Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 69 in Michigan

Interstate 69 in Michigan

The article was promoted. –Fredddie ™ 23:42, 13 July 2014 (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.

Featured article candidates/Interstate 69 in Michigan/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Might as well nominate this since Ontario Highway 402 is here at ACR, and if both are promoted, Michigan's network of FA-/A-Class articles will be connected to Ontario's. This would also be the third of four 2dIs for Michigan to be promoted.

Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 03:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred: 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough 48 72 03:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

"Interstate 69 (I-69) is a part of the Interstate Highway System that runs from Indianapolis, Indiana, to the US–Canadian border at Port Huron, Michigan." this is not entirely true as I-69 has several disjoint segments between Texas and Indiana.
- I tried to tweak that, but with the discontinuities and the mess with the suffixed routes in Texas, the specifics will have to be left to the parent article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should mention I-69 is concurrent with I-94 at its eastern terminus in the lead.
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is really important to mention that the distribution center is a Walmart distribution center. Typically, we do not mention specific business names in a route description.
- I just deleted the whole sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and through an interchange with M-96 west of downtown Marshall." sounds awkward.
- Revised. Imzadi 1979 → 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the sentence about the Indian trails and the map really necessary given the fact I-69 follows none of them?
- Yes, to establish that I-69 doesn't have a predecessor from that era. If not, there may be questions about this since the other 2dIs in MI follow Indian trails. Imzadi 1979 → 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The first span of the Blue Water Bridges", I know the Blue Water Bridge is a twin-span bridge but is it officially called Blue Water Bridges? If not, "Bridges" should be singular here.
- Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1980, a Flint-area politician wanted to dedicate a highway after the United Auto Workers (UAW).", what was the name of this politician? Dough 48 72 03:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The book does not list his name, which is why it wasn't included originally. Imzadi 1979 → 05:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great job! Dough 48 72 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Admrboltz

Y File:I-69.svg - Needs to be {{PD-USGov-MUTCD|M1-1}}
- Resolved when I corrected all M1-1 image tags on Commons the other day. --Admr Boltz 13:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y File:I-69 (MI) map.svg - CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL - @25or6to4: Needs GIS sources
- Sources updated. Also added key. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y File:I-69 exit 70 MI.jpg - CC-BY-2.0
Y File:I-96 and I-496, Lansing.jpg - CC-BY-2.0 - Double checking with OTRS - Confirmed
Y File:I-94 I-69 EB Port Huron.jpg - CC-BY-2.0
Y File:Blue Water Bridge.jpg - Should be {{PD-USGov-DOT}}
- Fixed it myself. --Admr Boltz 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y File:Michigan's Indian trails.png - PD-US-not renewed
Y File:Interstate Highway plan June 27, 1958 (MI).jpg - PD-US-not renewed
Y File:Louis Chevrolet in 1914.jpg - PD-US-1923
Y File:David Dunbar Buick.jpg - Self -- GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 - I doubt this. This is a scan of something and not user-created.
- Considering that he has passed away, fair use? --Rs chen 7754 03:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - but there still is the question of the sourcing of the image, which isn't clear. Its clearly a scan from some sort of book, but which book? Imz is looking for an actual PD image IIRC. --Admr Boltz 03:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've found the 1891 book that's the likely original source of the portrait, although it wasn't cropped into an oval. I replaced it and updated the attribution, so it's PD-US-1923 now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Admr Boltz 04:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Floydian

Lede

I've never been a fan of "running" as a verb for describing highways. I'd suggest "travelling concurrently" in this case. YMMV in each of the cases that I mention it below.
Again in the second case, and remove the link to concurrency.
- I think I shifted this around forever ago... Imzadi 1979 → 05:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

Nitpicky, but "crosses into Calhoun County and over the St. Joseph River." - if the county line is the river, then you should swap the order of these.
Intersecting M-60?
"North of I-94, I-69 has one more interchange before crossing into Eaton County" - You mention the road at other interchanges, but not this one.
"Near Olivet, I-69 begins to turn in a northeasterly direction. As it continues in that direction, it runs to the north side of Olivet." - Reads somewhat awkward, and again with the run bit.
" I-69 follows the path of a line of the Canadian National Railway" - I'm assuming you mean parallels it?
"I-69, the railroad and the Swartz Creek all run together" - sounds like a marathon :) There's another "run" shortly after this too.
"It jogs to the north around Lake Nepessing on the southwest of Lapeer." Reads weird/grammatically incorrect.
"follow part of the Black River in the area." - "in the area" seems redundant here.
- All tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Cutting it down to just a few runs makes it read much better in my eyes. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

I believe left aligned photos are supposed to be placed above level 3 headers to align better.
- Actually, MOS:ACCESS#Images point #5 says otherwise. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake then. Guess it's changed or I've got it wrong entirely. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The first major overland transportation corridors in the future state of Michigan were the Indian trails.[9] None of these followed the path of the modern I-69 however." - Just curious why you put this here, it seems irrelevant to I-69 in this case.
- Because if I didn't, people will ask for more back history from before the 20th century. In this case, it's somewhat northworthy to have a 2dI that isn't a former Indian trail. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"By 1936, the highway was extended all the way into Flint to end at M-21." - M-78 or M-104?
- Fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the Predecessor highways section gets confusing when you introduce M-78 into the picture. It may be prudent to mention as you go along which segments of these would line up with I-69, since Pittsburg, for example, isn't mentioned in the RD.
- Pittsburg isn't along modern I-69, and I tried to clarify this. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a lot better now, especially the latter half of the paragraph. However, a map from the pre-interstate era showing these predecessor routes would go a long way. I'll let you decide how to handle it though and give a pass on it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph of Interstate Highway era, you mention that BUS I-69 was designated in 1984, congress extended the designation for a final time in 1987 to Port Huron, but the final segment of the route wasn't completed until October 1992. This is rather confusing.
- I think I cleared that up. Let me know if more needs to be done. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...the Michigan Legislature designated that I-69... would be named..." - declared would be more appropriate than designated in this case.
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The following October" - is that October 2001 (that October) or October 2002 (the following), as I would come to read it?
- Reworded, but it's 2001 (PA 142 of 2001 as mentioned in the next sentence). Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it ever be a mistake to head to Canada? ;)
- Well, if you didn't have your passport and bridge fare handy... Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exit list

