Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-28 (Michigan highway)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:11, 14 August 2008 [1].

M-28 (Michigan highway)

[edit]
Nominator: Imzadi1979
previous FAC (04:04, 17 July 2008)


The last nomination was ill-timed because I was in the middle of moving into a new apartment. The article needed some copy-editing before I was going to nominate it. Copyediting is the only issue left over from the previous editor's nomination. User:Finetooth just completed a copyedit after some minor edits from User:Davemeistermoab and User:Scott5114. In my opinion, the article is ready for FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments In copyediting the Seney Stretch section, I found three references that did not back up the claims being made...and I assume this is just because the links are out of date (some of the pages were last accessed in 2006). I replaced two of them and found an archive URL for the third. References now need to be checked for the rest of the article. I'll see if I can do that in the next couple of days. —Zeagler (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Current ref [2] ("MSHD19") is being used to support the date the route was established, though the reference only has the date that particular map was published.
  • Current ref [12] ("fowler") doesn't mention scenic views along M-28 (which is too bad, because that article is a great advertisement for the U.P.). You could probably reword to "...closely parallels the Lake Superior shoreline" and let the reader infer that the views are scenic (and reference with a map).
  • Unless I don't know how to read them, the right of way maps (current ref [47] and [48]) don't give the historical information in the prose.

