brakeman." However, there is no context as to what or where this viewing area. In addition, the previous sentence includes "local phenomenon". This double use of "local" feel redundant.
- I editing the prose a little and inserted a mention of where this viewing site is, which on part of Old US 45 (Robbins Pond Road) in the area. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Source check: 16 - All good.
- All look good - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Major intersections, External links

All look good

KML

I don't suppose you could show former routings on the KML as I've done on ON 71?

Source check

The previous review includes a spot check for refs 4/5, 11 and 16. Pending a response, all of these check out swell.

Image check

File:U.S. Route 45 in Michigan map.svg - Needs info on source of data
- @Algorerhythms: can you provide the source you used? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Ontonagon_Michigan.jpg - CC by SA 2.5 ; Good to go
- You should double check File:PauldingMichiganUS45.jpg which I just found and added after I created the Commons category now linked at the bottom of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  - Looks good, CC by SA 3.0 uploaded by creator. I will give leniency on the sourcing for the first image for now, given the... er... silence of Algorerhythms these past couple years. However, it will surely surface at FAC if it isn't fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall

Only other issue I can spot is that there is no mention of the length in the Lede or Route description, which I believe you normally provide with utmost precision (eg. Brockway Mountain Drive)

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

- Added the length, but not to the full precision... Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  - I'm curious as to why you don't in this instance after the comments at Brockway Mountain Drive when it was TFA?
    - My criticism there, in retrospect, is more that the one editor was trying to excise all mentions, going so far as to change one of the three mileposts in the junction list to use a rounded figure but leaving the other two. The prose can get clunky with the extra precision, and if a rounded figure is to be used, we need to indicate it as rounded. Imzadi 1979 → 07:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
      - Indeed. Whenever we as editors make a decision on how to present data, we should indicate what we did in the prose. All the issues are taken care of, so I am now supporting! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Ontario Highway 61

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.

Passed with 3 net support votes (3 support, 0 oppose). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 61/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Highway 61 is an important historical highway near Thunder Bay, connecting to the northern end of Minnesota State Highway 61 towards Duluth. The highway and its corresponding international crossing were originally built without government approval or funding, providing the only road-access at the time to the Thunder Bay region of the province. I believe this article covers the important history and other facets of this route and therefore merits promotion to A-Class.

Nominated by: Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rs chen 7754 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Not sure the use of italics is okay under MOS.

Infobox

Map? --Rs chen 7754 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just added - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

References, RJL

No issues.

Route description

Passes... the customs station?
The second paragraph is entirely unsourced.
Should Annual Average Daily Traffic be capitalized?

History

What is a bush trail?
and so was chosen... don't need so
comma after "as far as the river"
federal - American? or Canadian?
This bypass opened on November 1, 1963 - needs semicolon after
approach... was rebuilt?
Recent years - use a more absolute term. --Rs chen 7754 05:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a link for the buildings themselves, nonetheless I've clarified.
Fixed
Probably not... in Government, Everything Is capitalized Incorrectly. Fixed.

A trail through the wild bushes! I suppose "bushes" is bush slang for wilderness.
Fixed
Fixed
Both
Done
Fixed
Clarified.

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 00:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review this article after Rschen. Dough 48 72 00:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Couldn't the Lake Superior Circle Tour be listed in the infobox using the tourist routes parameter?
The clause "Highway 61 begins at the international border between Ontario and Minnesota, the Pigeon River" needs to be reworded as it sounds awkward.
The article seems to contradict itself as to whether Highway 130 currently intersects Highway 61. The route description says that it doesn't but the junction list and the Highway 130 article says that it does.
Do you have the specific locations where the highest and lowest traffic volumes are?
"Minnesota State authorities", shouldn't "State" be lowercase here? I might suggest rewording "the Cook County and Minnesota State authorities" to "Cook County and the State of Minnesota".
"Following its completion, Highway 61 was rerouted along it as far north as Arthur Street.", when was this expressway completed?
Does Highway 61B still exist or has it been decommissioned? The article isn't clear on this.
"Between 2010 and 2012, Highway 61 was improved considerably within Thunder Bay", what improvements were done?
The last two sentences of the history are out of chronological order. Dough 48 72 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't even aware of that param, thanks! :)
- Does Canada use the standard marker for the Lake Superior Circle Tour? If so, it can be added here. Dough 48 72 01:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Not from what I can tell. I've Google Streetview'd the entire highway and see no shields. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed and fixed
Yeah I messed that up in the RD the other day thinking 130 was removed in '97/'98. All fixed
The article already provides it. The lowest volume is closest to the border and the highest volume is right at the northern terminus. I've updated the figures however.
Done
I haven't been able to find any secondary source confirming the date. However, as far as I can tell, it was partially opened in late 1968 - at which point 61 was routed onto it and the downtown route became 61B - and the remainder opened in the fall of 1970. Unfortunately the primary source doesn't give me specific enough information to know.
- If an exact date can't be found, you can use "by fall 1970" here to give the earliest possible date it was known this road was completed. Dough 48 72 01:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you mean "by late 1970", fall is a different time of year in Australia. --Rs chen 7754 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the national ties of the article preclude it from that possibility, just as a question? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's actually in MOS. --Rs chen 7754 05:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It no longer exists, but I'm not sure when this happened. It shows up in the mileage tables up to 1989, but is still labelled on the official map into the mid-90s. My sheet listing the big highway downloads in 97/98 doesn't list it. I believe it became a Connecting Link around 1990 and so it was still signed until 97/98 but wasn't listed in the schedule of provincial highways... but that's only speculation partially backed by the informative SPS website for Ontario highways. I'll at least add some information to mention that by 1999 it was gone.
By the looks of the contract, it basically amounts to a repaving and restriping; not even worthy of a mention. I've removed the sentence.
Fixed by above.

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Support - Article looks good now. Dough 48 72 04:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Review

Lead

"It connects the Pigeon River Bridge, where it..." – avoid using 'it' twice in the same sentence
"...the Scott Highway" – why the italics?

