Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/M-553 (Michigan highway)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M-553 (Michigan highway)

[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 result of the discussion was to promote the article to A-class. — PCB 03:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

M-553 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I just merged this article together with M-554. Given that this is heavy on MDOT press releases (the local paper didn't really cover some of these developments), I don't plan on taking this article to FAC. I do think that this article merits one last bump in assessment though.
Nominated by: Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 03:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Dough4872 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. In the infobox, can you clarify what "K.I. Sawyer" is?
  2. Why is a CR listed as a major intersection in the infobox?
  3. In the lead, add a link to Marquette, Michigan and also specify what route the southern terminus is at?
  4. Mention when CR 553 was established.
  5. In the route description, add a reference about the access road being named for Clarence "Kelly" Johnson .
  6. In the second paragraph of the RD, do not use "M-553 in back-to-back sentences.
  7. Add a wikilink for "center turn lane".
  8. Maybe mention where McClellan Avenue continues north to.
  9. Why is the access road to the airport and CR 480 listed in the major intersections? I thought anything below state routes were not notable enough for a junction list. Dough4872 03:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  1. Well, K.I. Sawyer is an unincorporated community. When the USPS maintained a post office there during the base days, it was "K.I. Saywer AFB, Michigan 49851". Now that the base closed, the "AFB" has been dropped from the community name. (The "K.I." can't be dropped unless Sawyer, Michigan renames itself.)
  2. It's a major intersection in the county. Also, the county has proposed to transfer CR 480 to the state (see M-28 (Michigan highway)#Future.
  3. Done.
  4. I don't have a date for when the original county roads were established. The numbered system that's still in use by Marquette County dates back to the early 20th century.
    • Is it possible for some research to be done here? This is critical information for the road as it just did not appear randomly before 1998. Dough4872 04:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added some stuff, and it looks like the county road commission may have some stuff on file at Peter White... I guess I wanted to stay in the UP for a few more days... However, if I can't find anything more, what I have from the old state maps will be it. Imzadi 1979 → 11:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done. I'll try to find the actually 1975 Time article on microfilm in the next few days to supplement the rest of the URL citation.
  6. None do. The sentences start with "North of", "As the", "M-553 descends", "The highway", "North of", "North of", "The trunkline ", "With few", and "M-553 descends"
    • Im not talking about the beginnings, I'm talking about "North of the river, M-553 ascends part of the west side of Mount Mesnard before leveling off near the intersection with Division Street. North of that intersection, M-553 follows McClellan Avenue as a four-lane boulevard divided by a center turn lane through a residential area on the south side of the city. ", where M-553 is used in both sentences, one of the instances should be changed. Also, I do not think its a good idea to begin both sentences with "North of". Dough4872 04:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Done.
  8. Done.
  9. WP:IAR. In the case of CR 480, for the same reasons it's in the infobox. For the access road, it's also a major destination for traffic along the road. That's the gateway from points north to the airport and K.I. Sawyer community, a counterpart to M-94 being the gateway from points south.
Let me know if you have any other suggestions or questions. Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will support the article. Hopefully, more information can be found concerning the history of CR 553. Dough4872 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Rschen7754 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • CR 553 dates back to the 1930s and was fully paved in the 1940s. A segment of the roadway was relocated in the 1950s. - combine sentences
    • At the same time M-554 was decommissioned and turned over to the city's jurisdiction. - needs comma
    • History - need a sentence saying that M-553 began as a county road; this isn't clear.
    • Some of your paragraphs are 1-2 sentences; try to merge some of them.
    • The footnote would go better in the main text.
    • M-554 section - The signage was changed on November 9, 2005 reflecting the changeover of M-554 and BUS US 41 to the city's control and McClellan Avenue to the state's control. - comma after date
    • Should be a support once these are addressed. --Rschen7754 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me know if those changes I just made address your comments. I combined two paragraphs together, and for the other short one, I moved the footnote directly into it. For the history section comment, I split up the first sentence, but expanded the first half a bit to explicitly mention that it was a CR. Imzadi 1979 → 01:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved issues from –Fredddie™ 22:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobox
    1. If there is not going to be KML (I'm assuming it's in the works), there should be an inset map showing the map's range.