—Zeagler (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Updated the date information. I've inserted a reference from Hunt's Guide that calls it "scenic M-28" referring a reader to the Marquette area an hour west of Munising. I've commented out the Fowler ref for the moment. Ref 47 (Alger County/Munising ROW map) shows the ROW for that section of roadway was transferred to the City of Munising on 11-07-63. Ref 48 (Chippewa County ROW map sheet) shows the date M-28 was extended from I-75 eastward to M-129. This notation is next to the number 67 and north of the label for Bruce Township. It uses the label text "M-28 established 3-03-89".
See if you can find a use for Fowler somewhere else in the article though, because it's too good to leave out. Makes me want to take a road trip to the U.P. right now! —Zeagler (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOSNUM accepts two standard date formattings. Are you sure it's acceptable to use ISO format? Tony (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've relinked the dates using the American-style formatting (e.g. July 22, 2008). However, as all the dates are autoformatted, the actual appearance will depend on the user preferences. There are also no non-breaking spaces in the dates as they are already autoformatted. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Image:Hiawatha National Forest.jpg displays a copyright notice but it has a GFDL license—those are incompatible.
    • All other images check out fine. --Laser brain (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way is having a copyright incompatible with GFDL? GFDL does not mean that the owner abandons their copyright -- it merely means that they agree to release the work under the GFDL. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My understanding is that if someone just puts "Copyright So-and-so", they implicitly reserve all rights unless otherwise specified. That would mean no unauthorized reproduction, non-commercial, etc. I believe the author has to explicitly release something under the GFDL for it to be so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, and that is precisely what happened here -- Decumanus (who's no longer an active editor) uploaded a self-made photo and explicitly released it under GFDL. He retains the copyright, but it is GFDL. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the confusion is coming from the fact that he apparently originally uploaded it to en.wiki and the original is no longer available. Someone named "CarolSpears" moved it to commons and put "© 2004 Matthew Trump" in the description. That copyright symbol normally indicates the person did not release anything. GFDL is called a "copyleft" for that reason—the two are at odds with each other. --Laser brain (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The confusion is understandable, as GFDL is truly horrible for reading and comprehension. But GFDL does not preclude persons from retaining copyright on their work -- it only ensures that any work licensed under GFDL may be freely reused under the terms of the GFDL. Each contributor to Wikipedia implicitly retains copyright to their work while agreeing to release it under GFDL. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've contacted the uploader of that photo for clarification on the licensing tags and pointed him here to this discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a larger than usual gap between the Seney Stretch section and the text draws a concern - it looks like the Hiawatha NF pic is causing this. (DISCLAIMER: I'm using Internet Exploder 6 ;) )  — master sonT - C 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at this? Everything looks find to me in Safari, Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer for MacOS X. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources still look good, links still worked with the link checker. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Services section looks like an advertisement for points of intrest the route. Maybe just merge it into the Route description? I think that would be better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the suggestion, but my opinion is that the section is fine where it is. I'd appreciate any other feedback though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it probably violates WP:TRAVEL. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Going to disagree with you here, as the roadside parks and rest areas only exist because of M-28. They're veritable features of the route. I will put forth, however, that the Lakenenland mention violates WP:TRAVEL. I spent four years of my life in the U.P. and drove M-28 countless times but have never heard of it. —Zeagler (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oppose The fact that the parks and such only exist because of M-28 is irrelevant. The article is about the road, not the surrounding tourist attractions and rest areas. We might as well include information about gas stations along the road. Most of the information could be incorporated into the route description in a less travel guide-like manner. Until this issue is addressed, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose. The rest of the article is great, but the services section detracts from the article substantially. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoa, did my comment drive you to oppose? If the gas stations were part of something like an Illinois Tollway oasis, then yes, I'd say include those, too...but MDOT doesn't do anything like that. —Zeagler (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • These appear to be officially designated picnic/rest areas and scenic overlooks. USRD standards do allow for such things to be listed in its own section in freeways. While not really a freeway, the route is primarily rural in the locations with rest areas so effectively functions as one. It's not as if we're listing private stores/shops/gas stations here. The existence of these rest areas is a fundamental component of long rural arterial roads. --Polaron | Talk 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • True, but USRD standards do have their flaws. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to inform the reader about a subject, not list attractions for them to visit on their trip down the highway. I'm sure there are plenty of roadgeek sites that include such information, and could be listed as an external link. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The roadside parks are as much a part of the highway as the centerline and shoulders. They are established for the same reason as the highway itself, the convenience of the motoring public. At most the section could be moved into the RD as a subsection, but otherwise the services provided by the state as a part of the highway are as much a part of the story of the highway as the rest of the pavement. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree that it should be removed. As for Lakenland, it is a recent development that has attracted attention in the local media (The Mining Journal no longer archives old stories online for very long and I no longer live in Marquette County so I can't easily find the article anymore). Unlike the guideline in WP:TRAVEL, I did not include every attraction along the routing. Da Yoopers Tourist Trap in Ishpeming Township was not include even though it has many more billboard advertisements pointing drivers to it. Lakenenland was included partially because it's in the middle of nowhere and the sign for it along the entrance just jumps out at drivers because the area is so undeveloped. I will leave its inclusion in the article up to the community at large though. I would appreciate any suggestions you have concerning the tone of the paragraph/section, but this editor's opinion is that the content was carefully written to highlight the roadside services offered and not be a litany of parks and attractions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) It seems to me then that to satisfy JC's objection and remove his opposition I could simply move the entire current paragraph up to the other section. The content of that single paragraph doesn't fail WP:TRAVEL though. If this is the case, why is the current location such a problem? Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section doesn't technically fail WP:TRAVEL, but it would seem somewhat like an advertisement for MDOT's rest areas/parks. Additionally, it is information that could be less obtrusively incorporated into the article by listing each attraction in it's appropriate segment of the RD. Keeping it a section separate from the RD would be equal to creating a designated section for all curves and turns on the highway. Don't let me discourage you; this is an excellent article for the most part. It's just this one issue that prevents the article from being perfect, or nearly so. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the article again, I could go with moving the section. The 'historic bridges' seem much more important, and they're a subsection of the 'Route description'... —Zeagler (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no article is ever perfect, even a feature article. No one here is advocating a literal turn-by-turn summary of the highway's routing. At issue is the inclusion of one single paragraph that highlights a feature of the roadway, namely the services offered by the state agency that built and maintains the roadway. Scattering mentions of the rest areas and roadside parks throughout the route description, I think, would actually call attention to them more. You'd end up with a dozen or so sentences or more added just to mention that there's another park avaiable where this paragraph condensed them into a few sentences, highlighting two. The Tioga Creek roadside park was added because of the waterfall as a natural feature, and the second was added to tie in Zeagler's photo that he uploaded and contributed to the article. To add them throughout the route description would interrupt the flow of the existing text just to mention a park when beyond the two highlighted, they are all roughly the same. Plus it collects them into a single location so a reader looking for information using this article can find all of the parks available without needing to read the entire route description. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow-up, I have three editors who have expressed an opinion to leave the section as is. I have one who's expressed an opinion to remove/rework it. There seems to be no applicable section of the MOS that says it is in violation. Even the objector has said it doesn't fail WP:TRAVEL. Project standards make it an optional section on its own, but there's some preference to merge it as a subsection elsewhere. It is my preference to leave it as is if there is no disagreement over the wording of the section and how to apply the MOS to it. There are three more editors who having read the article voted to support it, taking no mention of the section at all. There are two other editors who have commented on the article without commenting on this section as well. While consensus isn't a raw vote game, it seems that there isn't any consensus here to make any major changes concerning the Services section. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Services section moved up into the Route description as a subsection and the Historical bridges moved into the History section according to our discussion on IRC and the User:Imzadi1979/Sandbox4 example variation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Buzz me when the whole text is scrutnised, preferably by someone new to it. Sorry to be so late; the director may choose to hold off for a few days.