Route description

"Continuing north, the highway swerves east..." doesn't sound right. Maybe separate the directions, ie "The highway swerves east ... and then continues north..."
"The northernmost section in Thunder Bay is a four-lane, undivided expressway" – Does this correspond to the part known as Thunder Bay Expressway, or just some of it, or more than the named part?

History

Who's Howard Ferguson?

Major intersections

With Chrome/Win7, the Little Norway Road row is showing up on top of a line instead of inside table cells. It would be better to have a proper row, with the leftmost cell as "Neebing–Thunder Bay boundary" (replacing boundary with the appropriate term, if there is one)

That's all - Evad37 [talk] 02:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all. Argh it really annoys me that Firefox is the only browser that properly divides two row cells. Stupid Chrome. As for the Thunder Bay Expressway question, I've clarified the point where the highway widens (the swerve south of Arthur Street), but only the portion north of Arthur Street is the Thunder Bay Expressway - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Support, issues resolved - Evad37 [talk] 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

Pigeon River Truss.png - PD Canada
Outlaw Bridge.png - PD US
Ontario 61 map.svg - GIS sources?
Ontario 61.svg - PD simple
Highway 61 north of Pigeon River, 1955.jpg - PD Canada

Rs chen 7754 11:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Added source info to the map. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Done --Rs chen 7754 21:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Source 9: meets V and CP.
Source 21: last part is missing, though I can't tell if the original article had any more information. --Rs chen 7754 21:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Which part do you mean is missing, regarding Arthur Street? The original article was a bit longer, but I can't recall if it mentioned that. One of the maps used as sources in the article could always be used to verify the old routing compared to today. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Map ref added for extra verification. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay,

Done and ready to close. --Rs chen 7754 22:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Interstate 805

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.

Featured article candidates/Interstate 805/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Finally back on this side of ACR... this is a significant Interstate in the San Diego area, and with the research it should be good for FA material.

Nominated by: Rs chen 7754 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I reviewed this article at GAN literally just earlier tonight, so I can't review it here. I'll do the spotcheck instead. Since this article has 91 sources, I will review the set maximum of 20 sources. Since the majority of them are newspaper sources, I will request the nominator to email them to me later, but I have not yet decided which ones I will review. T C N7JM 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have requested the nominator to send me the contents of sources 30-49 via email. When that happens, I can perform the spotcheck the next time I have sufficient time. T C N7JM 00:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The numbers accompanying the sources are accurate as of this revision:

Source 30 – All good
Source 31 – All good
Source 32 – All good
Source 33 – All good
Source 34 – All good
Source 35 – All good
Source 36 – All good
Source 37 – All good
Source 38 – All good
Source 39 – All good

Everything's a-okay so far. I'll review the remaining ten sources at a later time. T C N7JM 03:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Source 40 – Minor error:... The bid wasn't exactly $7.2M, so a word like "about" should be used. Also, while you're at it, there's a typo that I can't fix because I'm viewing an old revision. It says "bit" instead of "bid".
Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 17:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Source 41 – All good
Source 42 – All good
Source 43 – All good

This is all the more I have time for now. T C N7JM 11:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Source 44 – Needs rewriting: The second time the citation is used, it seems to be implied that the portion from El Cajon Boulevard to SR 52 is the "span over Mission Valley", as neither road is mentioned at that point in the source. Otherwise, the other four times it's used are okay.
- Done --Rs chen 7754 05:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Source 45 – All good
Source 46 – All good
Source 47 – Minor error:... Similar to the error with Source 40, the number isn't exact.
Done --Rs chen 7754 05:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Source 48 – All good
Source 49 – Elaborate a bit:... Instead of saying the day was "just before" the dedication, I would note that it was the day before, to be exact.
- Well, day before the planned dedication, because unfortunately the archive craps out at the time of the actual dedication. But I will adjust this. --Rs chen 7754 05:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Phew. Well, got that over with. I'll leave this on hold for ya. T C N7JM 04:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 05:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Support T C N7JM 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 00:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

A lot of the route description has phrases such as I-805 does [blah] before [blah]ing [blah]. I would consider varying the phrasing in the route description.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 01:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
In the history, maybe you should mention what US 101 and US 395 are called now.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 04:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
"Before the end of the year, the portion from SR 94 to Home Avenue began the bidding phase, did the road actually begin the bidding phase? Better wording could be used here.
I don't see the problem; it indicates that it took place before the end of the year. Trying to vary the wording and all. --Rs chen 7754 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you can change it to "bidding began on the portion of SR 94 to Home Avenue". Dough 48 72 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
~~Which is exactly the same thing. Not making this change.~~ --Rs chen 7754 02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see the issue, will fix. --Rs chen 7754 02:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Rs chen 7754 03:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any projected completion dates for the construction projects currently taking place on I-805?
Done. --Rs chen 7754 03:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall, a decent article with very few issues. Dough 48 72 03:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Issues resolved. Dough 48 72 04:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Review

Lead

"...the eastern areas of the Greater San Diego area..." – 'areas' is used closed to 'area', consider using a different word
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
"...before reentering San Diego." – The previous sentences do not indicate that the road left San Diego
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
In the infobox, the existed dates are 1959 – present, but 1959 isn't mentioned at all in the lead
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 05:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Route description

"...County Route S17 (CR S17), also known as Bonita Road,...", "SR 94, also known as the Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway", "SR 163, also known as the Cabrillo Freeway" – consider rewording one or more of them to be less repetitive
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 05:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"It then intersects El Cajon Boulevard before passing under the Hazard Memorial Bridge that carries Adams Avenue and going over Mission Valley" – is a bit long without punctuation. It is also not clear whether the bridge carries Adams Avenue over I-805 and Mission Valley, or if I-805 passes under the bridge and then goes over the valley.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 05:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"I-5 at the I-805 merge was built to be 21 lanes wide when the widening project was completed in 2007" – sounds a bit awkward. Suggest rewording, perhaps something like "I-5 at the I-805 merge was built to be 21 lanes wide, following the completion of a widening project in 2007".
- Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 05:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How many lanes did I-5 have before the widening project?
- I don't have the information since I haven't looked at the I-5 stuff yet... and it should really go in the I-5 article if the info is found. --Rs chen 7754 07:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Overlinking: I-5 is linked three times in the route descriptions
- Ran the duplicate link script. --Rs chen 7754 05:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

