Talk:Wisconsin Highway 131/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
There are inconsistencies in abbreviation usage. Once an abbreviation convention has been established for a type of roadway, all highways of that type should be abbreviated. The first usage of a type of highway (Interstate, US, state) should be spelled out in full followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. This is something normally done in the lead paragraphs. In this case, the abbreviation for a state trunk highway is stated in the first sentence, yet there are unabbreviated references in later sentences that don't even use the same formal name format as the subject highway! (State Trunk Highway 131 vs. Wisconsin Highway 60) Then, we get U.S. Route 12 as a link (which should instead be a link to U.S. Route 12 in Wisconsin) without an abbreviation. The link should be changed, and then piped to display "U.S. Highway 12" because in Wisconsin, they're US Highways, not US Routes. (Periods are optional, but I personally prefer to drop them for consistency with the abbreviated format.) Then "(US 12)" needs to be added after the link. The sentence in the RD that mentions I-90 should also have the link switched to Interstate 90 in Wisconsin, piped to display "Interstate 90" and suffixed with a (I-90). Audit the rest of the article for similar issues, please

" A U.S. district court" -> "A U.S. District Court" as a proper name. Better yet, find out the name of the court, and change to "The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin" or "The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin". (The former has jurisdiction over the four counties through which WIS 131 runs, and it meets in Madison so that's probably your answer.)

While not a part of the GA criteria, MOS:RJL has been updated to require a table footer, and this article's junction list does not comply with that requirement.

I forgot to mention in my last edit, but the entries in the table should include cardinal directions for junctions with highway termini or concurrency termini. If WIS 131 meets an intersection with US 61 and the two run concurrently after that point, and the only direction of US 61 leading away from that intersection not in common with WIS 131 is the southbound direction, the table should list "
US 61 south" instead of " US 61" (the difference is using |dir1=south). Additionally, the Notes column could use a copy edit. "South end of US 61 concurrency" instead of "South end of concurrency with US 61" (flipping the word order makes a word unnecessary.)

There's some WP:OVERLINKing in the article. In general, links shouldn't be repeated in the article once the term is linked. Locations and highways linked from the lead are re-linked in the RD and History sections. The article isn't so long that relinking them is appropriate. Usually the only exceptions to re-linking in highway articles are for the infobox and junction list table and when there are longer RD and History sections that are broken down into multiple subsections.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Footnotes 1 and 8 are to a self-published source and do not meet the criteria for usage. The website used would be appropriate as an external link, but not as a reference. Reference formatting is not consistent. There are two date formats in use, and some citations lack the format=PDF indication. (Note that PDF is an abbreviation for Portal Document Format, and it should appear in all capital letters.)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I will hold the article for seven days to allow the interested parties time to find reliable sources to replace the two footnotes from the Wisconsin Highways website. If they can't be replaced, the article will need to be delisted. Imzadi 1979 → 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far, everything but the self-published source has been fixed. Unfortunately I can't find much coverage of the early history of WIS 131, or Wisconsin state highways in general; even worse, the few maps I can find aren't entirely consistent with the dates in the article. In particular, this 1924 map doesn't show the highway, and this 1978 map doesn't show a reroute that Wisconsin Highways says occurred in 1976. Even though I was the original nominator, if I can't find better sources, I agree this needs to be delisted. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime this week I plan to go to my university library, and I might luck out and find WI maps. But we'll see. --Rs chen 7754 03:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have an official 1973 Wisconsin Highway map from the Wis DOT. My mother was going to throw it out so I kept it to be a Wikipedia reference. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. Here was the route at that time, starting at the southern terminus on WIS 60, 2 miles east of Wauzeka. From there it goes north: 7 miles to WIS 179 in Steuben, 13 miles to WIS 171 in Gays Mills (where I took photos last October), 7 miles to US 14/61 at Solders Grove, 4 miles concurrent with US 14/61 to Reedstown, 7 miles to WIS 56 in Viola, 7 miles to WIS 82 in La Farge, 14 mile to WIS 33 in Ontario, 9 miles to WIS 71 in Wilton, 3 (? hard to read smudge) miles concurrent (east) with WIS 71 at no community, 11 miles north to Tomah. Unclear because of tight room if it extends another mile north of Tomah or if it ends in the town. I hope this helps. I may not check back so please leave a message on my talk page if I can help more. I probably have a bunch of maps from the 1990 until now, or I have friends who may have. Royal broil 00:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note

The hold period has expired, so I'm delisting the article. Sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]