Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/2008

Comments

• • Prior to I-37, the route was served by a combination of State Highway 9 (SH 9) from Corpus Christi to Three Rivers and U.S. Route 281 (US 281) from Three Rivers to San Antonio. - "Route" could mean a few different things - please clarify.
  • Maybe link State Highway System?
  • 1 - Prior to Interstate 37, the routing for which it would follow was covered by SH 9 from Corpus Christi to Three Rivers and US 281 from Three Rivers to San Antonio. - what is "it"?
  • 2 - Three sentences in a row begin with I-37.
  • 2nd par - 2nd sentence - what is "it"?
  • US 77 merges with I-37 as a freeway from the south, the two continue to the north and split after crossing the Nueces River. I-37 continues to the northwest as US 77 continues to the northeast.[4] - run-on
  • May want to put the designation stuff in a separate paragraph.
  • Other than that, no issues - good work! --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I think I fixed them all. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - There are some glaring issues that I have addressed below.

• The article needs pictures, it currently doesn't have any. The highway passes by some pretty dramatic scenery, it should be depicted in the article.

Agreed, although that's not a problem I personally can solve, possessing neither a car nor a digital camera, and I can't think of any other USRD Wikipedians in Washington.

Actually I have some (although admittedly low-res); I can look if you want. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article seems to jump back and forth between spelling things out, then abbreviating. The route description alone bounces back from U.S. Route 12 to US 12 back to U.S. Route 12 and so forth. The same applies to the other highways, such as I-5 followed a bit later on by Interstate 82 spelled out. The best way to address this would be to spell out the first instance and follow it by the abbreviation in parathesis, for example: U.S. Route 101 (US 101) or Interstate 5 (I-5). Then you can use the abbreviation for the rest of the article.
• There are some referencing issues in the route description. Just looking at the first paragraph, I see that the first sentence is from reference 2, but the rest of that paragraph isn't referenced, where did it come from? There are several instances of this.

I see your point with the first paragraph, and the last which has none. But to what extent should the RD be referenced? Does every sentence need a reference of a different grid of the same map? Y Done -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The exit list has several issues:
  • The "West end of freeway" rows should only span the last two columns. That way if the freeway begins/ends within city limits, that can be specified and the mile marker that the freeway begins can be mentioned.
  • What is with the "See I-XX" rows? As a reader, I don't want to go to another article to get the rest of the US 12 exit list. The concurrent segments should be copied over from the other pages.
  • Why does White Pass span 2 columns?

I'll be happy to take care of the first two. White Pass spans two columns because US 12 goes over White Pass (i.e. it's not an intersecting road or destination). Y Done -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The references have some issues as well:
  • All references that are from the web need an access date.
  • I am confused by the references that start out "An act providing for..." What are these? Where are they from? I can't tell by looking at it.

Re: the first point, I thought they all did, but I do see a couple that are missing them, I'll get on that ASAP. Re: the second point, they're from the "Session Laws of the State of Washington" from the year and chapter listed. I'll fix that to clarify. Y Done -- Kéiryn ^talk 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken a detailed look at the prose yet, the above issued just jumped out at me. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, pictures, very nice indeed, I think all the issues I had have been resolved, but I noticed one more thing as I looked back through it, the very last sentence isn't referenced. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I was going to reference it, but then I realized that the sentence wasn't particularly relevant so I removed it. The article doesn't make any previous mention of the former SR 12 along the Columbia River, and it's not spectacularly important what happened to the SR 14 designation after it was removed from this roadway. If you disagree, I'll be happy to add it back with a reference. -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

*There's 9 major junctions in the infobox, which is a bit too many. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty sure the limit we agreed to was 10? -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we said 8-10 was the max. I wouldn't oppose over this, but if there's an easy junction to remove, it's probably a good idea - just because we can use 10 doesn't mean that we necessarily should. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. I originally left of SR 123, but when NE2 changed SR 410 to read "near Mount Rainier" saying it was a better location – well, it's not, cuz it's 50 miles away from that junction. So I added in SR 123 so the Mt. Rainier would be included. US 730 could feasibly be removed, the only reason it's included is because it's a US highway, but a pretty useless one IMHO. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The standard I have always used is to include all highways of equal designation or higher and add in any freeways that don't meet that criteria. So for this article, I would include all Interstate and US Highways as well as any other freeways. If that inclusion criteria brings the junctions over 10, I start paring down from junctions with equal designation that just aren't that major of highways. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It then passes through White Pass at an elevation of 4,500 feet (1,400 m). As the first place in the article with the units of feet and meters, use the |lk=on here.
• This article uses a lot of parentheses, more than any other article I've reviewed. I'm not in a position to state if this is appropriate or not, and would not vote oppose solely on this. However, you may want to have an english major look over it.
• Are the exits numbered on the freeway portions not multiplexes with intestates? I would infer no by the Exit List Guide. If they are a column should be added.
• I second the comment above: this needs some pictures. My own opinion is to try to get a pic of the Lewis-Clarkston bridge. If its important enough to mention in the ELG it should have a picture.
• I second the comment above: the article goes back and forth between U.S. Route 12 and US 12. Your nomination is in the same position as mine about the inconsistency of the infobox (US 12 verses US-12) so I won't hold you to that one.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions, and I'll implement them as soon as I get off wikibreak in a few hours. I'm having a little trouble following a couple of them though. As far as I can tell, I can't see anything in ELG about when it's required to use a column for the exit number. If anything, I would use the opposite logic you're implying here – since the exits are only numbered along concurrencies, we shouldn't have a mostly-empty column for the exit number. That being said, on a second glance at the article, quite a few of the junctions are numbered, so the column wouldn't be that empty, so I don't have much of a problem adding it. Saves wordiness in the notes column at any rate.