History – Construction

Per MOS:BOLD, Route 241 and Inland Freeway should not be in boldface
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"(a distance of 3.5 miles (5.6 km))" – brackets inside brackets doesn't look good. Suggest using |disp=or in the convert template, or reword to remove the outside brackets
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"However, it was discovered that this would add $10 million..." – superfluous, suggest changing to "However, this would have added $10 million..."
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"L Street" - change the space to a non-breaking space ( )
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"by then, the estimate for completing the entire freeway had slipped to 1975." – Recommend changing 'estimate' to something more specific like 'estimated date'. Also, slipped from when?
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"Estimates on the Mission Valley bridge had slipped to July 1972 by March" - 'July 1972 by March' sounds awkward, move 'by March' to the beginning of the sentence or otherwise rephrase it. Also, it is very similar wording to the previous sentence, try other wording such as 'expected' or 'anticipated', and 'delayed' or 'postponed'.
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"The portion of the freeway from Otay Valley Road to Telegraph Canyon Road opened during the year." – Start of a new paragraph, the actual year itself should be mentioned
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 06:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"...there were reports of motorists driving around on the closed freeway, which the California Highway Patrol did not support." – Was it actually illegal/prohibited? The title of ref 60 says "Unopnened 805 Usage Prohibited" (is the first word a typo?), but from this sentence, it sounds like the highway patrol just recommended against driving on the closed freeway
- Fixed both. --Rs chen 7754 06:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

– Recognition, artwork, and architecture

American Society of Civil Engineers should be mentioned at the first use of ASCE instead of the second
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 04:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
"...with its columns that look similar to cathedral windows, with arch-like shapes etched into the textured concrete." Suggest changing the second 'with' to 'and'
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 04:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

– Expansion

What's SANDAG?
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 04:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
What's CTC?
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 04:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Exit list

Where there are two roads in the destination column, should they be separated with a "/" instead of a comma? I can't actually see any such requirement in MOS:RJL, but {{Jct}} uses a slash...
- I've generally seen it with commas, but I could be wrong. --Rs chen 7754 07:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The location is blank for exits 7C and 8, shouldn't this be a single cell?
- Not necessarily. --Rs chen 7754 07:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Instead of <br>'s, use

{{Plainlist|
* <line 1>
* <line 2>
...
}}

for the major junctions list, per WP:PLIST

Done. --Rs chen 7754 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article looks good :) - Evad37 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll be replying over the next few days, I'm out of town now. --Rs chen 7754 07:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 08:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Support - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Evad37

File:California Interstate 805.svg: CC-BY-SA 3.0, caption is good, but alt text missing
File:I-805 Northbound at CA 905.jpg: PD by author, caption is good, alt text is missing
File:Interstate 805-5 Split.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0, caption is good, alt text is missing
File:Miramar op 805.jpg: GNU FDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-2.0 ~~but lacks source info~~, caption is good, alt text is missing
File:I-805 (CA).svg (infobox): The source field of the information template should be the Caltrans drawing, and licensing should reflect why it is a free image given that the drawing is the source – is it a MUTCD PD image, or is it some other reason/permission? Does it need a trademark warning? PD-MUTCD-CA. Caption is good, alt text is good
File:I-5.svg (navbox): PD-MUTCD, alt text is missing

Concerns noted above - Evad37 [talk] 05:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

- Alt text is not a requirement for FAC any longer. The other issues have been addressed. --Rs chen 7754 05:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It may not be a requirement, but should probably still be added for accessibility per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images: "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Wikipedia), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent. This is because a screen reader, in order to describe the purpose of the link, will default to reading out the image filename when no alt text is available. This is usually not helpful."

Anyway, the images are now otherwise okay,

Image check done - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by Scott5114

In most states, counties are listed in the infobox. I do not know if California follows a different standard here, but I have received this recommendation on my most recent ACR.
- Done; most of CA doesn't have them, but there's no reason not to add them. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember that the lead is meant to give an executive summary of the article, and thus should be readable on its own. Thus, the term "dual freeway" should either be defined in the lead, obviating the need for someone to go hunt in the article for a definition, or the sentence phrased to avoid that construction.
- Added a link. I really don't think that it can be avoided without either adding in a bunch of extra stuff, or removing a critical detail. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  - It is currently a bit confusing whether this is a local/express setup or just a divided highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    - Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The sentence about I-805 serving as a divide between rich and poor in Chula Vista seems oddly placed. If it could be expanded to a full paragraph, I would say it should be moved to the history section (since it is a characteristic of the highway observed at one point in time, and is not an inherent feature of the road), and if not, I would recommend dropping it altogether. Either way, it would probably fit better in the article about Chula Vista.
- I see your point, but there's not a good place in the history to put it. I've changed how it was worded in the RD to make it mesh better. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Be careful with "the city" in the first paragraph of the route description. The phrase is used variously to refer to San Diego, Chula Vista, and National City, which could confuse less observant readers.
- Cleaned up. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The information about the Hazard Bridge feels out of place, considering I-805 only passes under it.
- That article actually redirects here. It's also a quite significant bridge architecturally, I believe. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
By June, houses along the route were being sold in the North Park area... This reads like the houses from the freeway route were being dragged up to North Park and sold there. Consider something like By June, houses in North Park that were along the proposed route of the freeway were being sold. If sources support it, clarify that Caltrans was the one buying the houses.
- Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
In May 1967, bidding began after construction had been delayed by that of I-5 and I-8 which had been given higher priority. This sentence is somewhat unclear. Did I-5 and I-8's bidding or construction cause the delay? A comma is needed after I-8. You may want to specify both I-5 and I-8 if both of them were given higher priority.
- Reworded. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The R.E. Hazard and W.F. Maxwell Companies... any relation to the Roscoe Hazard the bridge was named after?
- Kind of doubt it, papers didn't say much, and he can't hold those two jobs at once due to COI stuffs. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
If the winning bid was $20.9 million, where did the $27.5 million figure come from?
- Well, that was what they budgeted for the job, but nobody bids that much of course. Clarified a bit. --Rs chen 7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
...I-805 from north of Friars Road to north of what was then US 395 in mid-1969, which would become SR 163. May be better to say In mid-1969, bidding was to begin on 3.2 miles (5.1 km) of I-805 from north of Friars Road to present day SR 163, which was US 395 at the time or similar. This places "mid-1969" with the phrase that it modifies, instead of making it look like the mid-1969 date just applies to it being US 395.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 02:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Might be desirable to expand on what exactly Nixon's order was supposed to affect. Was it a budgetary thing?
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 02:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
By March 1970, the original section between Home Avenue and near I-8 was almost complete, and the Mission Valley portion extending north of US 395 as well as from Otay Valley Road and J Street in Chula Vista were still under construction and A second border crossing in the San Ysidro area was proposed near the Playas de Tijuana area, that would be accessible from I-805, although another alternative was considered near Brown Field; a formal study was commissioned in August: Both of these sentences share the same problem. They have too many clauses, and therefore it is easy to get lost and not follow what they are saying. In both cases, the remedy is to split them into less complex sentences.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 02:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
E.C. Young, Young and Sons, Inc., and A.A. Baxter Corporation: may be better to rearrange these so that you don't have Young twice in a row. If you list them alphabetically, you can put and between E.C. Young and Young and Sons, which, with the Oxford comma, would alleviate any confusion.
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
and was to be opened from El Cajon Boulevard...
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
There are some minor punctuation issues throughout the history that may need a second look.
- Not sure what you mean, could you be more specific? --Rs chen 7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Does mention of the ineligibility to be a scenic highway merely confirm that Chula Vista was unsuccessful at obtaining the designation, or did it preclude them from getting it?
- Removing entirely; not very useful. --Rs chen 7754 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Opening of the SR-94 connectors and the cost information are separate topics that should be covered in separate sentences.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The word complete is used a lot in the Construction section. If possible, use synonyms to cut down on the number of usages.
- Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There were reports of motorists driving around on the closed freeway: "driving around" seems a bit informal.
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
If you get a chance, a photo of the Mission Valley Viaduct would enhance the article significantly, considering it was recognized with awards. Likewise for the Eastgate Mall bridge.
- Hoping to do this next week. --Rs chen 7754 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What is the "Stargazer"? A bridge? A statue? A fish? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893)?
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Characterizing a billboard as a [form] of artwork along the highway is kind of weird.
- Well, art is subjective... and has aesthetic qualities. --Rs chen 7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
at the northern end of I-805
- Fixed. --Rs chen 7754 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, "dual freeway" is rather confusing; it would be more clear to explain exactly what this consists of. One could reasonably interpret it to mean a divided highway.
- Added a bit more to clarify. --Rs chen 7754 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Are the February 2013 express lanes HOT lanes or more "dual freeway"?
- Neither; fixed. --Rs chen 7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Top quality work as always, just needs a little more polish. The only question is why am I helping CA catch up to OK on the leaderboard... :P —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

All done. --Rs chen 7754 02:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. As for the punctuation, it was more an issue of a missing comma here and there; you should probably have an experienced copyeditor look at it with fresh eyes before sending to FAC. Other than that, all of the major issues have been addressed, so I will support this article for A-class. Well done! —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Closing notice - The article has been passed. Good work! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

New York State Route 28A

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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Well, well, well. It's be an insane long amount of time since I had my last ACR and I have several articles within close range of being nominated. I have every intent in hurrying this to FAC as it passes (if it passes) and its been really too long for me. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 21:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nominated by: Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 21:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 04:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Resolved issues by Fredddie

I will begin reviewing this article. –Fredddie ™ 04:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

The most striking thing in the top part of the article is "circa 1933". I would like to see the actual date if possible.
Emphasis on if possible. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Consider revising "19.82 miles" in the lead to something more prosaic like "nearly 20 miles". There will probably be disagreement below, but I am of the thinking that it's OK to use fuzzy math when it's appropriate.
Done, but disagreed.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say you had to do it, just consider it. There was a discussion about this not too long ago if you recall. –Fredddie ™ 18:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Last sentence of the lead, you should make it clear that no action has occurred still.
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Route description

I'm sure you're sick of hearing it but I like "NY 28A begins at..." over "NY 28A's western terminus is at..." any day.
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You should mention early on in the RD that the route is in Catskill Park
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is Hamlet (New York) a relevant wikilink to this article?
The New York definition of hamlet is different from the general definition. Also given every article has it, I see no issue with it. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
"...crossing Esopus Creek just above where it empties into the nearby Ashokan Reservoir."
- "Above"? The bridge/culvert is on top of the mouth of the creek?
- "Nearby" says to me that the reservoir isn't really relevant to the road; it's just there. We know that's not the case.
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You might want to double check all the -ing verbs; most of them should be using the present tense.
The highway subsequently turns...→The highway turns...
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
How far is a short distance? (context needed)
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Consider revising "buffered by woods and posted and fenced"
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
How large is the bridge? (context needed)
Doesn't even need to be worded that way. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You can't say "another long bridge" (my emphasis) when you never said you crossed a long bridge in the first place.
Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Houses cannot dwindle no matter how hard they try.
Clarified.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by "posted as city land"?
Removed. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You call it a spillway road, but that's not right. The road is atop the dam. A spillway is a reservoir's emergency high water outlet.
Clarified.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You should make it a little clearer that the covered bridge is not on Beaverkill Road. It read that way to me.
Changed.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple issues with the "Lemon Squeeze" sentence.
- Is it the narrow point of the reservoir? It's not explained or cited very well.
- According to Street View, it is very much open to traffic and is signed "To NY 28"
Lemon Squeeze, technically is a local's term for the closed Monument Road, but I've removed this as a jargon-type issue. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't ever use "due east" on a curvy road like this. I would use it for the last 20 miles of Iowa 44, though.
Changed.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
That quadrangle map is nearly 50 years old. Are you sure the Blue Line is still accurate?
Does this suffice in answering that? Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
We should add the blue line to the KML. –Fredddie ™ 21:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Where you say "another spillway", it should just be "the spillway".
Changed. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think there are closer landmarks to the eastern end of the reservoir than Stone Church Road. Namely Basin Road or the eastern end at NY 28.
Changed. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

