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

U.S. Route 131

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

---

The result was promoted to A-Class! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I think this is a good subject for the next MI FAC after M-6. It also happens to be the second highway/freeway in my current hometown to be nominated. (Yes that means I-196 and M-11 are destined for future work to match my original hometown in having all FAs.) Oh, and if we review it in time, it could be at FAC at the same time as US 113. Let's confuse the FAC reviewers! ;)

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 05:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 23:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Review from the Admiral

Resolved issues from Admrboltz (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support All of my issues have been resolved. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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

1. "Another large-scale construction project rebuilt an iconic section of the freeway through Grand Rapids in 2000.", is it possible to replace "an iconic section of the freeway" with "the S-curve"?
2. Is it possible for the services section to have a second level heading rather than a third level heading as part of the route description? This is similar to what is done in toll road articles.
3. The sentence "There are eight rest areas along US 131 that provide locations for motorists to pull off the highway and bathroom facilities." sounds awkward.
4. Is there any history of the road before 1919 worth mentioning?
5. Is it possible to find the construction costs for the US 131 freeway segments?
6. In the quote "the speed limit on the S-Curve must be reduced as low as 25 mph [40 km/h] on some bad-weather days because of the sharpenss of the turns and [the] numerous accidents [that] have occurred there.", is the metric conversion supposed to appear in brackets? Usually they are done in parentheses but the case may be different for quotes.
7. "School children in Anderson, Indiana wanted to honor James Whitcomb Riley, the poet the Hoosier State, in 1926 with a highway that connected the country's summer and winter resort areas.", it appears there is a missing letter in the second clause.
8. In the junction list, is it necessary to indicate the beginning of a divided highway? Dough4872 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Replies

1. Why? What's wrong with the sentence? It adds a little color to an otherwise slightly boring paragraph.

   It will help clarify what the iconic section is, maybe try "the iconic S-curve". Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

2. When M-28, with a similar section, went to FAC, it was requested to either remove the services section, to move it into the RD because it's not a toll road, and there aren't as many services to discuss.
3. Tweaked.
4. Yes, it's called the "memorial designations" section. Beyond that, no.
5. Data not available. I don't have newspaper sources for all of the segments' openings, or I would have included that information already.

   There was nothing relevant that could be found in MI newspaper archives or Google News? Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

   If there was, I would have added it already. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Anything inserted or changed in a quotation is done in brackets to denote that the change is the work of the current writer, not the original author or speaker.
7. Tweaked.
8. Ask MDOT why they switch from a single red line to a double red line. Since the transition point does not align with a junction, that's the way to do it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

   Usually, USRD articles do not indicate changes between divided and undivided segments, as these can be frequent on some roads and would overburden the junction list. I remember USRD discussed this issue in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#One-way pairs in junction lists?. I still would suggest removing it. Dough4872 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

   Well, if the issue is frequency, don't let that worry you. There's one (1!) transition point, and it's significant here. Imzadi 1979 → 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 01:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. All my issues have been fixed explained. --PCB 15:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Brief comments:

The first mention of "BUS US 131" in the route description was a bit vague, as the abbreviation was never clarified.

Good catch. Fixed. Imzadi 1979 →

"...follows a four-lane expressway-style highway...." I think this sentence could be rearranged a little. It is a four-lane expressway (I hope), not a four-lane expressway-style highway (which could imply that it is similar but actually isn't).

It's not a full expressway. There are few driveways in a few locations, but otherwise it is a full expressway, as explained in the next sentence. Imzadi 1979 →

Is it a problem that references 11 and 12 are continually used next to each other? Do they need to be grouped?

They're both used together for a lot of the details on whole paragraphs of the RD. Some details are specifically cited to just one or the other though. (Google is not used for the rest areas or car pool lot information.) Imzadi 1979 →

"US 131 debuted, along...." in the beginning of the history could be a little confusing. --PCB 04:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what's confusing to you? US 131 and the rest of the US Highway System have the same "birthday" if you will. They both debuted at the same time. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I just didn't know what "debut" meant...hehe. --PCB 05:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering, is it necessary to use the word "township" in every slot for the exit list? I'm not quite familiar with what a township is; do people in everyday language say "township"? If not, why is it necessary? --PCB 05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Townships in Michigan are subdivisions of the county. The City of Grand Rapids is legally a separate government from the Township of Grand Rapids. In common usage, we'd call them just Grand Rapids and Grand Rapids Township. See Township (United States) for more details, but yeah, I have to list that part of the municipal names. Imzadi 1979 → 05:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More comments:

• In the first sentence, shouldn't it state that the miles are in Michigan? After all miles are, not miles is.
  • Another good catch. BTW, you're welcome to edit the article for stuff like this. Imzadi 1979 →
• Can you explain why the M-6 interchange is called a mammoth interchange?
  • That's the adjective from the article. The second half of the sentence discussed how big it is, but I expanded that a bit. Imzadi 1979 →
• Please clarify "hidden I-296 designation".
  • Let me know if that clarifies that enough. Turns out we have an article on unsigned highways, so I linked that in. Imzadi 1979 →
  • I think it's fine. It's just a little sounds a little scary to me, not ever hearing what a hidden designation is. --PCB 15:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• "At exit 176, M-55 leaves a concurrency with M-115 and joins the freeway around the east side of Cadillac." I think I know what you mean, but "the freeway" is just a bit confusing. --PCB 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Infobox and lead

• As we discussed on IRC, the red box around the zoomed in area is hard to see at 290x172px. I suggested replacing it with File:Map of USA MI.svg, but that's where the discussion ended.
  • The problem is that the US 131 map doesn't show the whole state and does show parts of other states. Imzadi 1979 →
• Note1 seems ill-placed. Wouldn't it be just as easy to show each state's mileage using |length_notes=?
  • U.S. Route 491 uses basically the same thing, although Dave didn't separate his explanatory footnotes from his referential footnotes like I did. Instead this one note substitutes for 2 references, when it's not really needed to break the two states' mileages out separately.
    • I won't press this further here, but I think this should be discussed at WT:USRD. Rather than in-fight among ourselves about which method is the One True Method of showing how total lengths are figured, we should hash it out as a project.
• As I said on the I-470 ACR, I'm not too keen on using postal abbreviations in the infobox. We're not mailing letters here.
  • Sorry, I don't agree, but I won't argue. Imzadi 1979 →
• Each states' counties should be on separate lines, even if Indiana only has one. It will eliminate that awkward comma after Elkhart County.
• U.S. state should be linked.
  • Low value link. Tony1 pulled it on Capitol Loop. I agree, and I pull it from articles in general. The link to Michigan (or whatever state) is higher value. Imzadi 1979 →
• Surely this is an obvious oversight. Freeway is mentioned over 100 times, but it not linked once.
  • Yeah, added. Imzadi 1979 →
• I don't know if I would say it runs on the western side of the LP. I-29 runs along the western side. Maybe just say it runs through the western LP.
• When I read that it didn't originally end in Indiana, then read the sentence about Fife Lake, I assumed Fife Lake was in the south. That should be clarified.
  • Clarified. Imzadi 1979 →
• "The state started near Three Rivers..." This would be a good spot to mention MDOT for the first time.
  • Except that it wasn't MDOT until 1978. It was the State Highway Department back then. Rather than confuse people with the names, I left MSHD's first mention until the History section.
• The blurb about freeway construction doesn't seem to flow very well. I might go through it myself and tweak it.