    2. Maybe color in the white space on the map
    Lead
    1. "The trunkline was originally County Road 553 (CR 553) in Marquette County." may be better served at the start of the second paragraph.
    2. Instead of "military base", how about "US Air Force base" or even a link to K.I. Sawyer?
    3. "and it is the site of several businesses." sounds a bit dry. How does "and several businesses are located there."? Yes, it's passive voice, but as long as there are still businesses there, it should be fine.
    4. "At the same time, M-554 was decommissioned and turned over to the city's jurisdiction." → "At the same time, M-554 was turned over to the city's jurisdiction." Decommissioned and turned over are redundant, plus you explain it in greater detail below.
    Route description
    1. "Neighborhood" to describe New Swanzy seems odd. I'm not saying it's wrong, just odd.
    2. "Runway complex"? There's only one runway at K.I. Sawyer, so I'm not sure that's the best word. Tarmac or just runway might be better.
    3. Isn't Air Force supposed to be capitalized? It seems like it would be hard to speak generally about an air force that once occupied the base
    4. What was Kelly Johnson noted for? I'm only looking for a few words, not a paragraph.
    5. Does M-553 start at a higher elevation then head downhill?
    6. "No section of M-553 has been listed on the National Highway System," → "No section of M-553 is listed on the National Highway System," It sounds like you're anticipating M-553 going on the NHS sometime soon.
    History
    1. There weren't any Indian trails over which M-553 was built?
    2. Was CR 553 always numbered as such?
    3. Even if it's the only trailer park on Pioneer Road, I might switch to an indefinite article just so it doesn't read like they're being singled out even if it's for a noble cause.
    4. In that same sentence, "officials at the city"→"city officials".
    5. US Congress approved funding, or is the state legislature also called Congress?
    6. "Construction crews were working on blasting rock, drainage and other earthworks." Seems to be an abrupt end, maybe the voice is wrong?
    7. The Michigan left intersection was designed that way? May not hurt to mention that.
    8. "(Michigan left intersections are common in the Lower Peninsula, but this intersection was the first in the UP built that way.)" Get rid of the parens.
    9. Should "Rationalization" be capitalized?
    10. You should clarify that the remainder of CR 553 (M-554) was along Division Street.
    11. Was the school zone implemented after it was considered?
    Major intersections
    1. Maybe put a direction behind McClellan Avenue. I know that's your standard practice, but it looks like it's missing something.
    M-554
    1. "in a section of the city that is relatively flat with trees;"→"in a tree-lined section of the city that is relatively flat; "With trees" seemed like it was tacked on as an afterthought.
    2. The last paragraph of this section seems entirely redundant to the last paragraph of the History section

    OK, no Earth-shattering changes are required, but these suggestions will only help. –Fredddie™ 03:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Replies
    • Infobox: maps has been updated. Yes, a KML is coming at some point, but I still updated the map to make it purty.
    • Lead: all should be done.
    • RD:
      1. Around here, we'd call them "locations", but I figured that neighborhood was something better understood by a wider range of editors. Negaunee has Cambria Location, Rolling Mill Location, etc, that were neighborhoods that built up in the immediate vicinity of one of the original mines. On either side of the unincorporated community of Gwinn are Austin, Princeton and New Swanzy locations in Forsyth Township.
      2. Done.
      3. Well, The AP Stylebook agrees with you that this doesn't go all lowercase on generic mentions.
      4. Done.
      5. Well, kinda. it does start at a higher elevation, heads up hill a bit before the Sawyer area, heads down a long grade by the fairgrounds and one more long grade at Glass's Corner by the ski hill, but the highway heads back up hill on the other side of the Carp River.
      6. Well, since it is part of an intermodal connector and a designated regional transportation corridor, one could reasonably assume it should be in the NHS...
    • History:
      • 1& 2. No Indian trails, and as far as my sources indicate, it's always had the CR 553 number. (Those numbers were assigned statewide in a rough grid pattern dating back to the 1930s that keeps repeating as needed to cover the state.
      • 3–8: Done.
      • 9. That was the name of the process according to MDOT, so yeah, I'd say it should be capitalized.
      • 10&11: Done.
