Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 96

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interstate 96[edit]

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

The article has been promoted. TCN7JM 04:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Interstate 96 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Continuing the theme of improving the coverage of the highways of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (hey, the UP is pretty much done), I present I-96. It's Michigan's lone intrastate two-digit Interstate, and the only 2dI in Michigan that doesn't terminate at the Canadian border. Oh, and it was the last/current WP:USRD/AID article.
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 05:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 08:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support noting that I need to check again regarding the cites at FAC time. --Rschen7754 08:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose nonstandard sniper section does not belong. --Rschen7754 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support iff the nonstandard sniper section is not present. --Rschen7754 23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Dough4872 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dough4872

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

  1. In the lead, is it necessary to spell out "US Highway 31" twice. After defining it once, I do not see why you can't abbreviate for the business route.
  2. The sentence "I-96 has curved to the east through these interchanges and then turns back southward after them." needs to be reworded. It should not use the past tense and "then" does not need to be used.
  3. It would help if more pictures of the road could be added, particularly from outside the Detroit area. Dough4872 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dough, please wait to complete a review until after any pending ones are completed. You've done this quite a few times now, and it's annoying to the other reviewers and nominator. --Rschen7754 08:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Changed.
  2. Already done for the other reviewer.
  3. In progress. File:Interstate 96 and Sternberg Road.jpg was added earlier, and I'm just waiting on what I hope will be additional license changes by other Flickr users. Imzadi 1979 → 08:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Great article. Dough4872 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check by Fredddie

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

Please go through and change all currently / today / recently / however per the CA 56 FAC. --Rschen7754 06:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: this review needs 1 more support and a spotcheck before promotion. --Rschen7754 09:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to spotcheck. I hope to do this over the weekend. --Rschen7754 08:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

review by Dave

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

Route description
  • "Like other state highways in Michigan, I-96 is maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)." I don't like the wording of this adjuctive clause, to me it sounds diminutive. Let me think about this and see if I can come up with a replacement clause if you feel one is necessary
  • "I-96 passes through an area with several lakes as it crosses into Oakland County" That similarly sounds awkward to me. Don't any topo maps have a specific name for this area? I'd prefer something like, "I-96 passes through rural Oakland County, featuring several lakes adjacent to its route" or something like that if the area has no name.
    • The only names I know of for that area is the "Oakland County Lakes Country" or something similar... Let me look to see if I can find something else. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you find anything, I see this hasn't changed. I'd prefer a re-write but it's not a big enough of an issue for me to withold a pass vote.
  • "run concurrently past the studios for WZZM-TV with its weatherball" IMO, if this is worth mentioning, it would also be worth a parenthetical of why is the weatherball notable, special or worth mentioning. What is special about it?
    • Well, it's a local landmark with its own poem... "Weatherball red, warmer weather ahead..." Honestly, I had put the mention in to justify using the photograph of the weatherball in the article until such time as I could find something else from the Grand Rapids area. I'll play with this a bit though. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ramps are actually the northern end" (IMO words like actually, also, etc. should be used sparingly, admitting that I'm guilty too)
    • In think that it's justified in this case because I-296 is unsigned, so the ramps being discussed are the unsigned mainline lanes of an auxiliary Interstate. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm split on weather "Gerald R. Ford" in Gerald R. Ford Freeway should be wikilinked, I'm leaning towards yes, as his name is used elsewhere in the article and it wouldn't be right to wikilink it in the airport mention.
    • Personally, I don't like to wikilink the name of a person in a highway name like that. Doing so visually splits the larger name "Gerald R. Ford Freeway" into two items because "Freeway" isn't linked. In the article on I-196, the sentence about the name would say "Gerald R. Ford Freeway named for the president..." and "president" would be linked to the article about the man. (And with all of the various people in this state to be graced with freeway names, we end up with two unrelated Fords honored, Gerald and Edsel, which is why BGSs in GR use "G.R. Ford Fwy" or some variation.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes
  • a: Should the year of the FWHA route log be included in the first sentence of the footnote, to make it obvious it is 10 years out of date? or should that be left to the reader? (I'll admit that only takes a few extra miliseconds of reading to figure this out, still)
    • I don't know if we need to call it out since it's still "current". (As far as I can tell, the base tables have been updated periodically, even though the title still says "as of October 31, 2002".) Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd prefer the year was added, as it won't be current forever. We list years for books and maps, I don't see why this would be different.
        • The date is listed in the citation, but I don't think it's appropriate to list in the explanatory footnote the specific year. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • ", and the Jeffries was no exception". IMO this sounds more appropriate for a history book rather than an encyclopedia. I'd suggest to strike and then modify the next sentence to something like, "To minimize the impact to existing communities and businesses, it was decided that the Jefferies Freeway freeway would no longer utilize the Grand River Avenue corridor."
  • Paragraph order in the section "Subsequent History": I suggest to move the paragraph about the multiple vehicle down. Right now the paragraph order of this section is: construction, accident, construction, construction, criminal incident. IMO it would flow better with the construction paragraphs together.
Exit list

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

I don't think so exactly, just because the LMCT doesn't follow I-96 at all. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Auxiliary routes
  • "decommissioned and the highway transferred turned back to the City of Portland."
Sources

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

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

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

Replied above. Imzadi 1979 → 04:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Just let me know about the lakes wording and let's discuss the year for the log. Again I see that as important as listing the year of publishing for a web citation, map or book. Aside from that my concerns are resolved. Dave (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the date for the log is listed in the citation, but I don't see it's worth explicitly listing in the explanatory footnote itself. Last time I checked, FHWA's NHS maps don't indicate the concurrency, so if we wanted a more recent source, they're a few years newer... As for the lakes area, no name is coming up on Google nor the USGS topos. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Support, my apologies for taking so long. I got sent on the road for work without advance warning. Dave (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Interstate_96&oldid=1141873925"