History

"...in the reservoir's path..." I don't think path is the right word here.
Changed. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a copy of the 1909 court order somewhere?
Does this suffice? Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This should be on WS. –Fredddie ™ 21:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, it appears to me that the road across the reservoir is open to traffic.
Clarified. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
"Construction resumed on August 12, 2010, after the issues were resolved, and is expected to be completed in December 2011." Was expected?
Changed. My fault for when I changed the article around. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Was the project over/under budget?
Other than the $5 million number, every other source I've found has said $15 million.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Major intersections

I don't like the hamlets listed in the notes column like that. It makes it seem like you're saying it's in one place (the location column), but no really it's here (notes column)
That's going to require a change of over 300 articles because almost every NY article has that, the theory being common name of the area. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links

The KML is wrong in a couple spots. It shows the route as it was before the 2010–12 improvements near the NY 213 junction.
Someone else is going to have to do that and my reasons for saying that are rather obvious. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 17:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure. –Fredddie ™ 23:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the KML myself. –Fredddie ™ 05:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Fix these and I'll be sure to support. –Fredddie ™ 16:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe its the "He who wrote it is blind to error" issue, but I don't think the ing is an issue now. Also, if someone can do the KML and map changes, I'd appreciate it. As for the WS stuff, does this hinge on me doing so because I've never edited WS. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah you don't have to do it. I think it would be nice/helpful to be able to wikilink to the decision, that's all. –Fredddie ™ 23:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Posted a Wikilink. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Looking good now. –Fredddie ™ 05:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I can pick up the second review, though there may be a bit of a delay. --Rs chen 7754 07:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary notes

Check captions - fragments should not have periods, but complete sentences should.
Page numbers?
Those condemned... the communities were condemned?
c. -> around
as of 2013, no action was ever taken. -> had been taken

Route description

NY 28A's begins - ?
less than a 0.5 miles - less than 0.5 miles?
separated by woods along with being fenced ?
where houses begin to break the woods ?
What is a highway garage?
and the road above - ?

History

The latter was -> were
of an extended NY 28 - comma after
c. again

Rs chen 7754 04:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

All done. As mentioned to reviewer on IRC, circa stuff is template.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 04:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 04:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

File:NY Route 28A map.svg - PD-self, has GIS sources.
File:NY 28A along Ashokan Reservoir.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
File:NY 28A at Monument Road.jpg - cc-by-sa-2.0
Captions are fine.

Support - Images look good. Dough 48 72 03:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by Admrboltz

Resolved issues from Admr Boltz

While not an FA criterion, you are missing alt text for images.

Aside of the fact I object to alt text, every single one I've done has been redone at FAC. If someone wants to go out of their way and do it, fine. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

TwinsMetsFan technically has more edits than you on this. This may be an issue once you go beyond ACR to potential FAC.

Hasn't edited since July 18 and I am the only one in previous discussions with him who wanted to go ahead with it. He said I could go ahead on the condition I fixed some things.Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Many of the communities along its length, such as West Shokan and Olivebridge, are recreations of those condemned for the reservoir's construction." - I think what you are saying is that communities were forced to relocate? If so, please reword.

Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't {{As of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}}} make using {{as of}} moot...? This is specifically discouraged in the template documentation.

Changed. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"The shoreline itself is less than a zero point five miles (0.8 km)" - Looks funny. Later on you use "A quarter-mile" so maybe use "a half-mile".

Changed. The template sucks. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You've linked to the 9/11 attack article twice (once in rd, once in history).

Done but not in agreement with doing so. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the current target of S-curve is correct.

Delinked. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of {{convert/spell}} and manually converting figures.

Done. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Now in the town of Hurley, it continues to follow the irregular reservoir shoreline to the northeast..." - using the pronoun it just doesn't sound right (there are several instances where you use it).

Changed. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Support --Admr Boltz 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Source 7: source doesn't say that it was diverted onto NY 28/A specifically.
Source 9: Good on V and CP.
Source 11: not seeing the part about "The order was never lifted...". Perhaps I'm missing it?
Source 22: Good on V and CP.
Source 23: Good on V and CP. --Rs chen 7754 21:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Changed 7 and 11, canning the parts in question. The one attached to 7 was assumable anyway. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 23:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Done --Rs chen 7754 23:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

U.S. Route 6 in Iowa

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.

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: It's been a while since I've been to ACR with my own article, so here goes. A few things I want to mention first.

I am acutely aware of the lack of pictures. I will work on this while the ACR is open.
I have been asked in private to make markers for the auto trails.
There has been a push to get US 6's historical route signed. So far it's been one guy making the push and only in eastern Iowa, so it hasn't had a lot of coverage outside his website (SPS problems). It should still be mentioned.