Route description

• "In 2007, INDOT determined that 7,949 cars and 2,068 trucks used the section of US 131 in the state of Indiana.[8]" All year? This happens more than once.
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 →
• Northerly and similar have ambiguous meanings, so they should be avoided.
  • Hmm. No one's ever complained before. I need to think about this one. Imzadi 1979 →
• Through Michigan, believe it or not, I think there is too much detail on what the route travels through.
  • Suggestions on what to trim? Imzadi 1979 → 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • To be honest, my concern is tl;dr. If each section was somewhere between the lengths of 'Services' and 'S-Curve replacement', I'd be happier.
      • I've trimmed 1,315B from the article, and absent any specific details you want removed, I can only come up with a few ideas on places to trim further. One is to spin the entire Memorial designations section out completely as a sub article and drop a single paragraph summary in its place. Second would be to cut out the entire historic bridge section. The third would be to cut the car pool lot information, although I'd prefer that it stay. I'd rather not pull the bridges as the one is on the NRHP. Anything else, and we're not cutting fat but meat from the article. I'd be down to removing details on landmarks, or the environment around the freeway. As it stands now, some counties have only two or three sentences, and whole communities along the highway are no longer mentioned at all. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• In the RD, I don't really like what appears to be a lead paragraph for Michigan under the third-level heading for SW Michigan. I'm not so certain it would be better to change the SW Michigan header to Michigan, placing a fourth-level heading after the first Michigan paragraph and making the other Michigan sections fourth-level as well.
• Calling the S-Curve iconic is borderline weasely.
  • Swapped with a different adjective from the news article. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• {{Convert}} has an option to convert the parentheses to square brackets.
  • Which doesn't work when forcing abbreviations. The original quotation was abbreviated, but I can't force both brackets and abbreviation, so I have to leave that alone. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• "This fluid will melt ice to lower temperatures than the −20 °F (−29 °C) at which salt stops working..." I think you meant to say the fluid will melt ice at temperatures lower than –20 °F.
• "Ouwinga was a state lawmaker who died while serving in the Michigan House of Representatives in 1991." I think it's clearer to say "...who died in 1991 while serving..."
  • Tweaked the last two. Imzadi 1979 → 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Built as Trunk Line Bridge No. 61 in 1916–17, the 45-foot-long (14 m) span is 18 feet (5.5 m) wide in a concrete through-girder style that cost $9,956.63 to build.[102]" This sentence seems awkward, but I don't know a better way to fix it. Also, when you read it with the sentence before it, Trunk Line gets repetitive.

After this, we'll be good to go for my concerns. –Fredddie™ 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• We're good now. Support. –Fredddie™ 01:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

---

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

Interstate 470 (Missouri)

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Wee 2x 470s at the moment are at ACR. I have taken comments from other ACRs and tried to implement them here first so that this will be as easy as possible.

Nominated by: AdmrBoltz 05:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• You have 1 dead external link. (More comments later) --PCB 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done typo :p --AdmrBoltz 05:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dough

Resolved issues from Dough4872 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. Is it possible for the lead to be reorganized to describe the route first, then discuss its history?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

2. "The concurrent highways continue east through lightly populated Jackson County,", by lightly populated, what kind of physical surroundings does the route pass?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

3. "Just north of the airport is an interchange with 83rd Street, followed by an interchange with Woods Chapel Road", what airport is this?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

4. "Lakewood Lakes passes to the west of the freeway as it travels north, while an interchange with Northeast Bowlin Road serves as an access road to Blue Springs Lake to the east", what is Lakewood Lakes?

   It is a lake. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

   Can this be indicated more clearly in the article? From the way I read it, I could of confused it for a residential subdivision. Dough4872 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done --AdmrBoltz 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Overall, the route description lacks details on what physical surroundings the road passes. Based on the information given, I cannot tell whether it passes homes and business or rural areas.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

6. "The second was an addition to the cloverleaf at US 50 in Lee's Summit, with the addition of the access roads to Pryor Road and Northwest Blue Parkway.", addition is used here twice. Can one of the instances be changed?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Can some more details about the construction of I-470 be added to the history?
   1. The KC Star's archives are only avail from 91 forward, and Google News has nothing of use between '50-'80. I have old MoDOT maps, but the info you see in the article is what I gathered from the maps. --AdmrBoltz 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
8. "The north-south portion of the highway had existed since at least 1970 as US 71 Bypass,[1] and was renumbered to Route 291 between 1970 and 1971", was this a freeway-standard road?

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

9. "The remaining section of freeway, between US 50 and Route 291 was opened to traffic in 1983, completing the route", did this replace the aforementioned US 71 Bypass?

   US 71 BYP was absorbed into the highway. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

   This needs to be clarified in the article. Dough4872 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done --AdmrBoltz 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

10. In the exit list, the airport sign is not needed.

     Done --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

11. Is it possible for a picture of the road to be added to the article? Dough4872 23:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

    I did not see a picture on Flickr that was already freely licensed. As Flickr is blocked from work I will look tonight to see if I have a (c) one that I can have the photographer relicense. --AdmrBoltz 23:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of more concerns:

1. The sentence "US 40, which parallels I-70 through most of Missouri is the penultimate exit, serving the southern portions of Independence and Blue Springs before I-470 meets I-70 at a cloverleaf interchange, marking the end of I-470 southwest of the Independence Center mall" sounds awkward and probably needs to be split.