  • Why link "U.S. state"? There's a sea of blue already up there, and this helps no one. You want your readers to click on "Michigan", don't you?
  • What does "Ste." mean?
  • Why not "half" rather than "one-half"? No, better "is one of a pair of".
  • "Traveling" is redundant.
  • "M-28 is the longest state trunkline in Michigan numbered with the "M-" prefix at 290.43 miles (467.40 km)." Comma after "prefix", please. Better audit the use of commas throughout. Reading bits of it aloud can help. Also, "is Michigan's longest ...". Why on earth do links to miles and km persist, I wonder? Strategic linking throughout, please, not scattergun.
  • "M-28 also carries two memorial highway designations along its route." Awkward leakage into trucks carrying things along the route. Recast the whole sentence. Indeed, try to address the succession of stub-sentences at the end of para 1.
  • Suddenly the roadway is in "sections", having just emphasised its wholeness.
  • "Some of the other landmarks accessible from M-28 include"—Spot the three redundant words. Yes, this is a formulaic lead, I can see from having just read another highway nomination. Think of varying the formula sometime? Tony (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will atempt to edit, but I am out of town on vacation with only my iPhone for Internet access. This article has already had a thorough copy edit by Finetooth. For the record, Ste. is the abbreviated spelling of Sainte used by the City of Sault Ste. Marie, from the French sault de Sainte-Marie or rapids of Saint Mary's. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I printed a copy of the article and reviewed through it for comma usage, and some other copy edits as I haven't read the article completely since renominating it 3 weeks ago. Let me know if there are other examples to fix. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot sample: "Seney Stretch"

  • Conversions: small to small, large to large. Sq miles to sq km, acres to ha. Nearly a hundred thousand acres: do Americans visualise that easily? Surely they'd prefer sq miles.
  • "A portion of the Seney Stretch forms the northern border of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge.[22] Established in 1935, this refuge is a managed wetland in Schoolcraft County.[23] It has an area of 95,212 acres (385 km²),[24] and contains the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark within its boundaries." Not good writing. As I pointed out before, "A portion" would be better, plainer, as "Part"; it's overused as either. "Within its 95,212 acres (....) lies the SBNNL.". But what the heck is this landmark? We shouldn't have to hit the link to know the basics.
  • Is it the straightness and flatness of just this part of the highway that gives it a boring reputation, or is it the whole highway? Unclear.
  • "though others claim it's 50 miles (80 km), only because it seems longer."[18]—This is a rather feeble quote, don't you think? Who are "others"? If they don't say so, we're adopting the source's fuzz. And does that US publication really give the km conversion, or have you inserted it? If you have, it must be in square brackets, yes?
  • "The largest changes made to the stretch since the original construction were the addition of passing relief lanes and a full-scale, year-round rest area in 1999." "its" rather than "the" original constr.? "most significant" rather than "largest", since you don't necessarily mean big size.

Sorry to say, I really think it needs fresh eyes throughout. It's hard to do yourself; I'd find it so if I'd written it. FACs are often the crunch that leads nominators to form valuable collaborative relationships: can this be the case here, too? Tony (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give it a good copyedit. Can the closing director keep this open for another day or two? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tony1, can you take another look if you get a chance? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a couple of tiny tweaks, but following Julian's ce, it looks pretty good to me - almost interesting, considering it's another US road. jimfbleak (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm a little skeptical of the growing number of articles about roads. But this shows how an article about a road should be written. Well-researched, comprehensive, and strong prose (even if the topic is a little dry). Randomran (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the oppose, but do keep sifting and polishing if it's promoted. Here's another spot-check.

  • "The 290.4-mile-long (467.34 km) highway comprises mostly two lanes"—The triple bunger is unnecessary, since one of the three words is redundant. "Comprises" is a little ungainly here, and perhaps clarify the lane structure on this first occasion: "The 290.4-mile (467.34 km) highway is mostly two lanes in each direction". Sections, segments, portions, part—you're trying to add variety in that paragraph. Do be careful that it's not laboured; sometimes it's better to repeat the word, or to recast to avoid the need in the first place. Clarify: "three consecutive segments of the trunkline form part of the Lake Superior Circle Tour".
  • "until approximately 1936"—"about" would be so much nicer. So we don't know exactly? I presume the doubt is transmitted from Ref 30.
  • "state line"—just check it's not a single word.
  • " The last significant change to the M-28 routing occurred on March 3, 1989"—please use plain words: "was on". Tony (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/M-28_(Michigan_highway)&oldid=1138466101"