Nominated by: –Fredddie ™ 02:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 02:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nbound

I will review this article after Dough4872 -- Nbound (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I got bored... Too bad Dough :P

Lead

It is signed in places as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway - Where? or is it just intermittantly? The main US 6 article gives the impression that this name covers all of US6, if so it should be mentioned as such, and then noted the signage is intermittant.
- Iowa is a little funny with how and where GAotRH is signed. The signs are indeed intermittent, not every US 6 signs has an accompanying GAotRH sign, but some do. It is mainly signed along the parts of US 6 that do not overlap I-80, but it is also signed on the former sections of US 6 that are now county roads. Weird, huh? –Fredddie ™ 04:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If the signage along former US 6 is remnant, it should probably be ignored. Better yet, if the situation is complex -rather than say what it is "signed" as, mention that it is "declared" or "<insert term>" as GAotRH instead-- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I ~~did a little more digging on this~~ reread the part I wrote about it, and where the GAotRH is signed today is where US 6 was located in 1947. Hope that explains it a little more. –Fredddie ™ 05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

~~Whats an auto trail?~~
- Wikilinked to the article. –Fredddie ™
- Done -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
As a result, the least-traveled sections of the route were moved onto I-80. -- As a result, the least travelled sections were decommissioned and parts of the original route where moved onto parallel sections of I-80
- I don't like the word decommissioned, but I get what you're saying. –Fredddie™
  - Ill leave this one upto you. Ill consider it Done in any case -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    - How does that sound now? –Fredddie ™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

RD

~~When describing the physical construction of the highway is it single or dual carriageway?~~
- In the mini-lead, it mentions that it's mostly a 2-lane road. Is that not enough? –Fredddie™
  - The four lane sections were what I was mainly refering to :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    - I think I got it –Fredddie ™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The route parallels I-80 for most of its length; however nearly one-third of the route overlaps the Interstate Highway - its mot going to be immediately obvious to international readers that I-80 is an interstate highway
- Isn't that the purpose of the I-80 article? –Fredddie™
  - Possibly, but if so, then we probably dont need a separate link/mention for Interstate Highway. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    - Removed the link –Fredddie ™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
US 6 crosses the Missouri River via the Grenville Dodge Memorial Bridge into Council Bluffs, Iowa with I-480 --> ... as part of a duplex (or insert term of choice here) with I-480
~~Mentions of CR routes, or perhaps just the first mention, should link to the appropriate article concerning county routes, international readers have no idea what CR stands for~~
- Oops. That was an artifact from copying over some text from the I-80 article. –Fredddie™
  - There actually no articles about Iowa's county roads, just a section on the primary highway system article. Given that, I don't think a link to county highway would be appropriate here since it doesn't really mention Iowa in depth. This doesn't mean I disagree with you, though. –Fredddie ™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
For one-half mile (0.80 km) -- convert to 800m instead. (similar with other sub 1km conversions)
- Done –Fredddie ™
Some information on the type of landscape would be good. I dont know what Iowa looks like :)
- Would a paragraph in the mini-lead supported by pictures in the body work for you? –Fredddie ™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

History

It would be great to get a shield, signage, or other marker for the early routes (all appear to be pre-23 so hopefully no major copyright issues) [just noticed that this was mentioned by the nom, consider this a public request then]

This should be safe to consider a pre-FAC goal. -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

~~The primary highway system should be linked from the first instance in the Great White Way subsection~~
- Done –Fredddie ™

General

~~Might have to use better terminology than "overlaps" (and similar), such as duplex or concurrency~~
- I disagree here. I think two routes "overlapping" is an easier concept to grasp than two routes "being concurrent". Plus, a road "duplex" is a neologism. –Fredddie ™
- Sounds fair enough, Id personally prefer concurrency to "overlaps" but your usage is consistent. Done
~~Information to do with previous versions of the US6 shield (if applicable) would be interesting~~
- Are you suggesting something similar to what I did on U.S. Route 30 in Iowa? –Fredddie™
  - That would do nicely, though you could alternatively link to another generalised article that shows example or template versions rather than re-do for each road - your choice :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    - Managed to do both, though I'm not entirely sold on it here. –Fredddie ™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Needs some pictures (esp. in the RD)
- Yep, mentioned that in my intro –Fredddie ™
~~Why do the exit numbers reset in Davenport (I'm curious)~~
- US 6 exits I-80 where I-280 begins, which is exit 290 on I-80. A mile south of that is where US 6 leaves I-280, which is exit 1 on I-280. –Fredddie™
  - Curiousity satisfied XD Done -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
~~You might be able to dig up some more history by trawling some newspaper archives (just a suggestion)~~
- Suggestion only Done -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For the most part the article is quite interesting and informative -- Nbound (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I realised I had forgottent about this recently, Ill try and reply/pass/whatever in the next day or so :) -- Nbound (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Most things are fine or reasoning explained - Await updates on remainder -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I've replied or asked enough questions to address everything. –Fredddie ™ 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - That mini-lead with pics would be good prior to any FAC attempt -- Nbound (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 02:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Is there a reason the mileage in the lead is rounded to the nearest whole number and not to three decimal places like it is in the infobox?
We've been criticized at FAC for being too precise in our route descriptions. This is me addressing that. –Fredddie ™
"From there, it travels east through Oakland and Atlantic, Iowa.", is it really necessary to mention that Atlantic is in Iowa. The title of the article should imply that it is in Iowa.
Must have been from when I delinked a bunch of stuff with AWB. You could have done this, btw. –Fredddie ™
Toward the end of the second paragraph of the lead, you continuously refer to US 6 as "it". Can some varied wording be added here?
Fixed. –Fredddie ™
"Just three-quarters mile (1,200 m) into the state", I would convert the miles into kilometers rather than meters.
Oops. –Fredddie ™
Again, seeing a lot of use of "it". I would go through the whole article and try to make sure the wording referring to US 6 is as varied as possible.
Hey look over here! How about now? –Fredddie ™ 04:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
"The three routes run together for four miles (6.4 km), when US 6 / US 71 split away from Iowa 83 and continue north to I-80. At I-80, US 6 splits away from US 71 and joins I-80.", you use "split(s) away" in two consecutive sentences. One of the instances should be changed.
Fixed. –Fredddie ™
"It turns off of Iowa 14 and enters the western side of Newton, passing through its downtown area and the Jasper County courthouse.", does US 6 actually pass through the courthouse? I would use better wording here.
Ha. Fixed. –Fredddie ™
"the route becomes hillier and curvier," sounds awkward. I would try another wording such as "the route has more hills and curves."
OK. You missed a <verb>-ing right after that and I fixed that too. –Fredddie ™
The sentence "10 miles (16 km) southwest of Wilton, it crosses the Cedar River." should be reworded so that it does not begin with a numeral.
That was formatted for {{Convert/spell}}. It looks like it was changed by accident. –Fredddie ™
Are the speed limits necessary in the route description? I was told that they were discriminate information for road articles.
A fair portion of the text is borrowed from Interstate 80 in Iowa, which passed FAC with speed limits. –Fredddie ™
"On November 11, 1926, members of the American Association of State Highway Officials approved the plan to create a system of interstate highways across the country.", don't you mean U.S. highways? I would change the wording to avoid confusion with the Interstate Highway System that was created in 1956.
It's not wrong. When the US Highway System was created, they were called interstate highways (note the common noun form). –Fredddie ™
You could perhaps provide a little more context on where US 6 was extended from to from in 1931.
Added. –Fredddie ™ 03:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
"The abandoned section became an extended Iowa 83 and an Adair County road.", what was the name or number of this county road? Dough 48 72 03:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the last one. –Fredddie ™

