Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 275 (Michigan)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2016 [1].

Interstate 275 (Michigan)

edit
Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a highway in Michigan, as most of my nominations are. However, this one is special. Depending on which government agency you ask, you'll get different answers at how long this one is. Additionally, it has some special history related to a cancelled northern segment that was partially revived under a different highway designation. Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will211

edit

Just peeking in, I was looking at sources and reference number 12 comes up with a 404 error, so that will need to be fixed. Will211|Chatter 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Will211: thanks for that. Archived link added, so that's good to go now. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by starship.paint

edit
  • Support - my concerns as a non-expert in this article's field have been addressed below. I have also checked all the online non-map sources and the article text relating to those sources. Again, I hope that you will review my FAC in return. starship.paint ~ KO 12:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll get to reviewing this article within this week. Disclaimers: I'm not American, I don't edit road articles, and I hope you'll check out my own FAC. starship.paint ~ KO 02:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Imzadi1979: - Why did you consider my edits as bad linking practices? As a non-American editor, these Wiki-links would have been greatly useful. Plus another revert. Per WP:REPEATLINK, it is okay to link at the first occurrence after the lead. starship.paint ~ KO 03:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Exit list, the reference/link provided seems to be insufficient, in the sense that it doesn't link to the I-275.
  • For the Bike trail infobox, Trailheads 16 along improved trail north of I-94 8 along unrefurbished trail south of I-94 is unsourced.
  • Also, what bikes are the bike trail intended for, bicycles, motorbikes? It should be the former based on reference 12. Trail Use: Cycling - Trails, Hiking, In-Line Skating, Jogging, X-C Skiing This could be added to the infobox - place "biking" with "cycling", the common term.
    • @Starship.paint: it is unnecessary, and bad form, to link to "US" in that first sentence. It's such a general topic that linking to it is normally WP:OVERLINKing. Even linking to the more specific topic of "US state" is still not a good idea when we can point our readers directly to the most specific topic, "Michigan", which is already linked. Given the title of the article, and the other mentions of that specific state already present, we don't need to display it when linking to the county name lower in the article. And lastly, "I-75" redirects to a national-level article instead of the state-level (and frankly higher quality) article on Michigan's segment of Interstate 75.

      As for the next reversion, the clarification attempt falls flat by omitting part of the township name. (Berlin is a separate location on the western side of the Lower Peninsula was renamed to Marne during WWI.) In short, your edits did not actually improve the text.

    • As for the exit list, that mapping source can't point to any specific highway, yet it's been used in nearly 30 other FAs on Michigan's highways without issue.
    • I've copied the footnote from the body text over.
    • In American English, "bike trail" itself implies bicycles, not motorcycles. The latter have to use the same roadways as cars unless they're "dirt bikes" that use "ORV trails" (off-road vehicle trails). As for "biking" in American English, it's synonymous with "cycling", so no change is necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are common in American English but maybe not in other dialects of English. In my country we use "cycling", I have never heard "biking". In this case I would err on the side of clarity than WP:OVERLINK, this is an educational website after all. starship.paint ~ KO 02:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interchange with I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) on the border between Plymouth Township and Livonia is where the FHWA considers I-275 to end - I do not see this in the source.
    • The FHWA source does not note an overlap between I-96 and I-275, while it does note other overlaps between Interstates in the "Overlap Miles & Route" column, as in where it says "5.84 Mi. on I-480" for I-271. That source also gives a total length for I-275 of 29.97 miles, and if you compare that with the MDOT source material, that is about a half-mile longer than where I-96 and M-14 cross the I-275 mainline; the extra half mile would be the part of I-275 that extends north of that freeway crossing to where I-96 merges in. Imzadi 1979 → 17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second phase was completed in the latter half of 1976, when I-275 was extended north from Schoolcraft Avenue (and the incomplete interchange with the future route of I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) to the I-275/I-96/I-696 interchange in Novi. - is this sourced to the 1977 newspaper? Just checking.
New extension plan
  • After the January 1977 cancelation of M-275 as a full freeway, the State Transportation Commission explored building the highway as a parkway instead - the Parkway Would Replace source doesn't support this. It was the state highway department which proposed a parkway. When the source was published, the state highway department had not even recommended the parkway proposal to the commission, so the Wikipedia text is inaccurate.
  • The Oakland County Road Commission, local land developers, and local politicians supported building a highway along the route of M-275 to open up the area for development. This sentence is out of place. Should it be inserted before the previous sentence? Both the previous and the next sentences talk about the potential parkway.
  • In September 1977, the commission ordered MDOT to study the parkway option - I feel that this fragment is also inaccurate according to the Official Seek source. The commission did not discuss the parkway proposals Wednesday, but made it clear it would consider a north south trunkline highway in the area. It ordered the highway department to study other possible developments, including improvements in local roads... Is a "north south trunkline highway" same as a parkway? Also, "improvements in local roads" is not mentioned in Wikipedia.
  • After many years of inactivity, further work began along this same route, - why did work begin at that time?
  • The section infobox lists that M-275 existed for 10 years despite it being never built? That doesn't make sense to me.
  • The section infobox wrote that M-275 ceased to exist circa May 1985, but is that mentioned in the article text? I do see that By May 1985, MDOT had relinquished ownership of right-of-way in West Bloomfield Township, but I do not understand if this equates to M-275 ceasing to exist... actually I do not really understand this fragment. Could it be explained better?
I-96 overlap
  • After it was completed, I-96 was routed to run concurrently with I-275 between Novi and Plymouth Township - is the Proposed Trunkline Numbering source supposed to be citing this fragment? If so please insert the cite. The next source is the 1955 source, chronologically it should not be able to cite this fragment.
  • @Imzadi1979: please see my comments above! starship.paint ~ KO 07:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Starship.paint: tweaks applied to address the above. Imzadi 1979 →
      • @Imzadi1979: all fully addressed except one ... MDOT had relinquished ownership of right-of-way in West Bloomfield Township, ending any further progress at building the roadway - it would be helpful to know who the right-of-way was relinquished to. starship.paint ~ KO 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Starship.paint: the article does not say to whom the ROW was relinquished. Perusing the MDOT Right-of-Way File Application for Oakland County, the only ROW segments mapped out in West Bloomfield Township are from the aborted Northwestern Highway Extension, showing the ROW the department apparently retains from that along with parcels they sold off. So in short, I can't answer that question beyond any informed guesses which would constitute OR. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I'll probably only get a little done this morning.

  • Suggest either marking on the infobox map the section of the highway that is not agreed by both authorities to be part of the highway, or else (less preferable) indicate in the caption which version of the route is shown.
  • "running parallel to the east of Haggerty Road": suggest "running parallel and to the east of Haggerty Road".
  • "This interchange is where I-275 meets I-96, which merges from the east on the Jeffries Freeway and turns north to run concurrently with I-275. From the west, the M-14 freeway merges and ends. MDOT still considers the freeway north of here part of I-275, and signs it as such.". I think some rephrasing is needed here. The first sentence unconditionally says I-275 is concurrent with I-96 on this stretch; the third says only MDOT considers this to be the case. I think this can be condensed.
  • Is there signage north of the I-96 interchange that says "I-275"? Does MDOT or FHWA control the signage?
  • "It was not well-maintained originally, but it is being improved": suggest a date qualification for the second half of this sentence, per WP:ASOF.
  • "the state originally planned it to follow almost all 60 miles (97 km) of I-275 at the time": this is much longer than the stated length of I-275 given in the lead. If this is because the length refers to the original plan for a longer freeway, I think that needs to be clearer. Also, this paragraph says the bikeway runs along "a 44.1-mile" stretch, substantially longer than even MDOT's given length.
  • The FHWA length is given in the lead as 29.97 miles, but the cumulative length numbers in the table jump from 29.417 to 31.217 -- shouldn't one of those numbers match?
  • Also suggest adding a comment in the Notes column of the table to indicate the intersection at which the FHWA considers the freeway to end.
  • "William Swanson in MDOT's highway planning unit stated that the original planned route for I-275 would have instead been used for I-75 itself, with the I-275 number applied to I-75 through Detroit": I don't quite follow this. Is Swanson saying that had the original 1958 numbering plan been followed, this would have happened? I think what's confusing me is "original planned route for I-275", because the previous two sentences don't seem to refer to anything like that -- they refer to a north-south freeway later marked as I-73.
  • This is just a suggestion, not necessarily something you have to do for FAC, but I noticed you were relying on old state highway maps to deduce when sections of the highway opened. Have you considered using old newspaper reports via newspapers.com? For example, I just had a quick look and found an article in the Holland Evening Sentinel for 10 January 1976 (page 12 according to newspapers.com, but "Page Nine" according to the numbering in the newspaper itself) that discusses what sections are opening when.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: fixes applied for the above except the map (that's in progress). Since MDOT owns and maintains the highway, they erect the signage, and yes, they sign it as I-96/I-275. The edits just applied should clarify and reflect that fact. Imzadi 1979 → 03:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your fixes look good; I'm still going through the article and should finish tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Latest replies:
  • I tweaked the I-96 interchange row in the table to use a range of mileposts, listing the MP for the point where eastbound M-14 crosses the I-275 mainline, and for the point where I-96 westbound merges in. There's still a minor discrepancy in the numbers to the hundredth of a mile, which could be variations in survey methods between the two sources. I added the note as well.
  • Other revisions have been applied to address your other comments.
  • Whenever possible, yes, we use old newspapers, however, they haven't always been available/accessible when the initial research into the articles has been done. That article you found is great, except that it's about scheduled, not actual, openings. If it said a segment was to open within just a few days, then I could use it, but it's months before the planned opening. That means any number of delays could have popped up in subsequent months, rendering its statements less useful for our purposes because it can't account for unforeseen events. Imzadi 1979 → 18:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All struck except for the question about the 44.1 miles quoted for the existing bikeway -- doesn't that mean it must extend beyond I-275 at one end or both, given that the MDOT length is only 35 miles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: well, that source seems to be out of date in terms of the length. Even with the extra length to loop well around the I-96/M-14 interchange, along with the extra length to follow the outsides of the various entrance and exit ramps, all of which would make the bike trail longer than the paralleled section of freeway, the southern end has been truncated out of Monroe County completely, shortening the bike trail to just 31.6 miles. Also, it seems that the official access points have been severely curtailed as well now that the full length has been paved by MDOT. All in all, I updated that stuff to reflect 2016 sources. At this point, I'd be willing to entertain any suggestion to move that entire section out into its own article, much like M-6 (Michigan highway) and its associated bike trail (the Frederik Meijer Trail, née M-6 Trail). Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (edit conflict; I see you're commenting on length above so I'll read that next).

  • I'm having a bit of trouble relating the description in the second half of "Original plans" to the exit list. Per the prose, the first four miles ran from "Ford Road to Schoolcraft Avenue (just south of the Jeffries Freeway interchange)". Schoolcraft Road has only been mentioned once to this point in the article, and that mention "North of the Middle Branch of the River Rouge in Plymouth Township, I-275 crosses Schoolcraft Road" doesn't tell us much about where it is. I fairly soon figured out that it had to be north of Ford Road, since Plymouth Township is north of Ford Road in the exit list. Then I had to go back and figure out what the Jeffries Freeway was, since that's not mentioned in the exit list either. I think just adding "Jeffries Freeway" in parentheses in the notes for exit 29 would do it: "Southern end of I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) concurrency".
  • I spent a few minutes with Google Maps reading the second paragraph of "original plans", and referring to the exit list, and it became much clearer. How about a long linear map of the freeway, oriented vertically in the article, with the exits numbered and intersecting roads identified? I think that would make it a lot easier to follow the prose.
  • In the section on the cancellation of the northern segment, have you made it clear to this point what that segment was proposed to be? The original plans section only seems to mention a plan to run it to Davison in passing, in the comment about a possible switch of numbers with I-75. How about starting this paragraph with "The Michigan Highway Commission canceled the northern section of the highway, originally planned to run from Novi to Davison, ..." or something like that? With any additional details about the route that are available. Though it appears that it can't actually be Novi-Davison, since Davison is 60 miles north of Novi so that wouldn't match the original total planned length of 60 miles, mentioned in the bikeway discussion.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the Holland Evening Sentinel source (note 18) it's interesting that the article doesn't mention Davison so perhaps the plan was no longer to go that far north -- in fact, they don't mention Genesee County. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it from me for tonight; I thought I could finish the review this evening but I'll pick it up again in the morning, if I have time. By the way, no need to ping me when you reply; I have the page watchlisted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't add that parenthetical to the exit list notes: the Jeffries Freeway isn't concurrent with I-275 at all; I-96 leaves the Jeffries to follow I-275. However, I can tweak the prose in the history. As for a map, I can't make that as that is outside of my capabilities. I would also note that the other FAs on Michigan's highways lack such a map, and that prose edits should be enough to work around without such a map.

Sorry, I made a typo. The northern endpoint would have been between Davisburg and Clarkson, not Davison. Imzadi 1979 →

I've struck the non-map points above; your edits address them well. I don't think I'd oppose over the map, and I take your point that previous FAC reviews of similar articles haven't required a map, but wouldn't you agree a map would be beneficial? This is an article about a geographic (albeit manmade) feature, after all. The map in the infobox is useful in giving the location, but the detailed course of the route is described in the article body with numerous place names and road names, and a map would render much of the discussion easier to follow for a reader unfamiliar with Detroit. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Major intersections table does provide a lot of what a map would accomplish. --Rschen7754 14:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but speaking as someone who spent time making sure I understood the route and the sequence of construction, that table was no substitute for having Google Maps open on a second screen. If you're not convinced, let's wait and see what other reviewers think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only reservation is that, as discussed above, I think a map would benefit the article. I don't think that's worth opposing for, since the article is comprehensive without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

All good. --Rschen7754 07:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • "The interchange with I-96 (Jeffries Freeway) on the border between Plymouth Township and Livonia is where the FHWA considers I-275 to end as they do not not any overlap with I-96" -- who is "they" and what should be there instead of "not not"? I just spotted this in passing, someone should walk through the prose once more before we promote.
  • Also how are we sourcing the exits table -- is everything covered in the text?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • They = FHWA, Ian Rose. As for the exit list, the same way every other FA on a highway does it: the map source for the specific mileposts can verify the basic details of everything in the table, from the counties/locations to the intersecting roads and the various notes about interchange configurations. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ian Rose: I also fixed that type ("...do not note...") you noted earlier. Imzadi 1979 → 06:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think I raised a similar point above. How can I use the map source for the specific mileposts to verify the basic details of everything in the table? As a newbie to this I have no idea how to do it and verify for myself. One of the options of Text Search? Map Search. This disconnect needs to be patched. starship.paint ~ KO 09:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Starship.paint and Ian Rose: this would be something that needs a wider discussion than just this FAC because there are 27 articles, all FAs, that use that same source in that exact same way.

          Now, as I understand basic citation policy, we actually do not require a source for absolutely every fact in an article. According to WP:V, essentially information has to be verifiable, not verified. Statistics need an inline source, which is why the milepost column is explicitly cited, but generally non-controversial details do not. The same source can also verify the specific locations (county plus city/village/township) for each interchange, but so could any number of other atlases. ANY map from a competent mapmaker can verify the intersecting roadways, whether that is the paper MDOT map, Google Maps, zoomed in views from the MDOT PRFA map, or any other reputable map. The notes on specific interchange configurations, because they would require a finer scale view, would require either Google Maps or the PRFA map with the dynamic scale capabilities, but I can't fathom that the verifiability or accuracy is being disputed for such mundane details, many of which are already mentioned in the Route description section. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          Since I supported above, I'll just comment here that I agree with Imzadi1979 on this. This information is verifiable, and the source given is reliable; if some specific fact requires a reader to go and look at a milestone or interchange sign to verify it, that's still verifiable. Direct observation (e.g. measuring distance between interchanges and recording it) wouldn't be acceptable, but I don't see that here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the milepost column is explicitly cited, then how can I use the MDOT Physical Reference Finder Application source to find the milepost? Could you just guide me on how the 5.454 number for Ash Township was found? starship.paint ~ KO 01:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: to determine the MPs for a Michigan highway:
  1. Load the MDOT PR Finder Map application.
  2. Click "Base Map" on the "Map Search" section.
  3. Use the Map tools to pan and zoom to the desired point of the subject highway.
  4. Once there, use the "PR/CS" tool located under "Identify" and click the northbound lanes of the highway on either side of the cross road. This will highlight a roadway segment, giving the PR (physical reference) or CS (control section) mileages. The Beginning Mile Post (BMP) for the segment will be highlighted on the map with a dark blue circle, the Ending Mile Post (EMP) will be highlighted with a red square, and each will be noted in a popup box that will appear. Depending on while side of the cross road you clicked, you'll want the BMP or the EMP to get the milepost for that crossroad's center line. For the road at exit 5 in Ash Township, the milepost is 6.297. As noted below, the southern terminus of I-275 is actually MP 0.843, resulting in a milepost for that exit of 5.454.

A few notes are in order. First, these CS mileages reset at county lines, and based on historical highway reroutings, they may even reset within a county. If we work south to north or west to east and do the necessary simple additions and subtractions, we can correct for these resets to get the overall cumulative mileages, which is how the milepost signs on the sides of the highway are numbered. Second, concurrencies can flip the direction in which mileages increase; in this case, I-96 runs in the opposite direction to I-275, so a little basic math is needed to reverse the numbers to get what I-275's mileposts would be. Because every major public road in Michigan is within this mapping tool, not just the state highways, we can find the needed mileages for any state highway, county road or city/village street. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the detailed information. Two questions then. 1) Why not cite the Base Map URL instead of the main page URL? 2) How about adding a note saying the Identify -> PR/CS functions were used to calculate the mileposts? starship.paint ~ KO 05:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Starship.paint: I could switch that link (and then change all of the other articles for consistency), but I don't quite see the point in doing so because that is just one way to get to the subject highway. You could also text search by road name, input a route number of "I-275" and select an appropriate control section to jump to the terminus or another intermediate location. For someone in the know looking at the Control Section Atlas, he could search for a specific CS by number to locate the terminus. Or search by route number and exit number to zoom to a specific interchange. In short, there are several equally valid ways from the PRFA home page. As for adding a note, that's really too much detail to attempt to shoehorn into a single citation since you're leaving out a bunch of easy-to-follow, but still important, steps by focusing on the tool only. If there really were a burning desire by others to actually verify the mundane math, I could always post a synopsis at WP:USRD/MI, but honestly, you're the first to ask for instructions in the 8 years I've been using the tool for this purpose. Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 31 July 2016 (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 "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Interstate_275_(Michigan)/archive1&oldid=1136458549"