Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pennsylvania Turnpike

California State Route 52

California State Route 282

Interstate 96

California State Route 67

Pennsylvania Turnpike

Interstate 75 in Michigan

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

Creek Turnpike

California State Route 75

Pennsylvania Route 652

Washington State Route 104

Interstate 37

Mitchell Freeway

Interstate 496

Ohio State Route 161

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.


Ohio State Route 161 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Here's the peer review, that no one responded to.
Nominated by:CycloneIsaacE-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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

  1. A map of the route should be added to the article.
  2. The lead of the article is awfully short.
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. 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. Dough4872 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)

County Road 492 (Marquette County, 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.


County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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

Review by TCN7JM

It's nice to see a CR at ACR. I'll go ahead and take a look later on. TCN7JM 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? TCN7JM 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. TCN7JM 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..." TCN7JM 01:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Okey dokes, you've fixed that sentence. I support. TCN7JM 01:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review by SounderBruce

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

 Confirmed --Rschen7754 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
A map should be made, even if it's just using the KML. --Rschen7754 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Map added. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. "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.
  2. "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?
  3. In the first paragraph of the route description, you overuse "Maas Street". Can you try to cut down on the use?
  4. "M-35 approaches the county road from the north before yielding to the country road.", what is this supposed to mean?
  5. "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.
  6. I would remove the redlink to CR 550 since CRs are generally not notable enough for articles.
  7. When was the Trunk Line 15 designation first assigned?
  8. " 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? Dough4872 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Replies:

  1. Added
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Traffic along CR 492 has the right of way, and cars on M-35 have to stop before turning onto the concurrency.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Good catch. Updating shortly. Imzadi 1979  00:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

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. TCN7JM 03:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm out of adjectives, so, uh...Support. TCN7JM 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

Kwinana Freeway

Kansas Turnpike

U.S. Route 8

U.S. Route 141

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. --Rschen7754 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.

List of Recreational Roads in Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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

Image Check by Nbound
  1. File:Recreational Road 2 map 1940.png - PD-US-no notice - Need to move down to RE2's section
  2. File:USACE Proctor Lake Texas.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE - Not sure this image is needed, the road cannot be seen.
  3. 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)
  4. 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:

  1. File:Recreational Road 2 map 1940.png - PD-US-no notice
  2. File:USACE Proctor Lake Texas.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE
  3. File:Rayburn Dam1.jpg - PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE
  4. Texas Recreational Road shields (all) - either PD-MUTCD or PD by Author PD-MUTCD-Tex See note below...
  5. 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. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 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.

  1. 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.
  2. A.I.D. Associates (1972). Sam Rayburn Reservoir and Dam B (Map). Cartography by A.I.D. Associates (1972 ed.).
    Map.
  3. National Park Service (2013). Amistad National Recreation Area Map (Map). Cartography by National Park Service. Retrieved June 4, 2013.
    Map.
  4. Shell Oil Company (1956). Highway Map of Texas (Map). 1 in=26 mi. Cartography by H.M. Gousha Company (1956 ed.). Section K7.
    Map.
  5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (August 2004). Proctor Lake (Map). Cartography by U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved June 23, 2012.
    Map.
  6. 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}}.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.


Tonkin Highway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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

Review by Fredddie
Overall
  1. 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
  1. Infobox looks good
  2. 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
  1. 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.
  2. " 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)
  3. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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. --Rschen7754 19:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    Let's make this a long term goal to have. –Fredddie
  3. The word 'stage' is used too many times in quick succession.
    Adjusted wording - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Future works
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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
  1. 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. --Rschen7754 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
References
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. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 04:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

History
Future works

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)

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. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 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)

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

Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. 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. Dough4872 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. Dough4872 00:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. The sentence "A further 400 metres (0.25 mi) takes the highway to a traffic light controlled intersection with Benara Road." sounds awkward.
  2. 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.
  3. "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".
  4. 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.
  5. 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. Dough4872 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)

Media check by TCN7JM

I will conduct an image check now. TCN7JM 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - All good. TCN7JM 04:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

I will do the spotcheck, checking 9 sources. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 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

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.


Baltimore–Washington Parkway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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: Rschen7754 01:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred:
  • 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. --Rschen7754 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.


Ontario Highway 55 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article. Dough4872 02:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. Are there any shields available for the Regional Roads?
  2. What is "fruitland" supposed to mean?
  3. 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.
  4. "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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. "The entire route is located in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.", shouldn't this be past tense as Highway 55 is now decommissioned?
  8. How is East & West Line a major intersection? Dough4872 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. 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. Dough4872 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)
  2. Orchards, in this case wineries.
    1. Do you think you can change "fruitland" to "orchards" or "wineries"? It would sound better. Dough4872 00:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
      1. No problemo, fixed. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Fixed.
  4. 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.
  5. Fixed. Now "which ascends over the Welland Canal on the Garden City Skyway."
  6. Fixed.
  7. Indeed. Have to override the template for now.
  8. 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? --Rschen7754 10:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Awaiting the mini-infobox to be added then I will support. Dough4872 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. Dough4872 01:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article after Dough. --Rschen7754 09:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
  • Map?
References, RJL, lead
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
  • 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)

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)

Image check by Rschen7754

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. --Rschen7754 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

  • 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. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 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.