I have looked over the easy ones. I will look over the others when at another time. –Fredddie ™ 04:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Concerns addressed. Dough 48 72 04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

Hatting stuff irrelevant to review

~~I reserve review number three.~~ T C N7JM 22:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
~~I guess I'm up. I can probably review this tonight or tomorrow. T C N7JM 04:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)~~
On second thought, I'll probably be busy for a while. If he likes, Rschen can do the spotcheck first. T C N7JM 07:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Striking per request offwiki. --Rs chen 7754 11:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, after all that nonsense, I'm still planning to review this article. T C N7JM 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure US 169 needs to be spelled out in full in the lead since US 6 is already abbreviated.
- Fixed. –Fredddie ™
I'd do this myself, but it's easily visible in the lead, so I thought I'd check first: I'm not sure a comma is the correct punctuation mark after mentioning the two auto trails. I think a semicolon or just a full stop would fit better.
- Agreed with the full stop. –Fredddie ™
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the RD mini-lead. It says the route is two lanes away from I-80, but then that the portion between Adel and Waukee is four lanes. It's unclear that that portion is away from I-80 as well.
- Not sure if you're missing the "while" in there, but that sentence reads differently if you don't see the "while". I did add in a "however" to show a continuation of the thought. –Fredddie ™
US 6 rejoins I-80 for the second time and the interstate returns to its four-lane configuration. – Forgive me if I missed something here, but it isn't clear that I-80 ever deviated from its four-lane configuration.
- Weird. I just removed it entirely. –Fredddie ™
In Eastern Iowa, the article seems to imply that US 6 rejoins I-80 as it's approaching the Quad Cities, but that isn't really clear.
- You'll have to be a little more specific. I don't see anything like that. –Fredddie™
  - In the last sentence of the first paragrah, US 6 and Iowa 38 are heading toward I-80, and in the first sentence of the second paragraph, US 6 and I-80 are running toward the Quad Cities, though it isn't mentioned that US 6 ever rejoined I-80. TCN7JM 06:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
    - OK, got it. –Fredddie ™ 15:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Need a source for US 61 Business being US 61 prior to 2010.
- Added citation to 2009 map. –Fredddie ™

I will continue to review this later. T C N7JM 17:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

After further review, those are all the comments I have. This will be put on hold. T C N7JM 17:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Just had one question for you. –Fredddie ™ 04:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarified. T C N7JM 06:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - My concerns with the article have been addressed. T C N7JM 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

File:US 6 (IA) map.svg - source for GIS data? Done
File:US 6 (IA).svg - PD-MUTCD
File:US 6 east of Newton.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:White Pole Road in Casey.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
File:Great White Way pole.png - PD-old
File:River to River pole.png - PD-old
Map has no caption. Done --Rs chen 7754 03:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Both are done. –Fredddie ™ 04:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

I can pick up the spotcheck whenever the time comes. --Rs chen 7754 10:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: since this has been inactive for over 1 month, with outstanding replies, this discussion has been suspended. It will be automatically failed 6 months from this posting if there are no attempts to resolve the issues in that time. --Rs chen 7754 03:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fredddie: were you still planning on adding material to this article? --Rs chen 7754 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to, but I would like to see more news coverage first. Right now, what's out there makes it seem like it's one guy going from city to city and asking to put up the signs. I don't think would be quite enough for a whole paragraph just yet. –Fredddie ™ 23:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I don't have any immediate plans here for FAC. –Fredddie ™ 04:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Source 5: Map, good on V.
Source 8: Good on V and CP.
Source 11: Need another map from 2010 to verify. Done
- Better, but it doesn't quite match "prior to 2010". --Rs chen 7754 23:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  - Fair enough, found the AASHTO application and approval instead. –Fredddie ™
Source 18: Good on V and CP.
Source 20: Good on V and CP.
Source 21: Good on V and CP, factoring in source 22.
Source 25: Good on V and CP.
Source 34: Need another map to verify.
Source 39: File not found.
Source 41: Need another map to verify. --Rs chen 7754 23:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- The rest should be fixed. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  - Where is Iowa 925 and 927 coming from? --Rs chen 7754 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    - Oops, it was on the 1991 map, not 1990. –Fredddie ™ 04:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

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 16 in Michigan

Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 16 in Michigan/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Grand River Avenue dates back to before Michigan's territorial days, and after I replaced one source, I feel this merits review for A-Class.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough 48 72 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

