Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Highways Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback.

For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.
Shortcut:
WP:HWY/PR

The path to a featured article

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Nominate it for Good article
  4. Check against the featured article criteria
  5. Get creative feedback from fellow WikiProject members
  6. Get creative feedback from other Wikipedia contributors
  7. Apply for featured article status
  8. Featured articles

Nomination procedure

Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts.

While not required it is strongly encouraged that users submitting new peer review requests choose an article from those already listed to peer review. Preference should be given to those articles which have been listed the longest with little or no response (not including automated peer reviews).

To add a nomination:

  1. Place {{hwypeerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page.
  3. Place ===[[ARTICLE NAME]]=== at the top, with the name of your article in the link brackets, and then note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~) and save the new page.
  4. Edit this page here, pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles and/or send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field. You may wish to simultaneously request peer review on the Wikipedia peer review page by pasting {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} on the peer review page as well.

How to respond to a request

  • Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title.
  • Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here to keep others informed about the article's progress.

How to remove a request
In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may remove to the current archive any

  • inactive listings or listings older than one month,
  • inappropriate or abandoned listings (where the nominator has not replied to comments)
  • articles that have become featured article candidates

After removing the listing, contributors should replace the {{hwypeerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldhwypeerreview}}.

How to resubmit a request
If your request has been removed, please feel free to renominate it for peer review at a later time:

  1. Move the old peer review page to [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]]
  2. Edit [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME]], removing the redirect, and insert [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/Archive1]] as a link to the archived discussion.
  3. Place {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/ARTICLE NAME}} at the top of the list of nominees below.

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] Requests

[edit] List of highways in Snohomish County, Washington

I based this list off of List of highways in Warren County, New York, which is a Featured list and I would like to see any improvements need to be made. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 02:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maryland Route 36

This is an article I want to eventually improve to GA level. I realize there currently aren't any pictures of the route; I plan to correct that in the coming week. Any comments about how this article can be improved would be appreciated. - Algorerhythms (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Images aren't really required for a GA or even an FA, but if you do include them they would certainly help add to the article, just make sure the placement of them conforms to WP:IMAGE. Another thing, which I went ahead and did myself, is putting the cities and towns list into columns, which helps conserve vertical space. That's all I can think of for now.-Jeff (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York State Route 312

I would like some feedback on the article for a future GAN, as part of my FT attempt. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Has anything happened history-wise since 1938? If not, it would be a good idea to throw in a sentence along the lines of "No further changes have occurred since.
  • May want to spell out "Southeast, New York" to alleviate any confusion about Southeast just northeast of Middle Branch Reservoir
  • Need refs for all distances, including the height of the hill. It's okay to use the NYSDOT official map for this purpose.
    • The what? NYSDOT hasn't had an "official map" in decades excluding their quadrangles. The USGS topo map is what should be used. – TMF 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the significance of CR 58 and 62? As they're not SRs they should probably have an explanation about why it's noteworthy that they intersect NY 312.
    • CR 62 is listed in the DOT traffic counts presumably because it's a junction where traffic volume changes enough to note. That said, you won't see me crying if both are tossed from the article. – TMF 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is some inconsistency wrt half-mile (0.8 km) and 0.5 miles (0.80 km). Pick one style and precision and stick with it.
    • And I thought mixing them up was good for keeping the prose fresh. Oh well. – TMF 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The jctlist says the entire thing is in Southeast. Then what's the hubub about Sears Corners, Brewster Hill, et al? May want to change things around for non-New Yorkers that don't understand its village/hamlet/city/township/aaah my head is exploding system.
    • This is how it's done project-wide in an effort to keep things straight—as it is right now, the distinction between towns and communities within them is blurred, which is what other users complained about some time ago and which is why the unofficial decision was made to limit the location column to cities, towns, and villages (basically anything that has an actual border). To make things simpler, the first instance of "hamlet" could just be linked to hamlet (place) if it's really necessary. – TMF 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If NYSDOT provides and services (roadside park, tourism center, etc.) these should be mentioned in the now-standard Services section. If not, don't worry about it. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks for the comments. I'll see what I can do about fixing everything. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As for the CRs, they're notable because they intersect the route, I guess. I don't remember adding that in, so I don't know specifically. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H-58 (Michigan county highway)

