Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 196

Interstate 196

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

Passed with 3 net support votes (3 support, 0 oppose). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Interstate 196/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: The next item in the I-x96 series to come here. It's also the last highway in my previous city of residence that isn't already at least an A-Class or higher on the assessment scale. Please note that I'm going to do a little digging to replace some map citations with newspaper citations for the history section in the next day or so.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred: 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I will review this within the next few days. T C N7JM 18:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I-196 is signed north-south for the first part and east-west for the second, as opposed to that just referring to the direction it runs?
I think it would read better if you put the length of the route in the first sentence. It looks a bit choppy just sitting there in the middle of the paragraph with its own sentence.
While I'm not too excited about two links to business route in the same sentence, I can't really think of anywhere else to link it and I think both links should stay. Can you think of anywhere else one of them could link to avoid redundancy or are the links just best left alone?
The business spur/loops aren't really designated "along the length of I-196" per se. They're designated on different roadways.
Which city are you referring to when you use Lane Avenue?
To say US 31 enters I-196 sounds a bit weird. I would switch this to "merges with" or something similar.
Mentioning the county line, but not which county it passes into until the next sentence reads pretty weirdly. Try to reword this so that you can mention Allegan County in the sentence with the Black River.
Shouldn't the phrase read "transferred to the City of Holland" or was that intentionally omitted?
The first sentence of the Grand Rapids BL subsection does not look grammatically correct. The highway "serves the Godfrey-Lee Area of Wyoming and into Grand Rapids". I'm not sure how I would fix this myself, so you can try to reword it.

That is all I have to say. T C N7JM 06:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits applied. Imzadi 1979 → 06:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --T C N7JM 07:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872

I will review the article once TCN7JM is done. Dough 48 72 23:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. Dough 48 72 03:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Is it really necessary to indicate I-196 is a state trunkline highway? You already indicate that it is an Interstate.
The traffic counts are as of 2011, are any more recent traffic counts available?
The sentence "The freeway passes to the south side of Hudsonville and intersects A-37." sounds awkward.
"About two miles (3.2 km) past Hudsonville, the trunkline has an interchange with M-6, the South Beltline Freeway for Grand Rapids" I would reword the later part of the sentence to say something like. "the South Beltine Freeway that bypasses Grand Rapids to the south"
"The freeway opened at the end of 1957 or in early 1958", do you have a more exact date for this?
Why does I-67 link to Future Interstate Highways? That article does not seem relevant to link to.
In the history, you mention I-67 being withdrawn and a sentence later mention it being rejected. Mentioning it twice seems redundant.
The sentence "After the designation switch in 1963,[11] and and additional 35 miles (56 km) was opened from the northern end of I-196 near Benton Harbon to Holland as I-196." sounds awkward.
The article mentions M-21 moving to the freeway. Was there a reason the freeway was designated M-21 and not I-196? When was M-21 removed from the freeway? This should be clarified.
The history of the article seems quite short for an Interstate. It basically mentions when the stretches of freeway opened and when the designations changed. Are there any more details that can be added such as planning, groundbreaking, and possible controversies?
Why does the Holland business route have a junction list but the South Haven and Grand Rapids ones do not? Dough 48 72 03:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

Yes, as it is still a part of the State Trunkline Highway System. Remember, Interstates are still component highways of their respective state systems. Similar wording should appear in both the I-96 and I-696 articles' leads. Also, it's necessary to allow the usage of "trunkline" as a synonym in the rest of the article.
MDOT's traffic counts lag by about 18 months; later this summer I should have access to the 2012 numbers.
That sentence is fine as currently worded.
Um, and then it repeats "South" twice". I reworded it a bit differently and eliminated the freeway name completely.
Not at the moment.
There isn't a separate I-67 article, but there is an I-67 section in that list. Someone apparently bypassed the redirect at some point though...
Fixed that up a bit.
Seriously, there was a typo there that could have been fixed without comment. I would understand if you weren't making any edits to the article, but you had already changed one typo and fixed one link in the RD section previously.
Added when M-21 was removed.
Unlike its sisters, I-496 and I-696 or even M-6, I-196 wasn't controversial.
Well, originally I only included the one because Holland's loop has the freeway segment. I'll insert the other two here in a little while. Imzadi 1979 → 05:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will now support the article. Dough 48 72 16:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Nbound

This is my first US road review, so I apologise if I miss anything or otherwise stuff up! :P

Review by Nbound

Infobox:

Done Looks fine

Lead:

Done Seems ok, but it would be good if you could rewite the bit about the designation and construction a little clearer. Probably best in chronological order.

Route Description:

Done (reworded instead) - The freeway starts northeast of Benton Harbor in Berrien County as I-196 runs north from an interchange along I-94 adjacent to the Point O'Woods Golf & Country Club. - change "as" to "where"
Done The inland side of the freeway is forested while the lakeward side is either forest or fields predominantly. -> The inland side of the freeway is forested while the lakeward side is predominantly either forest or fields.
Done North of the plant and park... -> North of the power plant and park...
Done BL I1-96/US 31 is this meant to be BL I-196/US 31?

All else:

Done Appears ok.

The other guys will likely pick more up, but, thats me done - Nbound (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I implemented some fixes, and we discusses the lead on IRC. Imzadi 1979 → 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Rschen7754

File:I-196.svg PD as a US government work
File:Interstate 196 (Michigan) map.png GIS sources noted, PD
File:1-196 BLACK RIVER BRIDGE SOUTH HAVEN.jpg PD
File:I-196 near Hudsonville,MI.jpg PD
File:I-196 entering Grand Rapids, MI.jpg PD
File:GRFordFrwybridge, BPandRHC.jpg CC BY 2.0, Flickr upload

All good. --Rs chen 7754 10:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I have conducted a spotcheck of sources on this article. I looked over eight sources as of this revision. The sources I reviewed are:

#5 +
#6 + *laughs a bit* - "For reasons that cannot be explained, this law omitted the small portion of the route that passes through Berrien County."
#11 +
#12 +
#13 + Is a map, so plagiarism is irrelevant.
#14 + Is also a map.
#18 +
#26 +

I must support. Great job! T C N7JM 07:47, 28 June 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.