"The modern road cuts across the Lower Peninsula in a northwest–southeast fashion from Grand Rapids to Detroit.", didn't US 16 run from Muskegon to Detroit?
- Clarified, that refers to Grand River Ave, not US 16. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You should move the history about Grand River Avenue to earlier in the lead as to be in chronological order.
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A reference is needed for "(Later, the I-96 and I-196 designations west of Grand Rapids would be flipped, but at the time leading up to US 16's decommissioning in the state of Michigan, this had not yet been approved.)", I don't think the 1962 map alone can support this.
- Added a pair of redundant citations. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
In the sentence "The freeway turned more directly east in Nunica past the eastern terminus of M-104, and continued east through more mixed forest and grassland terrain to serve the communities of Coopersville and Marne." you use east twice. One of the instances should be removed.
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"Grand River Avenue carried the highway past the airport and east to Larch Street, where US 16 turned south along US 27 north of downtown Lansing.", you should mention the name of the airport.
- Added, but I don't see that it's useful... Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
You should mention more details about attractions that were along the route when it was decommissioned.
- The sources don't specify any "attractions", so this can't be added. We'd need to identify period sources for such a thing, which have not been shown to exist. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "An economic panic in 1837 drove settlers from New York to Michigan, settlers that followed the Grand River Road." sounds awkward.
- Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that US 16 has had bannered routes during its history in Michigan but there is no coverage of them. You should possibly include them in this article or an article about all the bannered routes of US 16.
- There's just the one, and I suppose I could add BUS US 16 from Grand Rapids to this article in the next day or so... Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  - I forgot the other BUS US 16 and the BYP US 16 when I replied, but all three are now added to the article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Since Business US 16 in Grand Rapids is gone, what is the former routing now called? Dough 48 72 00:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no state highway along the former BUS US 16. Instead it followed what is now a series of city streets from Walker through Grand Rapids into Cascade Township. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support - Issues resolved. Dough 48 72 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review / Image review by Admrboltz

Extended content

While not an FA criterion, alt text should still be present.
~~File:Grand River Avenue.jpg has no {{Information}} - no author, no capture date, etc.~~
~~File:Grand River Avenue-Howell MI-1900.jpg should be tagged with {{FoP-US}} and {{watermark}} in addition to the PD tag.~~
~~File:Olympia arena Detroit.jpg should be tagged with {{FoP-US}} in addition to the license tag.~~
Before going to FAC, a map should be created if at all possible.
~~References and ELs check out except for two dead links~~

I will do a prose check later this weekend. --Admr Boltz 18:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Images done and links fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thx. Will review the prose at a latter point. --Admr Boltz 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments from me.

MSHD is mentioned twice, but is never explained what the abbreviation is.
Yellow Book - you had previously mentioned to me if you are not going to refer to it again to just leave it with the official name and not mention Yellow Book.
Lansing History has gone dead

Otherwise the article looks good to go to me. --Admr Boltz 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Just these items to address and I can support. --Admr Boltz 18:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

First usage of MSHD (not counting the infobox) has it spelled out.
Dropped.
Archive url added to resurrect the link. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Support --Admr Boltz 21:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- One afterthought. If the highway was in service until 1962, why not use the 1961 US Route shields, or did MSHD not place the new signs on the road before decommissioning it? --Admr Boltz 06:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  - As far as we can tell, the MSHD never adopted the 1961 specs and retained the 1948s until the 1971/73 update. Imzadi 1979 → 08:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will do review number 3. --Rs chen 7754 04:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary check

Sources good, though source 24 could be problematic in the future.
RJL good.
A map would be nice, though since this is a former route I won't be as strict about this as I usually am.

Lead

The freeway was then designated only Interstate 96 (I-96) or I-196. - could be a bit more clear - both at the same places?
- Clarified. Imzadi 1979 → 09:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Later starting two sentences in the second paragraph
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 09:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

RD

So at the time of decommissioning... it was I-196?
metro - expand
Downtown Detroit - capital D on the first one?
and I-96/US 16 met the northern end of then-built US 23 freeway - of the?
- Fixes applied. Imzadi 1979 → 09:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

History

I assume it's okay to say "Indian"....
was included as one of Five Great Military Roads - by who?
modern Grand River Avenue - comma
that distance being a good day's travel by horse. - cannot stand alone
Approximately 124 - ?
When the state capital was moved to Lansing in 1847, an improved road was needed to the capital city. - really sounds like a topic sentence...
The Lansing–Detroit Plank Road was a toll road until the 1880s. It eventually evolved into the eastern part of the modern Grand River Avenue. - combine
Previously motorists - comma after previously
Another business owner cited the work the Old Town Commercial Association has done to market the area using the Grand River Avenue name; marketing that would be useless after a name change. - should be a comma, not a semicolon
The compromise solution reached in August 2010 was to rename lot 56, where Old Town holds festivals to Cesar Chavez Plaza. - should be a comma after the appositive
- Fixes applied. Imzadi 1979 → 09:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should be a support after these issues are fixed. --Rs chen 7754 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All should be done. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved, but noting the few comments above for a future FAC. --Rs chen 7754 16:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I will do the spotcheck. T C N7JM 09:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be checking 15 sources, the citation numbers are accurate as of this revision. T C N7JM 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Source 2 Good on V and P
Source 3 Good on V and P
Source 12 Good on V and P
Source 13 Good on V and P
Source 14 Good on V and P
Source 15 Good on V and P
Source 16 Good on V and P
Source 17 Good on V and P
Source 23 Good on V and P
Source 26 Good on V and P
Source 27 Good on V and P
Source 33 Good on V and P
Source 50 Good on V and P
Source 51 Good on V and P
Source 52 Good on V and P

Well, well, well. Flawless. I've no choice but to support. Great job. T C N7JM 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Promoted - Another fine piece for Michigan! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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.