Looks good

Business loops

May want to use a better source than Gmaps for validating that the loops followed those predecessors, as I can only see evidence of the ones in Coldwater and Charlotte being US 27
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Ref 2: Scale / "Scale not given" needed
- Chicago/APA/MLA based style guides don't require a scale on dynamic maps like this one, just maps with fixed scales, like a paper or PDF map. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it may be better organized to group your refs so that maps can be given their own section? I've thought of doing this on a few articles with over 40-50 refs.
- I'd need more information on what you mean, but I think it would be less confusing to leave all sources with numbered footnotes. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a look at the refs section in QEW for an example of what I did. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my history review in the next day or two. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or seven. Since you haven't replied yet, I've just inserted the history review above. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it's looking to be a support. Just wanted to get your thoughts on the map and the reference reorganization. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, not fond of separating the references that way. For shortened refs, I've just mixed them in with the other footnotes, which is what we did with U.S. Route 41 in Michigan several years ago when I started that article. It passed FAC that way in 2009 so there's ample precedent to mixed shortened and unshortened refs together in a single list. As for the map, I just need a few minutes to get it made and it will be added, done similar to the one on the U.S. Route 23 in Michigan article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks great! The pending map should really help clear up the back history for those unfamiliar with Michigan geography. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evad37

Lead

A north–south freeway from the Indiana–Michigan border to Lansing, it changes direction to east–west and continues to Port Huron before terminating in the middle of the twin-span Blue Water Bridge while running concurrently with I-94 at the border – long sentence, suggest splitting into two
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

on average is an WP:Easter egg link to Annual average daily traffic
- Not done since I don't think it's the same as the example at the cited link. Rather, it's an expansion of the type of average mentioned, not hiding a second concept behind the link. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the effect is similar: the context of the average is lost in print versions and if a reader doesn't click/hover over the link – are "non-experts" supposed to guess that its a daily average (rather than weekly, monthly, etc), and are "experts" meant to guess that its AADT and not some other measure like average weekday traffic? - Evad37 [talk] 02:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Evad37: Interstate 196 was promoted to FA status using the exact same construction, which is also present in Interstate 96, Interstate 75 in Michigan, and other FAs promoted in the last year. The I-75 example has the link piped to "average each day", but I see no need to alter the text any more than that. Imzadi 1979 → 02:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it would be better with "each day", as that provides some context without having to follow the link - Evad37 [talk] 03:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Evad37: fair enough, adding. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I-69 carries the Lake Huron Circle Tour in the Port Huron area and the I-69 Recreational Heritage Route – why is only the second mentioned in the infobox?
- Added that to the infobox, which was overlooked. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the business loop ends at the cloverleaf interchange that marks the first of I-69's two junctions with I-94 in the state northwest of Marshall – would something like "the business loop ends at a cloverleaf interchange northwest of Marshall, the first of I-69's two junctions with I-94 in the state" read better? I would assume that "northwest of Marshall" is more relevant to the specific interchange than to the two I-94 junction.
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
before crossing into Eaton County^[6][7] – missing a full stop
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Southwest of Capac, there is a temporary welcome center at the rest area along the westbound lanes. Do you have a ref for it being temporary? And what are the plans for the future?
- Citation added, the full plans are in the history section. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the eastern bank, I-69/I-94 – photo caption says "I-94/I-69", and later in the history section there is also "I-94/I-69". Can you make them consistent?
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

the second after Wisconsin to do so.^[15] and two different highways – missing a word?
- Fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I-475 was named for David Dunbar Buick – named what? (Only later in the article is the name David Dunbar Buick Freeway revealed)
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TEMP I-69 and non-chargeable mileage – is emphasis actually needed for these? If so, then <em> tags or {{em}} should be used, per MOS:EMPHASIS
- The italics from the first are dropped, but the second is MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about mentioning what TEMP stands for on the first mention, like you do for BUS?
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJL

Connection to Highway 402 in Sarnia, Ontario – Route marker needs to be at the beginning of the line if used, per MOS:RJL#Text_appearance
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business loops

These highways, designated Business Loop I-69 (BL I-69) provide – comma need before provide. Also, should it be "each designated"?
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Major junctions should use {{Plainlist}} instead of <br>'s, for accessibility
- Done. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 04:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37: as noted above, the appropriate fixes have been implemented. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Evad37 [talk] 03:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Source 20: Good on V and CP.
Source 29: Do you mean 1947? Also, the print is too small on both the original (which was found through archive.org as the FHWA site is down) and what is on Commons.
Source 30: Good on V and CP.
Source 34: Good on V and CP.
Source 39: Good on V and CP.
Source 47: Good on V and CP.
Source 66: Good on V and CP.
Source 68: Good on V and CP.
Source 76: will AGF on the lanes part as the free part of the article cuts off. But what about the completed in 2012 part? That can't be in a 2011 article...
Source 78: Good on V and CP. --Rs chen 7754 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever reason (which could have been a blonde moment on my part), the wrong map citation was pasted into the article for fn 29. As for fn 76, there's a new FN 77 present to resolve that glitch. Imzadi 1979 → 23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Rs chen 7754 23:39, 13 July 2014 (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.