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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

Review by Dough4872
  1. In the lead, you should mention what road it ends at.
    • Added. —Imzadi1979
  2. "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
  3. Maybe you can mention where US 45 was extended from in 1935.
    • Added. —Imzadi1979
  4. Maybe you can provide a little context about the Paulding Light.
    • Added. —Imzadi1979

Overall, a decent article. Dough4872 00:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

All items above addressed. Imzadi 1979  02:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

Review by TCN7JM

I will review this after Dough's review is completed. TCN7JM 02:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. "...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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. TCN7JM 04:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tweaks and additions applied. Imzadi 1979  05:11, 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
  1. 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)
  2. "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?
  3. "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.
  4. "...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.
Route description
  1. Do refs [4] or [5] show the time zone line?
  2. "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.
History
  1. "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)
  2. Source check: 11 - All good.
  3. "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.
  4. "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.
  5. Source check: 16 - All good.
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
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)

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)

Ontario Highway 61 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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. --Rschen7754 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead
  • Not sure the use of italics is okay under MOS.
Infobox
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. --Rschen7754 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)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. Couldn't the Lake Superior Circle Tour be listed in the infobox using the tourist routes parameter?
  2. The clause "Highway 61 begins at the international border between Ontario and Minnesota, the Pigeon River" needs to be reworded as it sounds awkward.
  3. 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.
  4. Do you have the specific locations where the highest and lowest traffic volumes are?
  5. "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".
  6. "Following its completion, Highway 61 was rerouted along it as far north as Arthur Street.", when was this expressway completed?
  7. Does Highway 61B still exist or has it been decommissioned? The article isn't clear on this.
  8. "Between 2010 and 2012, Highway 61 was improved considerably within Thunder Bay", what improvements were done?
  9. The last two sentences of the history are out of chronological order. Dough4872 01:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. Wasn't even aware of that param, thanks! :)
  2. Agreed and fixed
  3. Yeah I messed that up in the RD the other day thinking 130 was removed in '97/'98. All fixed
  4. 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.
  5. Done
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Fixed by above.
-- Floydian τ ¢ 19:27, 14 November 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)

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

Rschen7754 11:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 21:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Okay,  Done and ready to close. --Rschen7754 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.

Interstate 805 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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: Rschen7754 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

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. TCN7JM 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. TCN7JM 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. TCN7JM 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. --Rschen7754 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. TCN7JM 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.
  • 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 --Rschen7754 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.

Phew. Well, got that over with. I'll leave this on hold for ya. TCN7JM 04:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Support TCN7JM 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. 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. --Rschen7754 01:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. In the history, maybe you should mention what US 101 and US 395 are called now.
    Done. --Rschen7754 04:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. "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. --Rschen7754 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe you can change it to "bidding began on the portion of SR 94 to Home Avenue". Dough4872 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    Which is exactly the same thing. Not making this change. --Rschen7754 02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, I see the issue, will fix. --Rschen7754 02:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Do you have any projected completion dates for the construction projects currently taking place on I-805?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall, a decent article with very few issues. Dough4872 03:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evad37

Review
Lead
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
  • "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.
  • "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".
  • How many lanes did I-5 have before the widening project?
  • Overlinking: I-5 is linked three times in the route descriptions
History – Construction
  • Per MOS:BOLD, Route 241 and Inland Freeway should not be in boldface
  • "(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
  • "However, it was discovered that this would add $10 million..." – superfluous, suggest changing to "However, this would have added $10 million..."
  • "L Street" - change the space to a non-breaking space (&nbsp;)
  • "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?
  • "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'.
  • "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
  • "...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
– Recognition, artwork, and architecture
– Expansion
Exit list
Infobox
  • Instead of <br>'s, use
{{Plainlist|
* <line 1>
* <line 2>
...
}}
for the major junctions list, per WP:PLIST
Done. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 07:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
All done. --Rschen7754 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)

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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The information about the Hazard Bridge feels out of place, considering I-805 only passes under it.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The R.E. Hazard and W.F. Maxwell Companies... any relation to the Roscoe Hazard the bridge was named after?
  • If the winning bid was $20.9 million, where did the $27.5 million figure come from?
  • ...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.
  • Might be desirable to expand on what exactly Nixon's order was supposed to affect. Was it a budgetary thing?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • and was to be opened from El Cajon Boulevard...
  • There are some minor punctuation issues throughout the history that may need a second look.
  • 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?
  • Opening of the SR-94 connectors and the cost information are separate topics that should be covered in separate sentences.
  • The word complete is used a lot in the Construction section. If possible, use synonyms to cut down on the number of usages.
  • There were reports of motorists driving around on the closed freeway: "driving around" seems a bit informal.
  • 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.
  • What is the "Stargazer"? A bridge? A statue? A fish? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893)?
  • Characterizing a billboard as a [form] of artwork along the highway is kind of weird.
  • at the northern end of I-805
  • 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.
  • Are the February 2013 express lanes HOT lanes or more "dual freeway"?