    Done --AdmrBoltz 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Is the sentence "US 40 is named after Corporal Michael E. Webster, a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer who was killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver." really relevant to I-470. Dough4872 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

   No, probably not, but as a reader, I would be interested in why US 40 was named the Cpl. ME Webster Memorial Pkwy. Also, when I had a coworker read through to make sure it made sense to a non road geek she enjoyed that tidbit. --AdmrBoltz 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I will now support this article for A-class. However, I would suggest a little historical research be done and a picture be added before this article goes to FAC. Dough4872 00:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PCB

Review by --PCB 04:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

• I think the lead is a little out of order. The history section is also a bit underrepresented in the lead. Perhaps you should move the lead summary of the route description on top, and perhaps the history on the bottom. The structure now jumps between the route, the history, and the route, and the route description is first in the article.
  • Rearranged per Dough, but I will look at it again later. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Route description:

• You've already established what the Grandview Triangle is so I think "named" is an awkward word to use.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• "...travels east, before meeting...." There is either an extra comma or "before" is not necessary.
  • Removed. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Could you specify what Lee's summit is? First time I read it I thought it was in a mountain range.
  • No. That's what the blue link is for. Anyways, people from MO will understand. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• What about the western Union Pacific Line? What happened to it?
  • UP chose to abandon it. It happens all the time. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe mention the Lollapalooza music festival before mentioning Northeast Bowlin Road.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Why do you need to use the words penultimate and ultimate? It's not an extremely long freeway. You can keep them if you want but it makes the freeway sound very long, to reach its ultimate end point.
  • What wording would you suggest? It's better than repeating "the next" or "the following" interchange. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fine, but are you supposed to link penultimate to Wiktionary? --PCB 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I do so that readers who are unfamiliar with the term, similar to how we link decommissioned. --AdmrBoltz 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

History:

• "since at least 1970 as US 71 Bypass" sounds a little awkward. I think it's the "at least" that makes it sound strange. Either move the date to the beginning of the sentence, the reference to US 71 Bypass to the beginning of the sentence or reword "at least".
  • How is that awkward? --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Is "at least" referring to after 1970 or by 1970?

• Reworked. --AdmrBoltz 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think "remaining section" and "completing" is a little redundant. You already established that it's the last section of the highway, so you don't need to complete the route.
  • I removed "remaining section" but left in "completing". --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Instead of using "the first, the second, the third" perhaps you could use "the final", "the next", "the last", or phrases like those.
  • Why? --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, it's a little repetitive. --PCB 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed one use of "the first" but I only use the second and the third once each. --AdmrBoltz 06:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• First the beginning of the second paragraph stated that there were three new interchanges. But the second one wasn't new. It was only an addition. Maybe you could fix that in the topic sentence.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the second paragraph is a little vague. To me, it sounds like the opening of the interchange cost money, but it was really the construction that cost 18 million dollars.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Find a different word for collapse, there are 4 instances of the word or its form in the last paragraph.
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps mention in the first sentence instead of implying in the second that it was the westbound lanes that collapsed.
  • "forced to close the westbound lanes of I-470" - how am I not mentioning the westbound lanes??? --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry–I didn't see that. --PCB 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ground water as in water on the ground or groundwater as in aquifers?
  • The article was not specific. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Is there a cost for the opening of the new bridge? (I predict the "If I had that it would already be in the article.")
  • You would be correct. --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Other:

• Could you specify somewhere that View High Drive is on the border of Kansas City and Lee's Summit? --PCB 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 00:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• One other issue I have; perhaps briefly mention the new interchanges and perhaps the collapse in the lead.--PCB 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done --AdmrBoltz 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • That was fast. :) --PCB 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Rschen7754

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

Imzadi1979

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

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

• I propose setting a maximum length on this; maybe 6 months from the original date? We can't let this go on forever. --Rschen7754 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Not promoted - stale. No substantial efforts made to address issues presented within appropriate amount of time. --Rschen7754 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Not our standard sort of article, but still very important in terms of the state of Michigan. I'm hoping to get some feedback on this article, if there's anything else that should be included or expanded. In the end, this is the type of article that should go to FAC at some point.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 01:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• What is the status on resolving Dough's comments? --Rschen7754 05:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm waiting on others' comments as well. As for the deadlink, MDOT fixed it so it works. Imzadi 1979 → 05:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary review comparing with Iowa Primary Highway System:

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

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

---

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

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

---

Not promoted - stale. --Rschen7754 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 67

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I have little intention of ever bringing this article to FAC; however, I wish to get more familiar with the A-class criteria.

Nominated by: — PCB 14:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dough4872 00:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

1. "and is surrounded largely by evergreen trees" sounds awkward, perhaps remove largely.
2. "where official ownership by ADOT begins", remove official.
3. In the route description, you use "heads" too much, can other verbs be used?
4. "The highway, with the new name of Grand Canyon Highway in addition to its other designation," is a sentence fragment and should either be reworded or merged with another sentence.
5. Are there any more attractions that can be mentioned in the route description. The current route description seems a little dry in describing the turns and direction the route heads in.
6. The sentence "At that time it was still just a dirt road" sounds awkward and should be reworded.
7. The NPS logo should be removed from the junction list. Dough4872 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

All addressed except for number 5; there are no attractions that I know of. The route is all trees, dirt road intersections, and clearings. — PCB 03:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I will now support this article for A-class. Dough4872 00:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• You never source the statement that part of AZ 67 is maintained by the NPS.
  • I'm trying to find a source that states that NPS maintains all roads within their system. — PCB 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• "heading back northerly." - to the north?
  • Changed wording. — PCB 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The highway is maintained by ADOT, who is responsible for maintaining SR 67 like all other highways around the state." - conflicts with the first paragraph
  • Fixed. — PCB 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• History first sentence - you need to cite 2 maps if you're going to use maps to source that statement.
  • I can't see why, and I don't have any maps earlier than that. — PCB 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • How do we know that it wasn't in 1926? --Rschen7754 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Is it possible that it could be simply reworded, or should I find a new map? — PCB 02:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I would at least try, but if not, you could reword it. --Rschen7754 03:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Ditto for sentence #2.
  • Removed. — PCB 23:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• Comment If there are no attempts made to resolve the above issues by November 10th, this will be archived. --Rschen7754 22:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

U.S. Route 2 in Michigan

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

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Yes, I know the article needs more photos, but this future FAC is of the same level of importance to transportation in the UP as M-28. I have added information on all of the tourist route designations and all of the historic bridges along the roadway, similar to the M-28 and US 41 articles. In the coming days, I plan to dig for photos to complement the text.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 04:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I support this article for A Class –Fredddie™

Comments from Fredddie

Lead

• First paragraph looks good.
• Seems like a long jump from being an Indian trail to being a state highway. Any record of US 2 being an auto trail like the Lincoln Highway?
• I'm not sure reused is the verb you're looking for as far as one route number replacing another. (twice)

Route description (west)

• You can reasonably round the mileages in the RD lead. Plus, I think four decimal places in Wisconsin is a bit much.
• There are two links to the business route article. I think that link should be moved down to the business loop and the two links changed to point readers to the business loop section.[[#Business route|business route]] (Oops, already is)
• Suburban UP woodlands is a bit of a stretch.
• I don't think you need the definite article when talking about creeks, referring to the Jackson Creek. I could be wrong, though. It reads oddly to me.
• 770 vehicles... should mention that it's on average. That is, unless exactly 770 vehicles used the highway every day during the testing period. (again for the highest-traffic section)
• The sentence about Watersmeet HS and ESPN seems out of place; plus, it's not cited.
• Odd that ESPN is linked, but Canada/Canadian is not.
• In Crystal Falls, is US 2/US 141 the main highway? That sentence and the one prior could be merged for clarity.
  • Ok, some copy-editing should address these comments. The 4DP for WI was a typo, now corrected. I've switched (I think) all of the S-V pairings along the concurrencies to singular subjects for consistency and tweaked the triple concurrency issues. Imzadi 1979 →