I would like some feedback. This is the first of what might be a taskforce of articles, and I would like to take it to WP:GA if others think it could be ready for that. I can't say that I see it ever as a FAC in the near future. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • From the western end, H-58 passes out of town by the Neenah Paper Mill seems sort of clunky to me. From the western end of what, H-58? The paper mill? The town?
Fixed? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • May want to feature Pictured Rocks more prominently in the RD
I'll try tossing more mentions in. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The beginning and end of gravel sections should be noted more precisely. People with e.g. new cars may want to avoid gravel roads and find a way to bypass them.
The issue is that Alger County is paving the roadway finally. On any given day, I don't know where to find where the asphalt ends. I'll see what I can dig up. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alger-Smith sawmill may need an en dash (Alger–Smith), see WP:MOSDASH for details.
En-dashed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Naming convention discussion

I think there is an issue with the article title, this highway isn't in Michigan county. --Holderca1 talk 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This follows the naming convention for Michigan. It is a county-designated highway in Michigan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it is a bad convention and should be changed. As it reads now, it is saying that it is a highway in Michigan county. Perhaps just H-58 (Michigan highway)? --Holderca1 talk 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I read it as a county highway in Michigan. now if it were H-58 (Michigan County highway) I'd read it the way you do. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That would have MOS issues since "county highway" isn't a proper name in that use. Why not just remove the possible confusion and use the naming I proposed, which would be consistent with the naming of other Michigan highway articles? --Holderca1 talk 20:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
We could change the convention to X-## (Michigan county-designated highway) then. CDH is the term used by MDOT. The word county was inserted in the parentheses to differentiate the M-## state trunklines from the X-## CDHs, where X is the zone of MI and ## is the number in the grid for that zone. MDOT only administers the numbering, not the maitenance of the CDHs. They are still county roads, and may even carry another CR designation as H-37 is also CR 407 in Luce County. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you proposing to change the M-XX series to M-XX (Michigan state highway) to match? --Holderca1 talk 01:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) No, that was settled in SRNC, and if it were to be changed, the correct form would be M-## (Michigan state trunkline highway). That would be too cumbersome, so I oppose any changes to the state trunkline naming convention. I don't see the confusion over the CDH convention though. They existed at those article names for 1.5 years until being merged into the list last fall. The word "county" is not capitalized. It was only included to differentiate the CDH articles from the trunklines. Unlike County Route 115 (Tompkins County, New York) CDHs in MI cross county lines so disambiguating solely on county is inappropriate or impossible, otherwise this might be H-58 (Alger County, Michigan) or something like that. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't proposing a change to the trunkline article titles, I thought you were. What I am trying to say is that they don't need the "county" to differentiate them, which is what the parenthetical disambiguation is for. From my quick look through the highway, there are no county and trunkline highways with the same alphanumeric designation, so adding "county" to it is unneeded, cumbersome, and confusing. I already stated that I thought this was a highway in Michigan county, so whether you think it is confusing or not is irrelevant. Also, the article starts out County Designated Highway H-58, is that the official name for it? So perhaps it should be at County Designated Highway H-58 (Michigan). Anyways, this is my last comment here, because obviously you aren't here looking for help. --Holderca1 talk 19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for feedback on the content of the article. I never imagined there would be an issue with a two-year old naming convention. *shrugs*. Normally in Michigan, they are called county roads. Only the CDHs are called highways, although sometimes they are called things like CR H-58. C-42 in Antrim and Otsego County is usually called "Alba Road" but it has as many C-42 shields as many trunklines do and it looks built to the same specs as state-maintained roads. So anyway, the "county" was tossed in there to differentiate that these aren't traditional county roads (or else it might be H-58 (Michigan county road) or H-58 (County road in Michigan)) nor are they state maintained like the M-## (Michigan highway) series of articles. Having said all of that, nobody but the two of us seems to care about the title. What do you think about the content of the article? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a discussion for another time. The history section needs some work. The first and third sentence should be moved to the "route description" since they describe the route. Do you know when it was designated or when it was built? --Holderca1 talk 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York State Route 21