    • Major intersections: done.
    • M-554: Did the first, and the second is intentional because the M-554 redirect points to that section, and it has the additional detail of what was done with M-554 after the jurisdictional transfer.
    Yeah, nothing was all that big, and everything should be done. I did add a tidbit about how M-554 was signed on some maps, although I'm not 100% committed to retaining that sentence. Imzadi 1979 → 06:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved issues from  VC  03:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead
    1. Saying "main highway connection" in the second sentence sounds strange. I would mention both termini in the second sentence and elaborate with the K.I. Sawyer information in the third sentence. The content of the fourth and fifth sentences seem not very important for a Lead and come across as filler. Overall, you can condense the first paragraph down to three or four sentences and not lose anything. I can offer a suggestion:
    2. "transferred by the Marquette County Road Commission" Change "by" to "from"
    3. I would wikilink either "M-554" or "related trunkline" as an anchor link to the Related trunkline section.
    Replies
    1. Done, sorta. You risk under-summarizing the section and losing contextual clues as to the location of the roadway. As a second point, if we shrunk the paragraph down to 4 sentences, it would be misbalanced compared to the length of the second paragraph that summarizes the history and M-554 sections. It wouldn't work to start shuffling stuff back into the first paragraph now to keep the paragraphs balanced in terms of length. I didn't add the name of the ski hill to avoid text that seems to promote
      I recognize your concern about balancing paragraph size, but that should not solely determine whether or not to include questionably notable information in the lead. I am perfectly fine with the Lead being one long paragraph. I do not think there are NPOV problems in mentioning the name of a ski area; the location of a ski area is a fact and quite notable.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, we don't need to list the business name in the lead, especially when there's the issue of possible confusion between Marquette Mountain (the business) located on Cliffs Ridge (the hill) a few miles from Mount Marquette (the bigger landform). Since the lead is a summary, some specific details are best left to the body of the article. I don't think the other details you want to remove are "questionably notable" though, so I'm leaving them in. You're welcome to disagree. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree, but it is not a sticking point.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Done.
    3. Done.
    Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Route description
    1. I know this came up before, but describing New Swanzy as a neighborhood does not feel right. I would use hamlet, which you can wikilink if you want. I would mention Gwinn in relation to New Swanzy and un-wikilink New Swanzy because it redirects to Gwinn.
    2. Do you have a reference to this area being called the Sand Plains?
    3. I would put a comma after the wikilink to Kelly Johnson.
    4. Can you add a reference to the intersection with CR 480 being called the Crossroads?
    5. I would clarify that the center turn lane ends as the highway passes the elementary school and that there is a pedestrian bridge just south of the school.
    6. "M-553 descends one last hill and terminates at the Michigan left intersection with the US 41/M-28 expressway" Using the definite article before Michigan left sounds strange; I would change "the" to "its."
    7. I think the shapes of the text would look better if you moved one of the two images in the Route description to the History section.
    Replies
    1. Except that hamlets don't exist in Michigan. That article talks about a specific type of municipal entity in New York and Oregon. The local vernacular is "location", and neighborhood was used as a more general substitute. If I'm changing the word, it would be to "location" or possibly "community", although New Swanzy is no longer considered separate enough to appear on MDOT maps. MDOT no longer posts signs on either side of Austin, Princeton or New Swanzy nor lists them on the maps because they're not even distinct enough to be CDPs or unincorporated communities because they're "locations".
      I looked at the hamlet article again and it does focus on formal political units, so wikilinking might not be appropriate. Out of the choices presented, I like "community" best, but "location" would be better if you can elaborate on it and provide a reference to such places being called "locations." I think it would add more color to the article. Regardless of the vocabulary, I would still un-wikilink the location because it just redirects to Gwinn.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I changed it to community for now without the link. If I can update the Gwinn article to change it from "community" to "location", I will, but for now I'll match that terminology, sans wikilink. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This issue has been resolved.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I have to question if this needs a citation or not. That is what the area is called by locals, how it's referred to in news accounts and such. A quick search found: Lowe, K. S. (February 1984). "The Sand Plains Murders". Michigan Out of Doors. 38 (2). Lansing, MI: Michigan United Conservation Clubs: 24–25. ISSN 0026-2382., which is a magazine account of the murders of conservation officers in that area of Marquette County. I also found: Western UP Ecoteam. "Sands Plains Management Area (32)" (PDF). Draft Management Areas for the Western Upper Peninsula Ecoregion. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
      While the area being called the Sands Plains is unlikely to be controversial, readers are going to question why it is called that. I think it would be good to provide a brief explanation to sate their interest. You can use the second reference you provided to support it.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a short explanation, but not the footnote. Such uncontroversial details don't need citations. You can disagree, but I don't feel this needs a citation. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I continue to disagree with the stance that a citation is not needed.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Done.