Regarding the last one, it's a moot point since I am going to go over the prose with a fine toothed comb to make the abbreviation usage consistent and to weed out unnecessary parentheses, but as far as I can tell, the issue here and with the Utah article are slightly different. Here, the question is when is an abbreviation is used? – but when it's used, it's always US 12 (except maybe the Idaho line in the infobox, which I can fix by bypassing the template). There the question is which abbreviation is used (US 50 vs. U.S. 50 vs. US-50). But again moot point, and either way I'll get around to fixing it shortly. -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Idaho line is "US-12" because that's how the Idaho DOT writes it. --NE2 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the first time I read Dave's comments, I couldn't quite understand what he was talking about, but now I do. Since we're talking about two different DOTs, there's no harm in keeping a rogue "US-12". (However, since in the I-70 article, we're only talking about one DOT, then the prose probably should have been changed to US-50 instead of US 50 because that would solve the inconsistency problem.) -- Kéiryn ^talk 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the above concerns – except for the lack of pictures – should be corrected now. -- Kéiryn ^talk 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK let round 2 begin: =-)

• Lead: The lead jumps back and forth between the Washington portion of US 12 and the national portion. I would change the following to be clear: "although portions of it are concurrent" -> although portions of US 12 in Washington are concurrent...
• Lead: Maybe add a sentence or two to better summarize the history section. IMO it's inadequately represented.
• Route description: "US 12 exits itself" should be re-worded, that's confusing to non-roadgeeks.
• "The former secondary State Road 5 was realigned to head not east but north from near Packwood, alongside the Ohanapecosh River to the old McClellan Pass Highway at Cayuse Pass, west of the summit of the Cascades." IMO this sentence needs some work, maybe "The former secondary State Road 5 was realigned starting near Packwood following the Ohanapecosh River to the old McClellan Pass Highway at Cayuse Pass."
• "now included four entrances to the vicinity of Mount Rainier National Park," Shouldn't that be in the vicinity?
• "but was not yet drivable across the Cascades at Chinook Pass" this sounds rough to me, perhaps "but the route across Chinook Pass was not yet finished"?

More to come. Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that's my observations. I still think it needs photos, I hope you can find some. I noticed some of the sub articles have pictures (Chinook pass, etc.) maybe those can work.Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a change of heart regarding the photos... I should be able to get some between Aberdeen and Yakima this Saturday, and some of the Clarkston/Lewiston area the following Saturday. Sniffing around other articles is a brilliant idea as well. I should get around to fixing your prose suggestions either today or tomorrow. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Dave's round two concerns above should be addressed. -- Kéiryn ^talk 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PHOTOS!!! :-D So ummm.... what else can I do ya for? -- Kéiryn ^talk 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is very close. I only have one concern. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article.

• Unlike several other U.S. Highways in the Western United States (notably US 99 and US 66), U.S. Route 12 remained after the Interstate Highway System was established, although portions of it in Washington are concurrent with Interstate 5 (I-5) and Interstate 82.

This statement appears to be original material. I don't see anywhere else where the the article there the decommissioning of US routes due to the formation of interstate highways is discussed. It's also misleading, as per the history section US 12 in WA wasn't fully established until 1967, after the Interstate Highway system was established.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right, that's just something I threw in to pad the lead. Consider it stricken. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this work? The part about it not paralleling interstate highways is easily citable using a map, although it's not currently explicitly stated in the route description section. I suppose I could expand the r.d. a bit to make it so. Hmmm... -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

all of my concerns resolved. However, I second the grammar concerns Rschen has noticed. Fix those, and I'm happy. Dave (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

*Comments Starting with RD

• • U.S. Route 12 begins in Aberdeen on a pair of one-way streets; Heron Street eastbound and Wishkah Street westbound.[2] - just use a comma
  • US 12 then leaves Aberdeen to the east, paralleling the Chehalis River, mostly on a four-lane divided highway, passing through the towns of Central Park and Montesano.[3] - could improve on that sentence's structure
  • It passes through the town of Mossyrock, intersecting SR 122, then passes by Mossyrock Dam and Riffe Lake. - try to use a different verb the second time around.
  • In the town of Morton, it intersects SR 7 comma which heads north to Tacoma.[8]
  • It then ascends the Cascade Range, passing south of Mount Rainier, and intersects SR 123comma which serves the Stevens Canyon entrance of Mount Rainier National Park.[9]
  • It then... It then... change one of those
  • Descending from the mountains,
  • US 12 then runs concurrent - is it "concurrently" or "concurrent"? Not sure on this one.

    It should be concurrently. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the portion east of the Tri-Cities gets glossed over - having driven on part of this road, there is stuff to write about...
  • More later once the RD concerns have been addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the route description slightly, and hopefully addressed all of the above except...