Route description (east)

• There are some subject-verb disagreements when you talk about US 2/US 141 together. US 2/US 141 re-enters... and US 2/US 141 exit... in the same paragraph. Looking up, the last paragraph of the western section has it, too. Pick one verb conjugation and run with it.
• The three highways merge together... two of the higwhays were already merged, so it kinda reads like they were split at some point and now they're back together. (happens again in Escanaba)
• Are there no railroads near the western section? The ELS is the first mention of any railroad.
• The last three sentences together are choppy. There is no flow among them.
• In Menominee County, the surroundings are the subject of the sentence, not US 2.
• More subject-verb issues. The two highways run together... and ...the trunkline enters... in consecutive sentences.
• Wouldn't it be simpler to say Central and Eastern time zones?
• Above you spelled out both Iron Rivers, but you used Bark River (the city) and the namesake river; seems inconsistent.
• I'm sure it's perfectly logical, but calling streets axes of Escanaba's street grid seems odd.
• Near Thompson, US 2 leaves the western unit of the Ottawa National Forest, yet in the previous paragraph, it was passing through the western unit of the Hiawatha National Forest. One of those is wrong, but I'm not sure which.
  • There aren't any rail lines along US 2's western segment. The lines in that area are farther north along M-28 or not visible from US 2 in the Ironwood–Wakefield area. Imzadi 1979 →
  • Fixed the Ottawa/Hiawatha National Forest confusion. Imzadi 1979 →

History

• More info about the pre-state-highway auto trails would be nice, but I'm not going to hold it over your head to get a support.
• State trunkline section looks good.
• Shouldn't the section be called Interstate era?
• ...the I-75 designation supplants... supplanted? (again in the last paragraph)
• You already defined expressway once, is it necessary to do so again?
• MDOT raised the speed limit from 55 mph? I just want to clarify; it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article.
  • I moved the TRIH and GLAR stuff up from the memorial designations. I don't have the book handy with me at the moment, but there are some additional memorial designations that can be added into that section in their place and pad out that first paragraph. Imzadi 1979 →

Memorial designations

• You should spell out County Road 426.
• MDOT is already defined.
• The circle tours should define their abbreviations for the junction list.
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 →

Historic bridges

• Looks good.

Major intersections

• Looks good.

Business route

• Are we supposed to link circa?
  • I'm not sure, but it clarifies what could be an unfamiliar abbreviation. (It used to be suggested in MOS:DATE to link it, but I'm not seeing that guideline anymore. I'd rather err on the side of leaving it there for now. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

My concerns have been addressed sufficiently. I support. –Fredddie™ 02:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dough4872 23:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Dough4872

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

1. Is it necessary to mention the business loop history in the route description? This information should be mentioned in the business route section.
2. "The area is also where the waters meet.", may help to clarify which waters or how many waters meet.
3. In the route description, you should mention that the road leaves MI for WI and heads back into MI from WI.\
4. "Then it continues east to Vulcan passing north of Hanbury Lake through the Copper Country State Forest before crossing the Sturgeon River in Loretto before crossing into Menominee County.", I would suggest rewording the beginning of the sentence to avoid the use of "then".
5. In the sentence "Lincoln Avenue runs north carrying four lanes of traffic past the Upper Peninsula State Fairgrounds, site of one of the two state fairgrounds for the state of Michigan, the only state to have twin fairs.", "site of one of the two state fairgrounds for the state of Michigan" should be "site of one of the two state fairs for the state of Michigan".
6. "US 2 was shifted to the freeway and the former routing downtown St. Ignace was redesignated Business Loop I-75 (BL I-75).", the sentence i missing a word between routing and downtown.
7. "At this time, all of US 2's former routing becomes a county road known as Mackinac Trail.", can the number of the county road be mentioned?
8. I still don't think the CR 426 intersection should belong in the major intersections. Even though the road marks the end of a memorial highway designation, the road itself is of little significance.
9. The link for Reference 44 has a 403 error. Dough4872 00:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Replies

1. I'd rather leave it as is, than leave the reader with a question as to why it's a business spur and not a business loop since it ends at the state line.
2. Read the next sentence, which says: "The rolling hills drain to Lake Superior via the Ontonagon River, to Lake Michigan via the Brule and Menominee rivers, or to the Gulf of Mexico via the Wisconsin and Mississippi rivers."
3. The RD mini-lead already says: "Of US 2's 305.151 miles (491.093 km), it is divided into a 109.177-mile (175.703 km) western segment and a 195.974-mile (315.390 km) eastern segment; in between is a section of US 2 that runs for 14.460 miles (23.271 km) in the state of Wisconsin."
   • I still think its helpful to mention in the RD. Dough4872 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
     • Helpful to mention what? Comment 4 is about how a sentence is worded, not about it its content? Can you please clarify or strike your comment as appropriate? Imzadi 1979 → 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
       • Sorry, I inserted the comment in the wrong place, it was meant for issue 3. Dough4872 23:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
         • The article already addresses the point, so a change is not necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
4. It's fine and keeps the sentences in that part of the article from previous pattern of "The <highway synonym> <verb>..." constructions.
5. Done, but why didn't you deal with it while you were making minor word changes already?
6. You couldn't have added that while you were already editing the article?
   • Fixed myself. Dough4872 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Done, but that's kinda unneeded in some ways at that location.
8. I disagree, and I won't remove it. US 41 and M-35 both list it in their RJLs.
9. I can't help that. The link is valid, but ajfroggie has "hotlinking" disabled on his website, which runs afoul of the link checker tool. (Try clinking the link directly from the footnote in the article, and it works, but use the link checker tool and it will fail every time.)

Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I will now support the article for A-class. Dough4872 23:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Royalbroil

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

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

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

Replies

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

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

Replies by Royalbroil

• On that first point - I know it's from MDOT. My point is that the text should state who makes this statement just like any other opinion from an expert. Very few readers will check the references to see the source. So we agree that WP:VERIFY is covered but I disagree with having WP:NPOV covered per "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Specifically WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
• Point #3 - Then the other articles need work too. Just because the other articles are at FA don't mean that they aren't capable of being improved. The same comment as my last one - see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
• Point #4 - does the highway go through the fungus?
• I'm surprised (but not offended) that you removed the terminus photo. Isn't a terminus more important to this topic that a shot taken of the sign for community on the route?
• Are you satisfied with the number of images used in the article now? Royalbroil 04:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Further replies

• Except that I disagree that it is an opinion and not a fact. You're using personal anecdotal evidence to refute the conclusion of a department of transportation study group, which doesn't state it as an opinion, but as a fact. The fact that you were in the area in tourist season may color your perceptions.
• Once again, you're calling something an opinion when it is a fact stated by the appropriate government agency. Surely if it were an opinion, both FACs this year would have noted that already.
• The highway would go through it, but you'd never know it; the fungus is underground and not visible unless "fruiting bodies" (those things lay people call mushrooms and eat) are present. Even then, you'd need to know that genetically speaking, the fruiting bodies in Crystal Falls and the ones across the border in Wisconsin, etc, are all from the same fungus.
• As for photos, termini aren't any more important than another other location along the highway for illustrating the roadway. The key importance is that people get a feel for how the environment around the highway, not specific locations, per se. The Crystal Falls photo illustrates the forestland nature of the environment that's discussed at points in the text of the article. The downtown Iron Mountain photo shows the highway passing through urbanized areas. The Lake Michigan photo shows US 2 along the lake, which it follows for a significant portion of its routing. The terminus photo from St. Ignace, and caption, helps illustrate it former freeway segment
• As for the number of photos, I'm satisfied, but if you have more that you think would be beneficial, please keep uploading them and populating commons:Category:U.S. Route 2 in Michigan so that the Commons box at the bottom of the article is even more beneficial to readers who click on it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

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

If I may, I'd like to help resolve this so there isn't an oppose based on a disagreement on what the definition of "is" is.

1. After reading ref 3 (which I believe is the reference in question), it's clear that M-28 is a major route in the UP, but it doesn't seem to mention US 2 at all.
2. Read the National Highway System definition page, it's right there in the first sentence. Since nothing involving government tends to make sense, we'll never know who said they were important outside of the USDOT. Perhaps this would be a better resource for the sentence or two about the NHS. Then again, I can think of at least one recent FA along the NHS that does not mention it at all.

Hope this helps. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That study had referenced US 2, but maybe I had read that in a draft version that's since been replaced, however, the WUPPDR study is now being directly quoted, and only because I have a direct quote will I list the source inline. Had that been paraphrased, I would not feel it necessary as it is not an opinion but part of the conclusions of the study and therefore is a fact. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Good job on point #1. I wanted a direct quote. One the other point about the NHS, it is a direct quote from the FHWA website. But why isn't it in quotes? Per WP:MOSQUOTE, since it's less than a full sentence then the source need not be attributed inline. Per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works the content is luckily in public domain so the copyright is fine. Royalbroil 02:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And when the text is in its simplest form and changing words to paraphrase would alter the meaning, a quotation is not necessary as it's not really a creative expression. It's my opinion that this is the case with the four words from the FHWA website definition of the NHS, so we don't need to wrap those three words in quotation marks because we can't paraphrase them and they aren't an opinion but a definition. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just double-checked Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution, which says:

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

That means those four words "economy, defense and mobility" don't need quotation marks. Even if you extend that to the word "important", that's only five words, and the paraphrased sentence is footnoted with a public domain source. The essay at WP:Close paraphrasing even says: "Quoting (with or without quotation marks) or closely paraphrasing public domain source material is appropriate if properly attributed to avoid plagiarism," and since this is attributed through a footnote, the use is acceptable. WP:Quotations specifically says: "For free or public domain material do not use quote marks but the text must be attributed and given a footnote, or given a link to the original text," which is also the case with that sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you didn't start out with this argument by quoting these appropriate guidelines. I had to do a bunch of legwork. It don't matter. I now Support this article as being at A class. I'm amazed at how the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is being enforced at FA and especially DYK like it were policy. Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I now Support this article as being at A class. Royalbroil 11:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Route description
  1. I think mentioning the National Highway System in both the Lead and the Route description mini-lead is repetitive. I would eliminate the reference from the Lead.
  2. You mention the segments of US 2 that are part of the two particular Great Lakes Circle Tours in both the Route description mini-Lead and the Memorial designations and tourist routes section. I would remove the mentions from one of the sections. If you can get dates for when the circle tour routes were designated, I suggest Memorial designations section.
  3. There is a large expanse of text without a header under "Eastern segment," but the photos are nicely staggered, so it is probably not a problem.
  4. I love the Watersmeet section. If you are talking about attractions that are not specifically on US 2, I would mention the Lac Vieux Desert resort casino.
  5. "The county courthouse is at the top of Superior Avenue, which is the starting point for M-69." I would rewrite this sentence. Unless the county courthouse is notable, I would remove it from the start of the sentence and emphasize US 2 intersects M-69, which is Superior Street, next to the courthouse. The term "top of" should be replaced with the cardinal direction.
  6. To be consistent between the western and eastern segment sections, I would mention county crossings in the eastern segment section.
  7. Can you mention the type of interchange US 2 has with I-75? The sentence suggests the U.S. Highway crosses and continues over the Interstate (the reader might think that until they read "the US 2 designation ends") and it is not clear they have an interchange.
• History
  1. In the first header, I would change "early statehood" to "early auto trails" or just "auto trails." The first phrase implies there is content about the mid-19th century when Michigan became a state, which is not the case.
• Memorial designations and tourist routes
  1. Since you mention County Road 426 in this section, I recommend mentioning it in the Route description so the reader has prior context.
• History bridges
  1. Is the Iron River bridge notable enough to have its own article? I would remove the wikilink.
• Footnotes
  1. If you can, please incorporate footnotes b through f into the prose. It would be better to provide the reader context in the prose instead of asking them to head to the bottom of the article and back up to continue reading. Footnote a can be used in the text at the top of Major intersections.
• EOR  VC  03:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I've implemented most of the suggestions. The Iron River Bridge is on the National Register of Historic Places, and a member of the NRHP project has been creating all of the missing articles from the List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Michigan. In other words, that link will turn blue at some point in the future. As for the footnotes, several of these are analogs to ones I used in U.S. Route 131, and I feel that they contain content that is not needed in-line to understand the subject of this article, which is US 2. All of them are provided for clarification and used in footnotes to avoid jumping away from the core subject and jumping back in the prose. Foonote a was previously the "length notes" in the infobox, but to streamline display there, it has been converted to a footnote since the content is also mentioned in the notes above the RJL table. Imzadi 1979 → 23:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Excellent, all of my issues have been addressed. I will keep this open until I complete the proofreading job in case I find any other issues that require your attention. Then I will case my comments and close the ACR. Good luck at FAC!  VC  00:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I finished copyediting the article. I found a few more things that require your attention in the references:
  1. References 6, 58, and 59 have a comma, a space, and a period after the map scale. One way to remove the sensation that something is missing is to add and populate the edition field of cite map.
  2. Are you able to add pages to reference 7?
  3. There are a few map citations (for example, reference 41) that have in the Section field a range of grid sections, such as C2–D3 or B1–D10, where the letters are different. Since these designations are based on a two-dimensional grid, there is no one sequence of sections that accurately covers what sections on the map you are referring to. Can you more accurately represent the sections, such as C2–C3, D3 for the first example?
  4. Is reference 72 citing a television program or a website article? If it is the latter, can you provide a URL for the article?
• Once those items are resolved, I will promote the article.  VC  19:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Something's changed with {{cite map}} that's producing the error, and I just noticed it as well. I'm going to see about getting it fixed.
  • Done. Thanks for the catch.
  • The problem is that changing it to your suggestion is quite a bit more cumbersome. I don't see that it is a problem, and several other articles have been sent to FAC that have similar section ranges.
  • Website article, since removed from their site so the URL died. The article wasn't archived any place, so the URL has been removed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • All issues have been addressed. Time to shut this ACR down.  VC  01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promote. --Rschen7754 03:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 401

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Haven't been keeping a close eye on this one since I was working on it, so I apologize if there are a few obvious problems that jump out at you.