    4. Again, I wonder if this needs citation, or not. Considering that the bar there is the Crossroads Bar, and gas station is the Crossroads Mini-Mart, and the the other businesses that advertise their locations as being at the Crossroads. Non-controversial items don't need explicit citations, per policy, and I can't see this place name being controversial. Peter White Library's directions also tell people to "[c]ontinue north on M-553 through the Crossroads' (intersection M-553 and CR-480) blinking light ..." so that should firmly establish that the name is correct.
      Once again, you have done much of the work toward addressing this point already. The reference you provided works fine toward supporting the name of the location.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not adding a footnote, not when Crossroads Bar is shown on Google Maps, and searches for businesses there in Google Maps turn up Crossroads Mini-Mart and Crossroads Truck Repair. If the word wasn't capitalized, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and a change in case for one letter shouldn't require a citation in a case of non-controversial information like this. You may disagree, but I'm not changing it. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I continue to disagree with the stance that a citation is not needed.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Done
    6. I changed it to "a" because as weird as this might sound, "its" seems to imply that the U-turns are on McClellan, not the bypass. US 41/M-28 has a Michigan left, but McClellan doesn't, exactly.
      That works better than my suggestion.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. I have another photo coming for the history section once it's released, or I give up an rephotograph it myself. I don't get any squishing with the current layout.
    Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize squishing will vary from computer to computer. There is also a lot of whitespace at the bottom of the section. Not a dealbreaker, though.  VC  00:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History
    1. "At the time, CR 553 ran north from Gwinn and turned northeasterly to a terminus on the south side of Marquette at Pioneer Road and Division Street." I would be more specific on the old route of the county highway, such as clearly indicating CR 553 used Division Street, or what is now Division Street, north to Pioneer Street. I would also mention the old alignments of the highway at K.I. Sawyer and Sands, which ties into the next comment.
    2. "In 1953, the county relocated CR 553 near the county airport so that the road spanned over the railroad on a bridge in a different location from the previous at-grade crossing." I would review this set of facts. According to the National Bridge Inventory, the bridge over the railroad west of K.I. Sawyer was built in 1976. Also, the USGS map of the K.I. Sawyer area dated 7/1/1981 shows the highway on its present alignment. A closer view dated 7/1/1975 does not show the present alignment. I looked at the area near the hamlet of Sands and found the present alignment through there was present on the 1981 map but not on the 1975 map. Would you be able to corroborate any of this with the official state highway maps from that era? I am not necessarily saying the previous quoted sentence is wrong, because the county highway could have been relocated twice at K.I. Sawyer.
    3. "The City of Marquette started planning an extension to McClellan Avenue southward to CR 553 in the 1970s." Change "extension to" to "extension of."
    4. "When the local study group completed its report in June 1997, CR 553 was included with M-35 and US 41 as part of the primary north–south traffic corridor in the Central Upper Peninsula." Is this the same study from 1996 mentioned two paragraphs prior? If it is, I would move this sentence and the following sentence to the paragraph that first mentions the study. If they are different studies, I would still move the sentences because it is strange talking about a study within several sentences about construction.
    5. "about 9,200 miles (14,800 km) of roadway were investigated as part of the Rationalization plan as potential candidates for state maintenance." I suggest rewriting as "about 9,200 miles (14,800 km) of roadway were investigated as potential candidates for state maintenance as part of the Rationalization plan."
    6. "MDOT renumbered the two roads across K.I. Sawyer as an extension to M-94" Change "extension to" to "extension of."