• Descend can be used as a transitive verb, so this is correct. Ascend is also properly used in its transitive sense in the previous paragraph.
• I'll get to the "east of the Tri-Cities" section tomorrow. :-P

-- Kéiryn ^talk 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. 1,000 apologies for the delay. -- Kéiryn ^talk 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• History - First paragraph - hard to tell how this is connected with US-12. I mean, it leaves the reader to guess.
• This differed from present US 12 between Elma and Naches, in that it followed the route through Olympia and Tacoma rather than along the Cowlitz River. - no comma
• Washington introduced a new system of sign route numbers in 1964 - may want to link to renumbering article if it's not done so already.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This diff shows the changes I made. Does the bit I added to the first paragraph allay your concerns? Or does it need more? -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be good. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I haven't been able to give it a full review yet but on first glance, I have these comments:

• The lead is a bit short for an article of this length, probably should be about twice as long as it is currently.Y Done
• At the very beginning of the "Route description" section, there is a very short paragraph. This needs to be expanded to a full paragraph.Y Done
• There are some paragraphs without any citations, you should have at least one citation for each paragraph.Y Done
• There are some prose issues, I haven't looked at all, but there are some short choppy sentences, for example "The Steel Bridge" section has the following sentences: "The state found an unusual solution." "The bridge is still in place."Y Done
• In the exit list, you have the concurrencies color coded, you should also but the concurrency in the notes as well, something like "South end of US 41 concurrency" will workY Done

I will have more later. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of these suggestions. I appreciate any feedback on them and further suggestions. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I said I would have more, didn't realize it would take this long to get back to it.

• Is there a specific reason you use a slash rather than parenthesis for the distance conversions? The reason I ask is due to the infobox using paranthesis.

The infobox is hard-coded that way, but in the first sentence, the distance is an adjective. The sentence without conversion reads: "M-35 is a 127.99-mile state trunkline...." By adding in the conversion without the slash, the template would produce "M-35 is a 127.99-mile (205.95 km) state trunkline...." Turning on the slash notation pushes both units over to the adjective form. That's why I did it that way.

Umm, okay, but the stuff in parenthesis isn't actually part of the sentence and doesn't need to be in adjective form. All it is stating is that 127.99 miles is 205.95 kilometers. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You fixed this one, but you really didn't have to reword the sentence, using the "sing=on" parameter will hypenate the number and unit. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• What is the "Lake Michigan Circle Tour"?

It's a redlink that doesn't have an article yet which conceivably will in the next few weeks. I will entertain suggestions for fluidly integrating any explanation into the prose. the LMCT is equivalent to the Lake Superior Circle Tour but around Lake Michigan instead.

This one hasn't been resolved. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The redlink has a stub created for it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Spell out the first time you use a new highway designation and follow it with the abbreviation in paranthesis, for example, "U.S. Route 2 (US 2)"

Michigan doesn't call them routes, they're US Highways here (Yes, where spelled out in street address, it's US Highway 41, never US Route 2). I didn't change this yet pending my followup question. Can I use US Highway when the rest of USRD "standardized" on US Route which isn't the MI usage?

You can use whichever you want since both are correct in the real world, US Route is just the standard for article titles. Also remember that it doesn't really matter what Michigan calls them, this is an international encyclopedia. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why do we have templates that abbreviate it I-XX or IH-XX or US XX or US-XX based on state usage in an inconsistent manner? That's why I asked about using the "correct" regional term in use here before I spell that out and get dinged for saying "highway" and not "route". With that settled, that's fixed.

Huh? Not sure what you are arguing here, I said you could use U.S. Highway. U.S. Highway is in widespread enough use that it wouldn't be unclear to use it. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've been dinged enough for using more Michigan-specific terminology in an article on a highway in the state of Michigan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, the first time US 2 and US 41 are linked is about halfway through the route description, but not linked the first three times they are mentioned.
• Spell out Michigan Department of Transportation.

Oopsy, a little reorganization put new "first mentions" ahead of the old ones. Y Done on US 2/US 41 and MDOT.

• There are quite a few geographic features in the history section that aren't wikilinked.

No articles exist for those features. The links were removed to reduce the redlinks. Some of these features aren't notable enough to be given articles but still fall along the routing of the trunkline.

What about Huron Mountains and Baraga County among others? --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just had to move the word counties into the wikilink (the word Baraga in the first mention of Baraga County was wikilinked, count(ies) wasn't. Huron Mountains was in the lead as well. N Not done

I'm not talking about the lead, I am talking about the history section, these need linked in the history section as well as well as any other rivers, mountains, cities and counties (all of which are notable enough). --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks only need to be used on first mention, not first mention in each section. Also, most of these rivers are like the county roads in the NY 174 article. They aren't notable on their own to have an article, but they are landmarks along the route worth mentioning. Wikilinking subjects without the notability for an article breeds permanent redlinks, something that would then earn criticism for the article. So I ask, which do you want, a redlink farm or no wikilinks? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You may want to review MOS:LINK#Internal links. It doesn't say anything about only linking the first mention. It actually does mention linking at the first mention in a section for readers that may skip to a particular section without reading a prior section. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tons of redundant links added. Y Done

• Dead river is linked in "The Steel Bridge" section, but not in the section prior. Y Done
• The external link to "Marquette County Road Commission" needs to be changed to an internal link

Link removed. The MCRC isn't notable on its own to have an article. Y Done

• "Ford's membership would ultimately come with the cancellation of M-35 in the Huron Mountains" is unreferenced. Y Done

*"The proposed highway would not cross much Club property, only two 40-acre/16-hectare parcels. This property would not be enough to ensure the requisite ownership needed to halt road construction." is unreferenced. Y Done

• What is BUS M-28? Is that a bus only highway? Okay seriously anyway, should probably be written "what is now M-28 Business" or "what is now a business route of M-28"

BUS M-28 is a state trunkline in the Ishpeming-Negaunee area in Michigan. The street blade signs where not referencing one of the many other street names are signed as BUS M-28. MDOT might use M-28BR in documents, but the common name is BUS M-28. If its spelled out, which is rare, it's Business M-28 or Business Loop M-28. Which form would others prefer here? State trunklines not a part of the Interstate or US Highway systems don't exactly have a long form, they're all just M-##.