Nominated by: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. You have a few dead links in the article, see this.
2. In the infobox, it is possible to indicate the city for every road? In addition, the dashes between the routes and the city names should be replaced with "in".
3. "It became fully navigable from Windsor to the Quebec border in 1964.", perhaps clarify what "it" is here.
4. The Greater Toronto Area of the route description seems to be a little hard to follow as it jumps from describing the progression of the route to features such as the traffic cameras. Is there a specific reason why this is?
5. "At Pickering, the highway again meets the former Highway 2, which runs parallel to the Quebec border", does Highway 2 parallel Highway 401 or the Quebec border? Maybe reword to "At Pickering, the highway again meets the former Highway 2, which parallels Highway 401 to the Quebec border".
6. The section of Highway 401 in Toronto passes through heavily urbanized areas? Are there any attractions easily accessible from the road such as malls or museums that can be mentioned?
7. "Several of these structures, including the former CN overpass, are slated for demolition, either due to their age, or to prepare for the planned widening of Highway 401 through this area.", perhaps define what CN is here since its the first mention.
8. The sentence "A 40 m (130 ft) right-of-way was purchased along the Middle Road and construction began to convert the existing sections to a divided highway, as well as on Canada's first interchange at Highway 10" sounds awkward.
9. The Assumption section seems to list some of the opening dates out of order. Is there a reason why this is done?
10. I am a little concerned with using "Recent history" as a section title as what is now "recent" will change in the future. Maybe use "Since 2008".
11. The sentence "The resurfacing will be completed through the summer of 2010." needs to be updated.
12. In the services table, the services column listing the specific restaurants and gas stations should be removed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, being replaced with a column concerning reconstruction.
13. Is it possible for the missing shields to be added to the exit list? Dough4872 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reply - As a major contributor to the article in the past and reviewing content with Floydian for several months, allow me to offer some input on your noted concerns.

1. Updating sources is always an issue, but these should be able to be fixed without considerable hesitation.
2. It is, but if you have more than one major junction within one city, it seems a little repetitive in the infobox. For example, Highway 427, 400, 409 and 404/Don Valley Parkway are all in Toronto and as such you'd see it four times.
3. That seems do-able. "It" refers to Highway 401 even though construction wasn't fully complete until 1968.
4. In the Greater Toronto Area, there is so much content that can be described for the highway that I can see how it can become a little hard to follow. A little rewording here could go a long way.
5. Yes, the former Highway 2 parallels Highway 401 in Pickering to the Quebec border. I support your rewording here.
6. There are attractions that can be mentioned such as Yorkdale Shopping Centre.
7. CN stands for the Canadian National Railway. That can be described if desired.

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

All the best! Haljackey (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Reply from Floydian
  1. Fixed. The government was nice enough to delete years worth of news releases from their site which doesn't allow spiders to index it. Fortunately they are news releases and don't require a web link. A lone dead link remains, as I've sent an email to CBC with the hopes that they remedy it.
  2. Changed the wording on some. However, the sign for the DVP in Toronto still says to Toronto. As Haljackey mentioned, a few aren't indicated because they would all be Toronto.
  • 1. For consistency, all of them should list the city, even if the same city is listed several times. In addition, the dashes should be removed from the Highway 3 and DVP entries and replaced with words. Dough4872 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • 1. Done
  1. Done
  2. This was a very difficult route description to write. As you can see there is a lot of stuff directly related to the highway, and its hard to maintain flow without occasionally diverging from the west to east description of the surroundings. However, it could be rearranged so that attractions and the freeway traffic management system are discussed first and then a standard description follow that.
  3. Fixed
  4. I added information about three major malls the highway passes near in the GTA. There isn't much in the way of attractions or museums though, at least within close proximity to the highway
  • 1. A reference should be added to this sentence. Dough4872 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • 1. Done
  1. Done. It's the only mention, so I didn't add the abbreviation after.
  2. Broken into two sentences now
  3. Because of the shear magnitude of the number of projects that resulted in the present highway, it made more sense to discuss the section near Toronto first, then explain the rest in chronological order (and TBH, I can only find one part of the highway outside of that section that was completed by August 1956). It didn't make sense to introduce the paragraph about the expansion through Toronto in the midst of the paragraph about when various parts of the route first opened to traffic, even though it began a few years before the rest of the route was completed. That being said, I'm going to rewrite a bit of this section because I've come across a better source since I originally wrote the article.
  4. Done
  5. Done
  6. Done. Not sure who did this; the prose already describes the service centres.
  7. This would take a lot of work, as the highway passes through over a dozen counties. However, when they are eventually uploaded the template will automatically add them.

Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I will now support the article for A-class. Dough4872 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Now that these edits are done, I feel that this article is ready for A-Class status. Haljackey (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Imzadi1979

• Comments For now, just some comments to start, working from the bottom up.

1. Newmarket and Sprawl are dab links in use in the article.
2. http://www.liveinlambton.ca/newcomers/portal/pages/Sarnia-LambtonLocation.aspx has gone dead since March 29, 2011.
3. Images:
   1. File:Highway 400 at 401.png should be ok. You might get told at FAC to add a FUR to it because it isn't PD in the US. Consider this a friendly comment that someone else might object on purely legalistic/technical grounds.
   2. File:Carlb-hwy401-lastkm-682.jpg Someone might say that the text of the marker is under copy right, and the photo isn't a de minimis usage. Again, above my pay grade, and more of a friendly comment that someone else might object to it.
   3. It would be nice if you could geotag the rest of the photos from the article that lack the coordinates. (Over time, I'd even geotag the rest of the Hwy 401 category.)
   4. The Commons box results in a redirect. There's a way to specify the exact category in that template. You can also add in commons:Category:Highway of Heroes to the box as well to have it display two categories. Brockway Mountain Drive has two showing after someone split all of the photos up on Commons.
4. Ok, ALT text isn't currently required for FAs anymore. I'd simplify the map's ALT text to just say something like, "Highway 401 runs along southern Ontario connecting Windsor, Toronto and the Quebec border." or something similar. The ALT text for File:401 construction phases.svg could just be "A map with legend of" because the screen reader/browser will read/show that before the caption of "Highway 401 colour-coded by the year each section opened to traffic" (drop the period from the caption because it's not a full sentence.) The other images should have their ALT text streamlined. See the ALT text for US 131] for an example. We don't need to have the text that describes the image in such detail, but rather indicates, with the caption, what the purpose of the non-text content is.
5. I'm not a fan of quotations in footnotes. If they were all short, fine. Most of these are multiple lines, so I'd move them to the talk page for the article. I'd create a section there with the quotations with a copy of the footnote citation. That would streamline the length of the page's reference section. If a quotation is really needed to explain something in the body of the text, I'd convert the citation footnote to an explanatory footnote. U.S. Route 131 uses nested footnotes which are also explained at WP:FOOT. What I mean is that I'd use the quote as the content of the explanatory footnote and reference that to the citation footnote. In US 131, the fact that Michigan first signed their highway system in 1919 is referenced using an explanatory note that has the appropriate citation in it.
6. Fn 12, 25, 28, 35, 90, 99, 130-2, 137, 138, 140-2, 144, and 150-1 need the PDF format indicated.
7. The books in the bibliography should have publication locations added, if known.
8. For your explanatory footnotes, I have a totally 100% optional suggestion for you to ponder. If you use the group name of "lower-alpha", the footnote links will be lettered instead of "<group> #". The only thing is don't use the quotation marks around the group name in {{reflist}}, or the list will be numbered and not lettered. I used the letters for US 131 and converted all of the other Michigan articles with separate explanatory and citation footnotes over. I personally think it helps to visually distinguish them without being as obtrusive like ^{[note 2]}. YMMV.
9. 400-Series Highways (Ontario) and List of Ontario provincial highways should be removed from the See also section. They're both at the bottom of the infobox. The former link is in the lead as well. I'd find a way to work the link to King's Highways into the body of the article, if it isn't already. The Basketweave is linked from the text, so it needs to be pulled from the section as well, per MOS:LAYOUT.
10. The bottom of the exit list needs the distance conversions added per MOS:RJL. You can simplify this just by using {{legendRJL}} at the bottom, even if the legend generates colors in the key that aren't in use.
11. The services table, if retained needs a color key added to the bottom of it. However, all of these could be incorporated into the exit list.
    • Insert a line into the table for each service centre.
    • Use the distance measurement for the centre, and have the name of the centre span the exit and destinations columns.
    • Move the notes for each into the notes column, indicating the eastbound/westbound status there. You could further steamline that by only listing the direction if it is "eastbound only" or "westbound only".

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

1. Fixed
2. Fixed
3. I'll work on the third point (I'm not sure what the template is to do it). On the fourth point, it's too bad you can't combine the two, having two categories, but also setting up a pipe for the first link. I may have to code it manually to do it correctly, or make the Highway of Heroes stuff a subcategory of Highway 401 (Ontario). Thoughts?
4. Fixed the ones you mentioned and one or two more. I tried to write these to describe the image to a blind person in the first place. Not sure who keeps adding periods to them.
5. Have to contend this one. I use quotes for any material not available online and for most news articles online, for when they inevitably disappear from the internet.
6. Done
7. Done all the ones that I can
8. Done. I quite like this :) thanks for the tip
9. Done
10. Done
11. I think that given that there is a section of prose devoted to the services that they fit best in that section. I have fixed the table, however.

--ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think that the service centres table can be merged into the exit list. I played around with the idea User:Imzadi1979/401 is what I came up with based on the information I have. (Obviously, the distances and locations will need to be updated/corrected, but the idea holds.) Imzadi 1979 → 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally not do that though. There are almost 20 of them and many are actively being reconstructed right now, so I think its best to have all the service centre information (prose) plus the table of them in that section. Highway 400, however, with only 4 centres, would be an appropriate case to put them into the exit list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢

Imzadi1979, are your issues addressed? --Rschen7754 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look through again. I never did give this article a prose review before. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if I said it here but I support promoting this article to A-class. Haljackey (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Typically we wait until we have 4 supports before we promote. Imzadi1979 will hopefully be the third, then I'll review for the fourth. --Rschen7754 04:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Typically I would agree with you. This article has been stalled here since March. Haljackey (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:There is no deadline. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Picking up where I left off...

1. Starting at the bottom of the article and working back up, either list publication locations (preferered) or not for books. In short, scour through all of your references and works cite for consistency. If you missing something, Nikkimaria will spot it and comment on it at FAC. :P
2. Another consistency issue is how corporate authorship is handled. Now, it's my preference to use "Staff" as the author unless a specific office/division/bureau can be listed instead. Then the publisher can still be listed as whatever corporation/agency/etc as appropriate. I mention this because the 401 book looks to be corporately authored, yet some of the footnotes are listing the corp. author as the author without a publisher. The benefit in the end, for me, is that only newspaper or magazine articles without a reporter byline are missing an author.
3. I still recommend working on streamlining the usage of quotations in the footnotes to help keep overall article length in check. YMMV.
4. FN 3 has DD Month YYY formatting, but the rest seem to be in Month DD, YYYY format.
5. FN 29: "p. Page 4."?
6. FN 38... what does this refer to? I'm not seeing a full citation below that would match up to it.
7. You probably should add terminal punctuation after all of the page numbers the shortened footnotes for consistency with the full footnotes.
8. Be forewarned, Nikkimaria will probably comment on some papers having publishers and others not if it isn't an all or nothing thing. She won't ding you for locations if they're only used on papers like The Globe and Mail that lack the location in the paper name.
9. FN 95: Kitchener–Waterloo Record isn't in italics.
10. "United States Federal Highway Administration" the US part is probably redundant if there isn't another FHWA out there. Up to you if you keep it in citations.
11. FN 98 is to an online copy of a magazine article by the FHWA, so it should be reformatted as a magazine/journal article.
12. FN 109 has the location linked, but the others don't. I'd drop the link.
13. FN 122 and subsequent: "Contract #: 2005-2014" looks weird. I'd quietly reformat it to remove the colon. I make highway abbreviations consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia article in citation titles all of the time, even if that means we no longer parrot the sources' formatting 100%.
14. FN 125: HTML is unneeded and check date formatting.
15. FN 133: "CBC news" should the N be capitalized?
16. FN 135, 136, 138 has "Detroit River International Crossing Study team" but above it was abbreviated in FN 127. Consistency here would be nice.
17. FN 167 doesn't look like {{cite press release}} to me... (If there is a press contact, use that as the author for PRs in line with my comments on corporate authorship.)
18. The two borders aren't formatted the same in the exit list... one is left-justified and the other is centered. Also per MOS:RJL, the shields should be next to, and to the left of, the link in an entry. Otherwise the table looks pretty good. Oh, I'd say that the roadway will connect to I-75, not continue as I-75 because in reality, the connection with DRIC will be at a right angle, not a straight-on continuation.
19. You might want a citation for exit 179's status. You might have that in the prose, but it wouldn't hurt to duplicate it here as well.

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

I should be able to get to this within a week or so, but I just wanted to point out that for #18, MOS:RJL doesn't indicated that and MOS:ICONS encourages not breaking a line of text in half by an icon where possible. I'd like to keep them at the end for visual cleanliness. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, most of these should be taken care of (unless I forgot to save it a few days ago), with the exception of the author/location issue, which I'll work through over the next few days. For number 8, I've kept it unabbreviated just since its a non-American article and may be an unfamiliar abbreviation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of the items I reviewed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Resolved issues from Fredddie

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

Lead

1. First thing that jumps out is that with an article this long, the lead should be at least another paragraph longer.
2. I would put the length of the route in the first paragraph.
3. I know what you mean when you say their assumption, but will the average reader?
4. The last sentence could be misconstrued that dead CF personnel drive the 401 to the coroner's office.

Route description

1. Do you think it would sound better if you said the planners purchased a 91.4-metre-wide (300 ft) right-of-way? I do, but I want your opinion.
2. What highways in the world are busier? You list a few highways that the 401 is busier than, it may benefit to list some that are busier.
3. I don't like interchange as a verb.
4. Are the snow squalls lake-effect snow?
5. You should define your abbreviations. Looking at you, GTA.
6. Are the malls really worth mentioning by name?
7. The Canadian Shield returns from where? It can't return if you haven't already talked about it.

History

1. Pretty sure it's always 20th century. Might want to check the MoS.
2. Is Lake Shore Road no longer in existence or was the pavement improved from macadam? If it's the latter, you may want to say formerly macadam Lake Shore Road. Regardless, it's an awkward sentence.
3. Are Lake Shore and Lakeshore interchangeable?
4. ...again congested on weekends. You never mentioned that Lakeshore Road was congested on weekends before, I'd have it read ...again congested, especially on weekends.
5. I don't think quotation marks are required on 401's "completion".
6. You mentioned above the design inspired by the Dan Ryan Expressway is a collector–express system. You should mention it again.
7. In the Carnage Alley section, around the same time as what?
8. Actually, that whole first sentence could be revised for clarity.
9. Is Ontario Tall Wall always capitalized?
10. 20+ km should be converted.

Future

1. Nothing jumps out at me.

Exit list

1. There is some inconsistent formatting. US–Canada border is left-aligned while Ontario–Quebec boundary is centered. Same thing with the unbuilt section at the top. The en dashes are centered but the numbers are not. Personally, I'd recommend using the templates, but I won't oppose if you don't use them.

   Do the templates work for Canada? --Rschen7754 22:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   Good question. It sounds like they will, but it will take some finagling at best to get them to work properly. –Fredddie™ 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   Imzadi tested them out and they seem to.... I dread doing it because of the size of the exit list but may as well take out one of the two largest now rather than later. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

1. Is there any reason there's a link to Brockway Mountain Drive pictures on Commons?

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

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

Full response from Floydian

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

Lead

1. I suppose... the only thing that is big enough to get special mention, that pops to my mine, is the Windsor-Essex Parkway. I will add this shortly.
   • If you write three or four sentences summarizing the route description, you'd be good to go. –Fredddie™
2. Done
3. Note my response above this section. Assumption means to take possession of something, which is really what is meant in the highway context as well.
   • My issue with assumption is the exact point you mention. Highways are inanimate things; they cannot take possession of anything. People can assume positions of power, highways just kinda sit there. –Fredddie™
     • Ah, but it would be the highway department as a group taking possession of the road initially constructed by a construction company or owned by a lower government. The highway doesn't assume itself after all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢
4. Maybe they do ;)... fixed

Route description

1. I do! Done.
2. I don't personally believe there are, and no statistic can show higher. However, some have disputed the claim because they say you can measure business by the number of vehicles using the entire length of a highway during a day... But AADT is the stat at one location on the highway. Regardless, no source for the world... yet.
3. I don't either, but the replacement is often less informative since there is no verb to replace it. "Merges" or "splits" is directional, while "partially interchanges" is more general.
   • Fair enough. –Fredddie™
4. Yes... sudden whiteouts. I have linked the term as we have an article on it
5. Fixed
6. Yes. See my comment above, these are major regional shopping centres.
7. Correct. I had originally written under the assumption that rocky outcroppings further west were part of the shield.
   • Just think about casual readers like myself who know little about the Canadian Shield. –Fredddie™
     • Given the amount of detail in the article, really all that needs to be conveyed is that there are rock outcroppings and that the shield is the geological land form those outcroppings are part of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢

History

1. True, fixed.
2. I rewrote this bit.... care to double check that you the meaning I intend is what is inferred, as it is awkward to describe.
   • What now? –Fredddie™
     • My bad. Following frequent erosion of Lake Shore Road, then Macadamized,[55] a cement road known as the Toronto–Hamilton Highway was proposed in January 1914.[56] - Is this more cohesive now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢
3. See my reply above. It's a headache, but it's one in Toronto and another in areas west.
4. Fixed
5. I suppose that was some dry humour at the never ending construction. Fixed.
6. It does. Where do you think it should again?
   • Either you added it or I missed it. –Fredddie™
7. Was a reference to the timeline of Advantage I-75.
8. Agreed and done
9. Yes. It's a specific design that advanced on the original Jersey Barrier.
10. I just took it out completely. The distance isn't all that important so much as the completion of the sole 4 lane stretch between London and Toronto.

Future

1. Even still, I need to make sure everything is up to date in time for the FA.

Exit list

1. With the recent changes to the templates I will make the transition to them... But it will probably take some time compared to the other fixes, which I've already made.
   • One thing I just noticed was calling it the (427) mega interchange. Mega is a bit subjective, I think. –Fredddie™
     • I could probably add a source, but I could also take it out. Probably the latter because I haven't heard the term used by non-roadgeek people in my lifetime. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢

External links

1. I don't know how that slipped through, but imzadi1979 had shown it to me on IRC as an example and I guess I somehow put it in. Fixed nonetheless.

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

OK, I added in some replies here and there. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the status of this review? --Rschen7754 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice Fredddie had responded within a day of me, but I have now added my replies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Review double check

1. Lead is still too short. A summary of the route description is all that is needed.
2. Still don't like the word assumption. But, if you make it "assumption to provincial highway status", I'll be happy. This should alleviate any fears I had of the casual reader asking "assumption to what?"

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

Floydian: what is the status here? --Rschen7754 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, been very busy. I'll try to get around to the last issue (expanding the lead) in the next week or two as my school semester winds down from all the craziness.

• Support. However, I still don't like how you use the word assumption. Consider this my "I told you so!" –Fredddie™ 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Images comment

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

---

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