    7. "That latter highway designation stopped at the intersection with McClellan Avenue in the city of Marquette" I would rewrite as "The latter highway designation then terminated at the southern end of McClellan Avenue." As it is, the sentence is confusing because the roadway continues as McClellan Avenue instead of cars having to make a turn.
    8. Do you have a source for the school zone "not implemented when the speed limits were left untouched."?
    Replies
    1. There is no reply to History comment #1.  VC  03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Well, I can't figure out why USGS doesn't agree with my research, but the MDOT maps don't show any routing changes in that area after the 1950s. The articles I have from the newspaper also discuss the realignment of CR 480 after the MCRC built their asphalt plant in that time period. CR 480, and its sibling Old CR 480, are the only other similarly named pair of county roads in the county that I know of. CR 480 was also realigned so that the road would cross a rail line on a bridge instead of at-grade. As for the bridge's 1976 date, it's not unlikely that they replaced the bridge at that time at approximately 23 years of age. Also the northern end of Old CR 553 and the western end of Old CR 480 have dirt berms over the paved ROW to close them to traffic without explicit entrances to the current ROW. The eastern end of Old CR 480 has an intersection with the current ROW and the southern end of Old CR 553 has an intersection with what is now M-94. Similar methods to realign the roadways from similar time periods. Why USGS omitted the current alignment for some many years, I just can't tell you, but MDOT has it correct back to 1953.
      From the way you explain it, it sounds like you think in a conflict between the MDOT and newspaper sources, and the NBI and USGS sources, the MDOT and newspaper sources are more authoritative. It is possible a USGS map could be wrong and a bridge could be replaced after only 23 years, but I find that hard to believe that both are true. Can you check your historical Michigan maps again for CR 553 being displayed with a curvier path compared to the straight path it follows today? The current Michigan highway map shows the rampant curves in M-35; perhaps that is the case for CR 553 as well before it was rerouted.
      Anyway, in looking for more evidence, I found an SPS where someone talks about living at the AFB in the 1960s and saying CR 553 was much closer to the base than it is now. Later on, I found a bunch of Marquette County Atlases from Rockford Map Publishers at historicmapworks.com. Using Overlay mode (because you get a limited number of views in Zoomify mode), check out Forsyth T45N-R25W and compare 1973 with 1976.  VC  03:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This issue has been resolved.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Done.
    4. Done.
    5. Done
    6. Done.
    7. Done.
    8. Updated. I hadn't been on that section of M-553 in a while, and the paper never chose to cover the changes, but the TV station did.
    Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Related trunkline
    1. It is not explicit that M-554 followed Division Street between its endpoints until the last sentence of the section. I think you should mention that in the first or second sentence. If necessary, you can make the distinction between "M-554 followed Division Street" and "M-554 followed what is now Division Street."
    Reply
    1. Done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    References
    1. Ref 35 looks awkward with the bullet point. I would split into two references.
    Reply
    1. Yet reviewers at FACs I've been watching have been suggesting that citations get bundled. It's done, but I reserve the right to revert it if someone suggests otherwise. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the status of this review? --Rschen7754 03:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All issues have been resolved, or at least are not sticking points with me, except #2 and #4 under Route description. Imzadi1979 and I disagree on those issues and we are probably at an impasse. I am not sure if I have the authority to ask for second opinions on those subjects, but I would like some other explicit input.  VC  17:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, in my opinion the issues are so minor that they aren't worth squabbling over. If you can't work out a compromise, I would suggest posting at WT:V and/or WP:NORN to solicit additional opinions, and then act according to those opinions. --Rschen7754 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's my take on the situation. I do not see any problem with not having to add a reference for Sand Plains and Crossroads as these claims are uncontroversial. For instance, Pennsylvania Route 463 does not have a reference stating the intersection with US 202/PA 309 is known as Five Points as this claim is widely known through local businesses. However, there is no harm in adding a reference to verify Sand Plains and Crossroads. If adding the references is needed to get the support, I would say just add the references, it would not do anything to hurt the article. Dough4872 00:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I still have reservations about the unsupported place names, but since everything else is resolved, I will let the next level (if relevant) deal with that.  VC  03:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/M-553_(Michigan_highway)&oldid=1138363033"