MyWiki:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 94 in Michigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Interstate 94 in Michigan

[edit source]

This uninvolved editor deems the conditions for promotion as met, and hereby promotes this article to A-Class. -happy5214 02:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Interstate 94 in Michigan}} Interstate 94 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This is the last of Michigan's primary Interstates to be promoted up from GA and part of a drive to promote the Interstate Highways in Michigan topic from GT to FT status.
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979  20:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 22:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Review by Fredddie
Comments by Fredddie

It's been a while since I've reviewed something so here goes. –Fredddie 22:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and lead
  1. That's a very nice map.
  2. Ref 1 does not directly support the claim that I-94 was designated in 1959. It talks about the system needing approval from the feds, but it doesn't say it actually was approved.
  3. The two sentences in the first lead paragraph talking about the path through Michigan don't really flow. You seem to go across the state, but then you come back to the west.
  4. Separately, the highway doesn't terminate on the bridge to Canada, the I-94 designation does.
Route description
  1. I don't like the NHS sentence because I don't think it adds anything to an article, but I'm not going to fight it.
  2. Some flow issues in the AADT sentence. I don't really like how the semicoloned part reads with the whole.
  3. Immediately east of the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron? Isn't that Canada?
  4. I think "...and parallels the Lake Michigan shoreline about three miles (4.8 km) inland." fits better in the next sentence
  5. What is the Red Arrow Highway? Just an access road to Red Arrow? It sounds more important than it probably is.
  6. I-94/US 31, is that singular or plural? I always treat overlaps as a plural.
  7. Are the charter townships worth mentioning? For someone not familiar with Michigan, it's hard enough to find the cities let alone townships.
  8. Check how many times you use the word cross. There are a few too close together.
  9. Likewise, I know Jackson is in Jackson County, but some of it can be reworded.
  10. "South of Willow Run, I-94 parallels Belleville Lake. East of the lake, it intersects I-275..." more repetition
  11. Bridges inspired by Super Bowl XL? That link is dead so I can't read about that.
  12. The paragraph about Detroit proper seems...abrupt. I'll defer to another reviewer to see if this is really an issue.
  13. It took me a bit to see it. The I-69 junction really doesn't pop out to the reader.
History
  1. I'm a big proponent of section mini-leads. The first section kind of serves that purpose, so I don't know if the header is necessary.
  2. In the Since completion section, "A decade later, ..." makes it sound like the two sentences are related.

The rest of the sections look fine to me. –Fredddie 01:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: --Rschen7754 19:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Replies:

Infobox and lead
  1. Well, that's a compliment to the cartographer I'll have to pass along. ;-)
  2. Swapped it out.
  3. Fixed, I think.
  4. Fixed.

More to come... Imzadi 1979  02:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Route description
  1. Let's see what others say, and go from there.
  2. Revised.
  3. Fixed.
  4. Flipped.
  5. Added an aside for the origins of the name
  6. I always try to treat them as singular since it's one highway in that location with two names, like a person with a double-barrelled name, not two separate roadways.
  7. They tend to have their own identities in urbanized areas and less so in rural ones, so in this case I think the few bear mention.
  8. Pared down.
  9. And also pared down.
  10. Tweaked.
  11. Link resurrected.
  12. I'm open to suggestions on what we could add there
  13. I"m not sure what to add here for that "pop".

@Fredddie: that should be the first pass on all of your comments. Imzadi 1979  07:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

History
  1. I'm mixed on that. Shall we pass this along to others to weigh in for now?
  2. Already fixed earlier. Imzadi 1979  07:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Nothing that we may have disagreed upon is enough to hold up this review. I will note for posterity, though, that for concurrencies, I always say "the two highways go..." or "US X and US Y pass through...". Thus it's appropriate then to consider them a plural. –Fredddie 17:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

[edit source]
  • Support - I will support the article for A-class. I still would prefer for the lane count changes to be added in the route description, though I will let it slide with the summary mention in the mini-lead. Dough4872 00:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Inactivity

[edit source]
  • Note: The review has been suspended for being inactive for 30 days and having outstanding comments. It may be reactivated at any time in the next 6 months. --Rschen7754 07:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply—and I'm reactivating it now. Imzadi 1979  07:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fredddie, Dough4872, and Rschen7754: since this isn't garnering a lot of attention, any thoughts on whether or not this review can be closed and jump right to FAC? Maybe someone can at least do an image review and quick source review to have that done before FAC? Imzadi 1979  13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I believe that a spotcheck is technically required as well - it is required once a year for every editor, and it has been a year since we have done one (for any editor) at ACR. Note that it could be done for I-675 first, it doesn't have to be for this particular ACR. Or, we could drop the requirement altogether. --Rschen7754 03:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

[edit source]
  1. File:I-94.svg - PD-MUTCD
  2. File:I-94 MI map.svg - CC-BY-3.0, GFDL, has GIS data
  3. File:Non Interchange Signage with Mileage Signage.jpg - PD-self
  4. File:Interstate 94 & U.S. 23 interchange.JPG - CC-BY-3.0
  5. File:Interstate 94 Landing at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport, Romulus, Michigan (14017169320).jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  6. File:Interstate 94 MI at Exit 271.jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  7. File:Michigan's Indian trails.png - PD US not renewed, image from 1959
  8. File:Interstate Highway plan June 27, 1958 (MI).jpg - PD US no notice, image from 1958
  9. File:Uniroyal tire1.jpg - CC-BY-SA-3.0-migrated, GFDL
  10. File:NW255 crashsite.jpg - PD-US-NTSB
  11. File:Edsel Bryant Ford.jpg - PD-US-1923, image from 1921
  12. File:James G. O'Hara.jpg - PD-USGov-Congress
  13. File:Interstate 194 Michigan.jpg - CC-BY-SA-2.0
  14. Captions look fine. Dough4872 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Rschen7754

[edit source]
  • Refs 52, 89, 73, 75 are dead.
  • 86 - perhaps the location should be added?
  • Also, for the map scales, sometimes you surround it in brackets, sometimes you don't.
  • Michigan Department of State Highways linked twice. --Rschen7754 18:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Map scales are bracketed if they were obtained from library catalog records and not from the cited maps themselves, in keeping with standard citation practices. n 86 doesn't need the location as it's contained in the title of the cited newspaper.

As for the supposedly dead links, n52 links to a clipping, n73 still links to the target, although I just pre-emptively archived it, and n75 was flipped to its archive. I'll do some more pre-emptive archiving today. Imzadi 1979  19:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done and ready to close. --Rschen7754 19:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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