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. --Rschen7754 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.


New York State Route 28A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. "...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)
  5. You might want to double check all the -ing verbs; most of them should be using the present tense.
  6. The highway subsequently turns...The highway turns...
    Done. Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. How far is a short distance? (context needed)
    Done. Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Consider revising "buffered by woods and posted and fenced"
    Done. Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. Houses cannot dwindle no matter how hard they try.
    Clarified.Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  12. What do you mean by "posted as city land"?
    Removed. Mitch32(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.) 05:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  13. 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)
  14. 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)
  15. 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)
  16. 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)
  17. 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)
  18. 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)
  19. 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
  1. "...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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. "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)
  5. 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
  1. 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
  1. 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)
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)
Review by Rschen7754

I can pick up the second review, though there may be a bit of a delay. --Rschen7754 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

Rschen7754 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)

Image review by Dough4872

  1. File:NY Route 28A map.svg - PD-self, has GIS sources.
  2. File:NY 28A along Ashokan Reservoir.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0
  3. File:NY 28A at Monument Road.jpg - cc-by-sa-2.0
  4. Captions are fine.

Review by Admrboltz

Resolved issues from AdmrBoltz
  • 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)

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. --Rschen7754 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 --Rschen7754 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.


U.S. Route 6 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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.
  1. I am acutely aware of the lack of pictures. I will work on this while the ACR is open.
  2. I have been asked in private to make markers for the auto trails.
  3. 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

Review by Nbound
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)

RD

  • When describing the physical construction of the highway is it single or dual carriageway?
  • 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
  • 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)
  • Some information on the type of landscape would be good. I dont know what Iowa looks like :)

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

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
  • Needs some pictures (esp. in the RD)
  • Why do the exit numbers reset in Davenport (I'm curious)
  • You might be able to dig up some more history by trawling some newspaper archives (just a suggestion)

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

Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. 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
  2. "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
  3. 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
  4. "Just three-quarters mile (1,200 m) into the state", I would convert the miles into kilometers rather than meters.
    Oops. –Fredddie
  5. 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.
    flag Hey look over here! How about now? –Fredddie 04:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. "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
  7. "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
  8. "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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. "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
  12. 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)
  13. "The abandoned section became an extended Iowa 83 and an Adair County road.", what was the name or number of this county road? Dough4872 03:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    Fixed the last one. –Fredddie

Review by TCN7JM

Review by TCN7JM
Hatting stuff irrelevant to review

Alright, after all that nonsense, I'm still planning to review this article. TCN7JM 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. Not sure US 169 needs to be spelled out in full in the lead since US 6 is already abbreviated.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Need a source for US 61 Business being US 61 prior to 2010.

I will continue to review this later. TCN7JM 17:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

After further review, those are all the comments I have. This will be put on hold. TCN7JM 17:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Just had one question for you. –Fredddie 04:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarified. TCN7JM 06:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - My concerns with the article have been addressed. TCN7JM 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

Image review by Rschen7754
Both are done. –Fredddie 04:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by Rschen7754

I can pick up the spotcheck whenever the time comes. --Rschen7754 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. --Rschen7754 03:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fredddie: were you still planning on adding material to this article? --Rschen7754 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)
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

U.S. Route 16 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

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

Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. "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?
  2. You should move the history about Grand River Avenue to earlier in the lead as to be in chronological order.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. "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.
  6. You should mention more details about attractions that were along the route when it was decommissioned.
  7. The sentence "An economic panic in 1837 drove settlers from New York to Michigan, settlers that followed the Grand River Road." sounds awkward.
  8. 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.
  9. Since Business US 16 in Grand Rapids is gone, what is the former routing now called? Dough4872 00:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Review / Image review by Admrboltz

Extended content

I will do a prose check later this weekend. --AdmrBoltz 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. --AdmrBoltz 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. --AdmrBoltz 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Just these items to address and I can support. --AdmrBoltz 18:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754

I will do review number 3. --Rschen7754 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
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?
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

Should be a support after these issues are fixed. --Rschen7754 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All should be done. Imzadi 1979  09:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I will do the spotcheck. TCN7JM 09:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be checking 15 sources, the citation numbers are accurate as of this revision. TCN7JM 04:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. Source 2  Good on V and P
  2. Source 3  Good on V and P
  3. Source 12  Good on V and P
  4. Source 13  Good on V and P
  5. Source 14  Good on V and P
  6. Source 15  Good on V and P
  7. Source 16  Good on V and P
  8. Source 17  Good on V and P
  9. Source 23  Good on V and P
  10. Source 26  Good on V and P
  11. Source 27  Good on V and P
  12. Source 33  Good on V and P
  13. Source 50  Good on V and P
  14. Source 51  Good on V and P
  15. Source 52  Good on V and P

Well, well, well. Flawless. I've no choice but to support. Great job. TCN7JM 04:56, 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.