If there isn't an official long spelling, than I might recommend "what is now BUS M-28, a business route of M-28, ..." Y Done

• There are some strange formatting things going on with the junction list, some of the column headers are centered, but "Mile" isn't and "Notes" isn't.

They are in Safari. What browser are you using? I've never seen the MIinttop template not center the headers.

I think I found the problem, most of the time it will center them properly, but if the cell is stretched wider than what is specified, it still centers it on what is specified. Is there a reason, that the width is specified in {{MIinttop}}? I typically haven't seen the width specified like that. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I didn't make the template, and creating/editing templates is outside of my experience on here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it, it no longer forces a specific width which isn't necessary anyways. The column headers center correctly in all browsers now. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• In junction list, "Very short 286-foot/87-meter concurrency to cross railroad tracks," as opposed to a "Very long 286-foot/87-meter concurrency..." Replace with "A 286-foot..." Y Done

Okay, that is all I have following a much overdue full review (I can't promise I won't see something else when I review your changes :) ). --Holderca1 ^talk 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am striking through my comments that have been resolved. Also, do not hide someone elses comments claiming they have been resolved. It is up to the reviewer to determine that. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I honestly thought all issues from the first review (not your second) were resolved and to simplify tracking when I reload the page, I hid them (which didn't erase them.) That's why I used "Round 1" in the template seeing that you did two somewhat separate reviews. Mea culpa Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of tiny thoughts from me for the moment:

• The two most glaring holes in citations at the moment:
  • "Around the creation of the U.S Highway System in 1926, M-35 was extended southerly along US 2/US 41 from Gladstone to Escanaba."Y Done
  • The entire first paragraph of #After FordY Done
• In the last paragraph of "Henry Ford and M-35", you have a bare quote – "By 1929, M-35 was dead in its tracks and Henry Ford was a member." I realize it's cited, but it needs something in the article text to say where it came from, and to make it flow better in the text.Y Done
• Same paragraph: "between US$80-100,000" – technically correct I suppose, but it took me a moment to realize you meant between $80,000 and $100,000.
  • Not sure what to do though. $80,000-100,000 looks worse to me, stylistically. Maybe other reviewers will help out with this?
    • I parsed through the MOS, the closest example I could find is this one (and I realize this is on unit conversion not range of numbers) the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from'. If you want to push it, "ranges" should be a section under numbers in the MOS and I think this is a relatively important omission. The good news is you can't be held to a standard that doesn't exist yet =-)Davemeistermoab (talk)

-- Kéiryn ^talk 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Lead.

• Lead: Suggest "...connecting the cities of Menominee, Escanaba..." Y Done
• Route description: M-35 is also listed on the National Highway System along the US 2/US41 concurrency. (Delete "as well") Y Done
• Infobox: What's up with the M-35 in the major junctions, this highway has 2 junctions with itself?

This is how we first denoted major concurrencies in the infobox, pre-junction list tables. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lead: Put Upper Peninsula (U.P.) next to the first instance in the lead. You use U.P. a lot in the article without formally defining it for us non-Michiganders. =-) Y Done
• Route Description: "Large piles of waste rock". The term I've always heard for this is Overburden. At a minimum link via a piped link if not actually changing the prose. Y Done
• Major intersections: I don't think you need "Very short", 286 ft speaks for itself.

More later Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also put in the non-breaking spaces and cleaned up the junction list slightly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. There are more quotations in this article than I've seen in any other Wikipedia article, especially one about a road. There doesn't seem to be a policy on this, but to me, it doesn't seem like good writing. I take that back – it's very well-written for a college term paper, but when I look in an encyclopedia article, I don't expect to see all these quotations. Maybe that's just me, and I guess since it's not policy or project standards, I'm not supposed to oppose on those grounds. So if you want to use quotes, try to make sure you're using them properly. On second glance, there are a lot of what I called "bare quotes" in my first tiny review. Just throwing a quotation in without any attribution throws off the reader (at least it does if I'm the reader :-P). Also, per WP:MOSQUOTE, "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." And, while it's just an essay, WP:QUOTE says a lot of what I'm trying to say here:

Similarly, quotations should always be introduced in articles as stand alone quotations are not proper paragraphs. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation.

Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information.

Where this becomes a particular problem is the blockquote in #The Steel Bridge. I assumed that paragraph was just formatted weirdly accidentally, it wasn't until I looked at the wikicode to try to fix it that I realized it was supposed to be a quote. The only other problem I can see at the moment is the major junctions in the infobox issue Dave pointed out above. If that's the way WP:MISH did concurrencies in the past, okay, but that's the past, and it should probably be fixed now, since M-35 doesn't have a junction with itself. -- Kéiryn ^talk 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was taught that when you can't say the same thing as the author in your own words as simply as the author to quote them, credit them with a parenthetical reference or footnote and move on. Wikipedia articles are more akin to the college term paper in that both use in-line citations (currently favoring footnoting) and a reference list at the end. The typical general-reference encyclopedia does not list sources inline or at the end of each article. Growing up we had a copy of Collier's Encyclopedia on the shelf. As I recall, the sources were listed in the last volume for the whole set.

I stand by my usage of quotations in this article. Quoting Rydholm verbatim and citing him as the source of the quotation precludes any possibility of copyright infringement of what is essentially a list. If you don't like the blockquote, feel free to rewrite it. The quotation is a continuation of the previous paragraph, but since it's more than one sentence, it's more appropriate to set it off as a blockquote. A blockquote is not it's own paragraph, it's just a different way of formatting a long quote. It could be put in traditional " " but I was taught multiple-sentence quotes are done this way. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if you want to keep using quotes, that's fine, and I'm not going to oppose on those grounds – mostly because I can't because it's not against policy/standards/etc. However, if you're going to do so, you need to do so correctly. WP:MOSQUOTE is a guideline, so it needs to be followed when it says to attribute the author of a direct quotation in the article text, not just in a footnote. I wasn't disagreeing with the use of a blockquote – that is being done properly there. I was just saying that there, particularly, you need an attribution like you have with the first blockquote in the route description. Without an attribution, either as part of the blockquote or in the paragraph immediately introducing it, it's not clear that it's a quote, so the reader is just left wondering why it's indented funny. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your comments better now, so I think I have this addressed with a 10-character or so edit. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, MISH is its own wikiproject, so it can set a few protocols for its articles on its own. M-35 junctions with a highway labeled as US 2/US 41/M-35. The infobox and the lead are the cheat sheet for the article. Unless the infobox is changed somehow (and we've been over this before a few times in the past) MISH operating practice has been to use the shields in the infobox to show major concurrencies. This is a piece of info that wouldn't be easily and consistently shown outside of the color-coded junction list table. M-35 isn't the only article that uses this convention in MISH and this convention was settled on over a couple of graphic icons. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

MISH can set all the protocols it wants, but this isn't the MISH A-Class review. And I'm not really arguing on USRD standards either, since I don't think USRD specifies anything specific regarding concurrencies in the junction list in the infobox. I am arguing it on the grounds that it's just plain incorrect. M-35 does not junction a highway labeled as US 2/US 41/M-35. It junctions a highway labeled as US 2/US 41, then those highways merge. The only time a highway junctions itself is when it doesn't really, but it splits off a branch that doesn't have a separate designation, or a case like Washington State Route 100, where part but not all of the route forms a loop, so it intersects itself at the "end" of the loop. I suppose you could say a highway also intersects itself when it splits to form a one-way couplet, but M-35 falls into none of these categories, so it doesn't have any junctions with itself. -- Kéiryn ^talk 04:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the working practice that's being used in the Michigan articles established at [9]. Nowhere at USRD's standards contradict this practice. If you disagree with the consensus established a year and a half ago, we can move the discussion to an appropriate forum if you like. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

USRD standards don't contradict this practice, and I never said they did. But M-35 is not a junction on M-35, so you can't list it in a row in the infobox called major junctions. Strongly oppose promoting this article to A-class until incorrect information is removed from the article. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kéiryn, Texas State Highway Loop 323 intersects itself, this highway doesn't. Listing it as a junction of itself implies that it intersects itself, not that there is a concurrency there. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I will ask for the record what is the non-MISH preferred method for denoting major junctions that are major concurrencies in the infobox? Since you both object to a practice followed for nearly two years by a "fully-functioning" Wikiproject, I need to know what to propose then over at the MISH talk pages. I strongly oppose the implications however, that reviewers in a USRD-sponsored forum are overriding MISH when USRD's unwritten scope has been set up to say that except where project assessment standards are concerned each project is free to decide details. While this process is about the promotion in assessment class, these oppositions are about a specific method for showing a specific piece of information in an infobox on the side of an article. We're not even disagreeing with the prose of the article itself! Yes, I could just remove a few bits of text and a shield, and it seems you'd both flip to supports, but then this article falls outside of the MISH consensus. I won't make any change until there's a clear consensus, and I think the best forum for that consensus debate is at MISH, not hear.

Setting that aside, do either of you have any other issues/concerns/objections, addressed or not, outside the infobox from your reviews? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've said at least twice, this doesn't have anything to do with USRD standards infringing on your fully functioning project. In fact, very few of the suggestions at this or any of the other reviews have anything to do with project standards. They have to do with clarifying stuff, copyediting, referencing, and just general perfections. The major junctions line in the infobox needs to be clarified, since right now it reads as if M-35 intersects itself when it doesn't. If MISH standards are causing articles to be unclear, then yes, those standards need to be changed.

Interestingly, I can't see where in the talk page archive you linked to earlier it says to list the article route. There's just a rough consensus that says to just list it as a junction, with little specifics as to how to do that. In terms of how other states deal with concurrencies in the infobox, they do exactly that, just list it as a junction. In this case, we'd just list one junction with US 2/US 41 in Escanaba, and a second one in Gladstone. (In other words, yes, just remove M-35, and everything's a-ok.) Now of course, this isn't terribly specific... are there two highway alignments between Escanaba and Gladstone? A concurrency? Is US 2/US 41 discontinuous between there? But that's okay, it's an infobox, it's not supposed to have all the information. As long as everything in the infobox is correct, and it has enough information to give a quick overview of the route, it's all good. It can be clarified exactly what's going on between Escanaba and Gladstone in the article text.

As for other issues, well yeah. You haven't even really begun to touch the quotes. Adding the words "From MDOT" before the blockquote is a tiny, tiny step. I'm curious as to why you think that's enough for that blockquote, but the other blockquote gets a full sentence beforehand ("MDOT's press release states") and a pretty little attribution underneath. Plus, all the inline quotes still need a similar attribution. -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All except the bridge block quote (which doesn't have the cute little attribution that the other blockquote gets since the page isn't signed) have been reworked/eliminated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose for now because I've found some serious problems in the first few sentences.

• • Convert templates should be used in the first sentence.

It is.

Well you shouldn't use a slash there...

Rewrote the sentence since no one seems to like a perfectly acceptable version of the convert template so that it isn't a numerical adjective.

• • State trunkline?

The official term, as used on road signs is "state trunkline". All highways under MDOT's jurisdiction are trunklines as explained at Michigan highway system.

I think what he is getting at is that it should say state highway since it is in fact a state highway. Using state trunkline is getting a little jargonish. So if you want to use state trunkline, you probably need to have it say "M-28 is a state trunkline, a state highway in the U.S. state of Michigan, ..." to help explain to the reader what exactly a state trunkline is. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you quoted the lead of an article that passed ACR in the ACR for another article. Anyway road signs in Michigan use the "trunkline" terminology and have for 80 years. Anyone interested in what a "state trunkline" is can simply click the link like any other term (including state highway) for an explanation. That's standard Wikipedia practice. The lead should define what it is in the best terminology and for 80 years in Michigan, that's "trunkline". In the article on a Ford Thunderbird, we don't define the word automobile in the lead, do we? We wikilink to an article on automobiles. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But people know what an automobile is. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think both of you make valid points. IMHO, the version as is is okay, but if someone thinks it should be clarified, it worth considering doing so. I think Holderca's suggestion is a great way to make that clarification – and I don't think it's remotely funny to quote another A-class article here. If anything it's common sense, "Here's what's worked in the past to get articles to A-class, maybe we should apply the same thing here." That being said, if Holderca's suggestion seems a bit wordy, maybe a good compromise would be to just change it to "state trunkline highway"? -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

State trunkline is just not a common term that everyone is familiar with. I had never heard of it before reading through a few Michigan highway articles. State highway isn't technically incorrect so I am not understanding the big reluctance to change it. The article is even included in the Category:State highways in Michigan. It doesn't make sense to force a reader to jump to another article to figure out what a term is when a another word can be used that is understood by just about everyone. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that's not how M-28 is/was worded. Both M-28 and M-35 are worded the same. As to the category argument, there are categories for US Routes in Michigan even though Michiganians call them highways.

M-28 isn't being review, M-35 is. You can't use what another article does as a valid arguement since you have different reviewers from one review to the next. I didn't participate in the M-28 review, neither did Rschen7754 or Kéiryn. Even if we did, it doesn't mean that we catch everything and it doesn't mean that M-28 is currently perfect since it passed through ACR. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• • overall north-south direction comma connecting the cities of...

I don't think a comma is correct there.

I probably would use a comma there, but it's definitely optional. -- Kéiryn ^talk 03:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Final sentence on first paragraph - needs punctuation to make it clearer - now it's a run-on.

Yup, the comma should have been a semi-colon. Fixed.

• • M-35 is an original state trunkline that was first designated on 1 July 1919, Y Done
  • Automobile pioneer Henry Ford helped stop this construction to get into the exclusive Huron Mountain Club. - sentence is not clear

Fixed.

• • That's just in the lead - I'll continue reviewing when the lead is fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed what needs fixing and commented on the rest for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Section 1 (RD) - except the section concurrent with US Highway 2/US Highway 41 (US 2/US 41). - what a mess. Say U.S. Route 2 and U.S. Route 41.

It was requested that I spell out the names. In Michigan, it's US Highway ##. We don't do "routes" here unless talking about Route 66. Per comments from holderca1 above, it didn't matter which version to use, both are correct, so I chose the local vernacular. Street addresses would be either #### US 2/US 41 or #### US Highway 2(/US Highway 41) etc.

• The first three sentences are a bit choppy.

I gave them another go 'round with the keyboard. Any better? Any other suggestions? (Yes, I know the UP of the US state of MI isn't the best flowing, but when you have a state physically divided in two and this being an international project...)

No, I meant the first few sentences of the RD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Worked through them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• City of M - city probably shouldn't be capitalized?

It should if you are differentiating from the Township of Negaunee/Negaunee Township. The two municipalities are politically independent.

So the "City of" should be part of the wikilink then. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And so it is now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• 1.1 - M-35 is the shorter highway routing - as opposed to what?
• On the south side of Escanaba, M-35 runs into town on Lake Shore Drive comma passing the Delta County Airport before turning onto Lincoln Road.
• E-W and N-S axes - spell out - may want to explain what this is a little more
• Here, M-35 joins the National Highway System.[4] - maybe "From here to _"?
• 1.2 - malformed link
• Inside Gwinn, the highway follows Pine Street northwest comma' passing through the downtown of the community and out to residential areas along Pine and Iron streets.
• Third paragraph - try combining the first 2 sentences.
• 2.1 - In 1919, the State Department of Highways, forerunner to today's MDOT comma determined a scenic shoreline trunkline to run north from Negaunee to Big Bay and then turn towards Skanee and L'Anse. - also, shouldn't it be "designated"?
• 2nd par - clarify what "this" is.
• 2.2 - This bridge is known to locals as "The Steel Bridge". - period in the quotes
• Plans are in the works by the Marquette County Road Commission to bypass the Steel Bridge with a modern replacement, but leave the existing bridge as a foot or bike path.[24] The "but leave the..." phrase seems a bit odd to me.
• 2.3 - Only an attorney-general's opinion that if two-thirds of the property owners over which the road would pass objected, the road would be stopped. - poorly written sentence
• 2.4 - This left a discontinuous routing for 13 years. - 13 supposed to be spelled out?
• 2nd paragraph - try combining first two sentences
• 3rd paragraph - odd way of starting the first sentence.
• 2nd sentence - I had to reread it a few times to understand it. Maybe it should be rephrased...
• 4th paragraph - sentences a bit choppy

Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

• Mostly minor stuff, but here goes:
• Can you change the first word of the second sentence of the lead to "travels" or something instead of "runs"? "Runs" is already used at the end of the first sentence, and I'd just like to see some varying word choice.
• The southern portion of M-35 in Menominee and Delta counties carries additional designations as a portion of the Lake Michigan Circle Tour and the U.P. Hidden Coast Recreational Heritage Trail, part of the Michigan Heritage Routes system. "...counties carries..." would sound better as "...counties carry".
  • The subject of that sentence is "southern portion", so the subject-verb agreement is correct. But perhaps the sentence could be reworded to make it sound better? -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it is the right subject-verb, but yea, I think it could be reworded better. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Automobile pioneer Henry Ford helped stop this construction to get membership in the exclusive Huron Mountain Club. Would "Gain membership..." be better?
• On 2007-08-26, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) announced that this 64-mile/103-kilometer section... but then later in the section, ...taking US 41 results in a distance of 65 miles (105 km) versus 55 miles (89 km) along M-35. Try to make the metric conversion structure consistent.

Okay, I've mentioned this before up above. The first quote you have uses the distance as what I call a numerical/unit adjective. I'm sure there's another term in use for it. Both the number and the unit together modify the word "section". It's not just a section, it's a 64-mile section. Now when we're doing Wikipedia, we need the metric. The convert template should be fixed so that when the adj=on modifier is used (to produce 64-mile instead of 64 miles) that the conversion in parentheses would also be "(103-kilometer)". The only way to force the convert template to make the change on the metric is to use the slash notation. Of course the easy way out would be to force the slash notation elsewhere so we'd have "65 miles/105 km" etc, but then the infobox doesn't match. I hate to rewrite every sentence so that no distance is a numerical/unit adjective though. That makes the prose too... similar and boring. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this issue that's come up a number of times before, the correct way to do things like the first case is the default {{convert}} with adj=on. In other words, "this 64-mile (103 km) section..." This is because (1) per WP:MOSNUM, the converted units should be abbreviated – even on first mention – and (2) per WP:HYPHEN, when you're abbreviating units, "103 km" without the hyphen is the adjectival form. I hope that clarifies things.

(FWIW, I do agree that it'd be great if there were an easy way to force it to spell out both units and use parentheses though.) -- Kéiryn ^talk 01:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.

• Can you link to Escanaba?

Where is the link missing? The first mention in the second sentence of the lead has it linked. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see it in the body of the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Tons of redundant wikilinks added

• M-35 turns northwesterly. Possibly M-35 turns northwestward?

Both are correct though, and my preference is sometimes northwesterly. Both versions are in use throughout the article to mix it up though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just as well. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll have more for the history later, but that should be good for the time being. Good work, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Request — After reading through all of the comments and arguments and counter-arguments, let me see if I can distill the remaining issues to a list.

1. The infobox junctions list. This will likely not be fixed before this ACR is completed. I will not make an edit contrary to MISH practices until MISH changes practices. This is not the correct forum for that debate. Instead that debate needs to happen at wither WT:MISH (preferable) or WT:USRD. If any other editor in good faith makes that edit, I will not revert however.
2. Usage of quotations. I think this issue has been cleared up. If it hasn't, please cite specific instances with reasoning why. Simply saying look at WP:QUOTE is not useful.
3. Trunklines. M-35 is a state trunklline. A Ford Thunderbird is an automobile. (This is the example used in WP:LEAD, btw.) WP doesn't advocate inclusion of a specific definition of the word "automobile" in the lead of the article on Thunderbirds. Why should this article be any different. The proposed example above produces inelegant prose that would be reverted for that reason. I will entertain other suggestions that produce clear, concise prose without sacrificing the definition used for 80+ years in Michigan, which is "trunkline".
4. Wikilinking. Unless I missed a specific example, all notable geographic locations have wikilinks on first mention in every section. Are there any specific links that should be added, and why?
5. Conversion template usage. These should all be fixed by now be rewriting the prose to avoid using cases best served by the slash notation.

Did I miss any? I grow weary and want to start wrapping this up soon. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But automobile is not jargon and thus, not in violation of a WP guideline. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt and honest, your attitude kinda sucks. We're all here trying to help improve this article, and you came here asking for our help. There's a message at the bottom of the edit window saying, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it." Perhaps we need one here saying, "If you don't want your writing to be reviewed mercilessly, do not submit it." I've got other things I could be doing with my wikitime (and, frankly, IRL too), but I'm here trying to improve articles, not to give you grief or make you weary.

1. All right, fine. I made a good faith edit because I thought it improved the article. This was the correct forum to at least start discussion, since the purpose of these sorts of reviews is to get a broader set of eyes to an article to catch things others may have missed. In this case, people who weren't members of MISH realized that that particular standard made the article somewhat unclear. Continuing to complain about how this wasn't the proper forum is beating a dead horse, since the topic was dropped here and moved to WT:MISH/WT:USRD.
2. I'm actually offended by this remark. I never simply said to look at WP:QUOTE. Every time I mentioned quotations, I did so in a full paragraph expressing my opinion, and quoted the exact portions of WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:QUOTE that applied.
3. Another clear, concise suggestion was provided. Just add the word "highway", as in "state trunkline highway", which is how it's used in a number of state law and MDOT sources.
4. Your responses to the wikilink issue above almost had me posting a remark regarding your attitude before you posted your numbered list rant. Clearly if Holderca1's comment is backed up my WP:MOSLINK, then those weren't "tons of redundant links".
5. I'm pretty sure that here I explained how to fix the {{convert}} usage without rewording your sentences – again citing the Manual of Style. So I'm really not sure why you felt the need to fix them, and then decide, "No, I'm going to reword the sentence anyway." This sentence no longer makes sense. And given that the Manual of Style prescribes a certain way, no, those cases are not better served by a slash notation.

I do apologize for responding to attitude with attitude. I too am growing weary of this review, but I will stick it out as long as you do. Note that even though I've fixed the infobox, my oppose vote stands. I've noticed a couple of other things, and I'll post a thorough re-review tomorrow. -- Kéiryn ^talk 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No one from NYSR complained when the colors were removed from the junction list on NY 174 against current project standards; instead, the issue was taken to NYSR and USRD after the ACR...where it generated no real responses except for some random irrelevant comments. One day I'll probably just disable the colors in the NY template call ({{NYint}}) and see if anyone notices. Anyway, A-Class review is supposed to be a FAC-like process in which we find things that FAC may not accept, and through this process it may be necessary to change project standards as necessary (that is partially how the "community box" phaseout began in NY, because it was removed from an article as part of an ACR). – TMF 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Hid my comments above; here's what's still bugging me now that the infobox has been fixed.

• Upper Peninsula – the first time you mention it, you put "UP" in parentheses. However in the remainder of the article text, you spell it out twice, abbreviate it as "UP" once, and as "U.P." twice. Personally, I would probably spell that out every time, since it's not used often enough to be repetitive, but at the very least, be consistent about which abbreviation you're using.

  Ok, I can understand this. The area is usually just called the UP (no periods) in everyday speech around the northern part of Michigan, but MDOT inserted the periods in the official name of the heritage route designation. I'll pull the periods from the prose, but the MDOT source titles I'll leave alone though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Here M-35 is the closest trunkline to the Lake Michigan shoreline while on the northern section..." – northern section of what?

  Easy fix and good catch. Stray ";" removed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  That sentence still isn't clear to me. It probably needs a comma before "while", but I think the bigger problem is that it's not exactly clear what "here" refers to. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. "Along the southern section..." instead of "Here...". I think that fixes it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "M-35 is primarily a two-lane roadway..." – citing these lane configurations would be great.

  Map citation added. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Large piles of waste rock from the mining operations tower like mountains over the roadway." – kudos on the nice imagery, but it's not encyclopedic tone.

  Removed "like mountains" from the sentence. How's that sound now? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm still not liking "tower over the roadway" – the artistic language seems more like you're trying to write a book about the highway than an encyclopedia article – but this isn't really something I'd oppose over. Personally I'd just go with "line the roadway". -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "M-35 on paper was shown as continuing north and looping to L'Anse." – "On paper" to me seems like jargon, there may be a way to reword this for a wider audience. Something as simple as "It was planned to continue north..." should suffice I'd think.

  Well, it was on maps such as the 1932 map shown in the article. I changed it to "M-35 on maps was shown..." If not, well, I'll entertain another idea. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Local Upper Peninsula historian Fred Rydolm offers up..." – "offers up" also seems like a tone issue to me.

  Fixed? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The state found an unusual solution in a bridge two states away." – tone?

  Hmm... not sure how to rework this one. MI wasn't in the habit of buying up other state's bridges. I guess until I find a better variation (and I'll gladly take some suggestions here) I'll comment it out for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  I was going to post a solution here, but then I realized my proposal was just rewording the first sentence of the quote following it. It's probably fine without the sentence you commented out, since the quote calls the bridge "rare" – although it's not particularly clear if that means rare in Michigan, or rare in Pennsylvania as well. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Added a sentence cited to the Hyde book. It's a common PA design of the time, but rare in MI. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The description of the bridge from MDOT:" – The attribution should form a complete sentence (i.e. with a subject and a verb), otherwise it doesn't serve the purpose of making the quote flow with the text. For example, with the other blockquote, "MDOT's press release states..."

  Thanks for explaining this better. Now I see what your exact point is, and I think I have a solution. Let me know if this works better. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  Looks good, although personally I would cut off the attribution at the word "says", add a comma, and restore the words "This bridge is" to the quote. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion taken and integrated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's not enough for me to oppose here, just a note for you because you'll get killed for it if you want to take this to FAC in the future. Michigan Highways (ref 15) probably isn't a reliable source.

  We actually might be able to use the site under the SPS exception. That site has been references 4 times in Michigan newspapers (thrice in the Detroit Free Press and once in the Traverse City Record Eagle). The author also adds to his credentials as the cartographer for a map of Mackinac Island cited in the M-185 article. He works in transportation and planning in the Grand Rapids area. I'm not going to say for certain, but at some point when this and the M-28 article go up for FACs we may just try for a RS opinion on the site. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  Good to know. Good luck with that when the time comes. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably all for now. Good luck! -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the followups. Let me know how I did. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty darn well I'd say. -- Kéiryn ^talk 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional suggestions. Any others? Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)