Although I havn't done much work to this article yet, I would like to know what it needs then start working, and hopefully aim for FA eventually. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments
  1. The infobox needs a map. I know, you can only do so much on that, but make sure one is requested through the MTF before you take this article to the upper levels of assessments.
  2. The length should have the units linked. use the lk=on parameter in the convert template for this.
  3. Maybe more of a stylistic preference, but the counties aren't needed in the place names for the termini, IMHO. The counties aren't used in the other locations in the lead.
  4. You should include NY 21 as an abbreviation in parentheses in the lead before abbreviating the other route names.
  5. 1930 shouldn't be wikilinked in the lead, there is an article on the 1930 renumbering that should be wikilinked instead.
  6. Some things are wikilinked a second time in the beginning of the route description, but others aren't.
  7. I-390 is a redlink. Shouldn't it link to Interstate 390 (New York) instead?
  8. What's along the roadway? The route description on first read, to me anyway, sounds like a rote description of the turns and concurrencies along the route that I could get from any map. Are there any landmarks of any kind? There are some mentions, like Canandaigua Lake, but they seem like the exception, not the rule.
  9. You abbreviate state routes to NY ##, but spell out US Route 20. I'd abbreviate both.
  10. 1930 renumbering is wikilinked in the History. I'd leave that there, even with it linked in the lead. (I tend to prefer some redundancy in wikilinks between the lead and the body.
  11. Does NY 72 redirect here? I'm lost why it's bolded (and spelled out) otherwise.
  12. Why is County Route 120 in bold? CR 101 isn't. Also, CR 101 is spelled out as County Road, and CR 120 is a route. I'd fix this.
  13. Does the history need a recitation of NY 17F at all? At first reading to me, it doesn't seem relevant.
  14. The jct list looks good, but someone else more familiar with NYSR standards might want to comment.
  15. I'd only comment that where multiple shields are used in a junction listing that if they're on the same line only if they're duplexed, separate lines if multiple routes meet in common. I'm not familiar enough to know if that's the case here. Also. there's only one listing I can find on there for NY 63, even though it overlaps with NY 21 according to how I read the table.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested a map a while ago, so that should be coming in soon. The other things I can do, though. Thanks for the suggestions. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 13:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Re 8, this is one of my earliest route descriptions; therefore it isn't that good.
Re 9, I disagree. Abbreviating US and Interstate Highways can cause a non-roadgeek reader to be confused (what's "US 20"?). The possibility of said reader being confused about "NY x" is slim since the article is on a New York route. Putting "NY 21" at the outset eliminates any potential confusion.
Well, maybe a New Yorker would be confused, but not a Michiganian. We refer to highways all the time by I-##, US ## and M-## without confusion. All that would be necessary would be a "U.S. Route 20 (US 20)" on first reference to clear up that issue though, I think. It just feels inconsistent to abbreviate one various (state routes) and not another (US Highways). Plus, US 20 is abbreviated in the junction list.
Would a non-roadgeek not be confused? Also, links in the junction list/infobox ≠ links in prose per INNA and USSH
Well, to my mom, US 20 would be perfectly understandable, and she's definitely NOT a roadgeek at all. Setting aside quoting INNA and USSH, my background before I was a roadgeek is as a copy editor among other things. It's perfectly acceptable, and in fact probably preferable, from a copy editing standard to spell it out on first mention [New York State Route 21 (NY 21) or U.S. Route 20 (US 20)] and then use the abbreviation through the rest of the article. Also, on many maps or atlases, US Highways are abbreviated to US ## in the legends. The usage is hardly restricted only to the roadgeek community, so to bypass it completely is kinda silly to me.
Re 11, yes it does.
Re 12, CR 120 redirects there; CR 101 doesn't. I don't get the route/road thing; in New York, the terminology varies by county and AFAIK the proper term in Wayne County is "County Road".
Didn't know that. Here in Michigan, they're consistently all county roads unless someone is using a name (Hobbs Highway, Midway Drive, etc)
Re 13, I don't see where the recitation is.
It is as follows:
The segment of pre-1930 NY 17 between Andover and Hornell, bypassed in the renumbering, was redesignated in 1930 as part of NY 17F,[2] an alternate route of NY 17 between Andover and Addison via Canisteo.[7] In the 1940s, NY 17F was removed from the state highway system and replaced with an extended NY 36 from Andover to Hornell.[8][9] The alignments of NY 36 and NY 21 south of Hornell were flipped in the 1950s, placing both routes on their current alignments south of the city.[10][11]
I re-read the whole history. I see now that part of NY 17 is now NY 21, but it was confusing to me on the first reading. I'd clean the history up somehow to combine all the NY 17 references together if possible.
If that reference wasn't there, an editor could correctly deem that statement to be unreferenced. I attempted to write the history in a way that made the most sense - cover NY 21 as it originally existed, then cover what later became NY 21 afterward. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Re 14, the junction list meets all current NYSR standards and practices.
Re 15, your first sentence is correct. However, there is no overlap between NY 21 and NY 63. If there was an overlap between the two, it would be noted in the notes column. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I must have misread that then.
Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives