Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1: Difference between revisions

U.S. Route 2 in Michigan

U.S. Route 2 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of the major highways in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There isn't anything flashy about this roadway, but I think that the article is ready for review here. (P.S., my copy of the article from The Daily Mining Gazette lacks a page number, however the Portage Lake District Library in Houghton, MI, has been contacted to see what page it was on in the print edition.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have reviewed this article twice prior and feel that it meets all the criteria. Dough4872 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot convince FN 3 to load on my computer - can you confirm that it works on yours, and if it is a multi-page source (I can't tell) can you specify page number?
• FN 69: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 3 is multi-page and fixed. FN 69 is the the item I mentioned in my PS to the nomination statement. Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 69 is fixed; I had to contact two different libraries and the paper itself to get that page number, but they finally replied with it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1#Coordinates discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The above is not what I wrote, and my objection has been edited by another editor, without my being consulted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — I am one of five editors who reviewed this article through WP:USRD's A-class Review process. This article fulfills all of the Featured Article criteria. If there are any remaining issues, I am confident they are minor and Imzadi1979 will ably correct them.  VC  22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Respectfully, I disagree with Imzadi1979. WP:FACR starts "A featured article exemplifies our very best work' and 1(c) continues "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Emphasis sources plural. Because we obviously can easy do much more and IMO better than the infobox map, the openmaps link, and the textual description, by the use of {{coord}} and {{GeoGroupTemplate}} which link to multiple RS maps, we should. It is incomprehensible to me that we would deliberately not take the opportunity to link to this diversity of rich sources, and promote this as an article that exemplifies our very best work. Under what part of "best" in a web environment is "deliberately not linking to some of the best sources around" found? Where will we find a user base thankful or happy that they can't view this structure on GoogleMaps or Bing or their preferred map provider? Only if an aim of this FAC is to deliberately and needlessly frustrate or dismay segments of our readership should this be promoted. At the risk of boring you, I will oppose each road article FAC having the same issue as this one. I appreciate your view may differ from mine; there we go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying, but 1(c) doesn't apply. Adding coordinates to the article is not adding sources as I previously explained. In fact, I'd be curious to know which "high-quality reliable sources" out there would give specific coordinate data for this highway. MDOT doesn't include coordinate data in their Physical Reference Finder Application. The only line of latitude on their printed map is 45°N, and the map omits longitude completely. Google Maps, which is used in the article only for satellite views, is notoriously unreliable. Case in point, they marked Interstate 296 on their mapping service for a number of months earlier this year, even though MDOT removed the I-296 signs from the freeway c. 1979–80, and they've marked U.S. Route 30 across the United States as a Quebec highway. Other online mapping services suffer similar issues with quality, and in general I don't use them as a source for Wikipedia articles beyond the satellite views. OpenStreetMap can't be used for a source on Wikipedia because it is user-generated, although it can be an external link. I can't measure the coordinates myself with a GPS receiver because that is original research.
    If you wanted to use criterion 1(b), which deals with comprehensiveness, you still fail to convince me, or others, that failing to add any coordinates makes this article less comprehensive. Between the map used in the article, the full text of the "Route description" section and the photographs displayed, any readers should be able to find US 2 on a map. We are not required to add external links to the article. In fact, we're not required to add ISBN/ISSN/OCLC/etc numbers to citations, let alone required to use citation templates. Yes, ISBN/ISSN/OCLC/etc numbers make it easier for readers to find the book/magazine/etc at their local library, but that's not a requirement of FAs. Coordinates are in the same league. Sorry, I won't be adding coordinates, and there's no positive requirement to do so. Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Several editors went through this article at the ACR stage and all the problems they found have been resolved. Meets all the criteria. --Rschen7754 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am one of the aforementioned editors who did a thorough check of the article at the ACR stage. It meets the FAC criteria. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I recently reviewed the article at an A-class review and I am satisfied that it meets FA criteria. Royalbroil 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose (1(a). I am sure that the article is comprehensive and technically accurate, but the prose is not yet of featured standard. There are instances of clumsy phrasing, repetition, redundancies and occasional dodgy grammar; the following examples come from only the first quarter of the text, and it is likely that similar problems will arise in the rest:-

Lead

• Problematic opening sentence with slight ambiguity in the initial phrasing and a repeated "that runs from".
• "historic bridges that date back as far as the 1910s and 1920s." I don't think the words "as far as" are justified; the 1910s and 1920s are relatively recent history

Route description

• Repetition: "US 2 is an important highway for Michigan, "provid[ing] the major western gateway to Michigan" and "serv[ing] an important role..."
• Grammar: "Of US 2's 305.151 miles (491.093 km), it is divided..."
• "in between is a section of US 2..." The words "of US 2" are redundant here. We're not talking about any other road here.

Western segment

• All three paragraphs of the section begin "US 2...", as do successive sentences within the text. Try to use some variety of expression, to avoid the prose developing a mechanical feel.
• "The section of US 2 that runs concurrently with M-64 was the location where the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) recorded the lowest traffic volume along the entire length of the highway in the state; here 770 vehicles used the roadway daily on average in 2010." This wording is heavy-footed and verbose. Running on from the previous sentence, you could say "This concurrency has the lowest traffic volume along the entire length of the highway within the state; in 2010 the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) recorded a daily average usage along the stretch of 770 vehicles".
• This figure of 770 is not very useful in isolation, and needs to be compared with average daily usages along other stretches.
• "where the waters meet" could be pipe-linked to Drainage basin
• Grammar/punc: "Also located in the area are the Sylvania Wilderness and the Lac Vieux Desert Indian Reservation, which includes the Lac Vieux Desert Casino and Resort." If the "casino and resort" relates only to the reservation, shift the comma to after "Wilderness". Otherwise, "includes" → "include"
• "leaves the Ottawa National Forest behind..." "behind" is unnecessary
• Consecutive sentences beginning "US 2/US 141..."

Individually these are minor problems that can easily be fixed, but someone needs to go carefully through the remainder of the text, to pick up similar issues there. One non-prose problem: the map is not very informative as it stands. It does not indicate which areas are Michigan and which are Wisconsin, doesn't clarify the interstate line (there are unexplained blue and black lines). I suggest you clarify these matters, perhaps by expanding the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)

(Sorry, I forgot to sign above) Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from the nominator: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) is working on copy editing the article for me. I will be out of town with family for the American Thanksgiving holiday, and I will be offline starting on Tuesday morning as a result. I should be able to check back in while on the road in a few days. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have returned home now, so things are back to normal for me. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between Juliancolton's copy edit of the full article, and some touchups by myself, all of the above prose comments have been addressed save one. I can't minimize the number of times "US 2" or its variants are used any further without sacrificing clarity. (We kinda need to repeat the name whenever an intersection roadway is mentioned to avoid confusing the reader as to which highway/roadway/trunkline is the subject of a sentence.) As for the traffic counts, MDOT doesn't report an average for the highway, just the measurements on each segment. The article as it stands now lists the highest and lowest traffic counts in the Route description where they occur along the progression of the description of the highway, which is a standard practice used in other Featured Articles about Michigan highways.
    As for the map, I'm not a GIS wiz, so the best I can do is request a new map. Imzadi 1979 → 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not sure how you have answered my concern about the 770 vehicles, which statistic still stands in isolation and is therefore of little use. All the other points I raised have been dealt with satisfactorily, and the map is much better. I don't think I'll have time to go through the rest of the article, but in the light of your positive responses I have struck my oppose. How do you intend to answer the two outstanding opposes, which both appear to relate to one specific issue? Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is part of an aggressive campaign by two editors to enforce the use of coordinates on articles for which there is no consensus, and is thus not actionable. See the talk page and linked pages. --Rschen7754 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The draft guideline they seek to enforce against this article, WP:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear lists 5 options for listing geographic coordinate data in an article on a linear feature, the last of which is: "No coordinates", and the consensus of opinion from the U.S. Roads and Canada Roads projects is to avail ourselves of that option at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You continue to misrepresent the situation. Projects do not form their own consensus, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This has been pointed out to you many times in recent weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You continue to ignore the stack of editors that don't care what your backwards interpretation of the situation is. You continue to ignore requests to provide "policies and guidelines [which] reflect established consensus..." to give your LOCALCONSENSUS argument any weight. This was requested back at the end of August.[1]. Go start an RfC and establish your consensus amongst the community, otherwise it doesn't exist and you're going off WP:SILENCE. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I answered the question you cite back in August; and in text which another editor has removed for this page. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please provide a diff so I can find your reply instead of trying to interpret what you just wrote. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • What do you make of this? [2] --Rschen7754 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have a few issues here at work. On the matter of adding title coordinates, it wouldn't be proper to pick one set of coordinates as representative of the whole length of US 2 in the state of Michigan because it exists in two discontinuous segments in the state. Since we can't have two sets of title coordinates, I won't place any on this article lest we favor one segment over the other, end of story. As for the rest, we have dueling WikiProjects and no community consensus. If the U.S. Roads WikiProject can't form a consensus that coordinates are unnecessary in articles under its scope, then how can WikiProject Geographic coordinates form a consensus that linear features need to have them? And we suddenly have a situation where the draft guidance being used to request/require the inclusion of this data isn't being followed since it provides that editors may opt to add "no coordinates" to articles. Since you're advocating for a change in the status quo (US highway articles lack coordinate data tagging), the onus is on you to initiate an RfC to overturn that status quo. Imzadi 1979 → 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you mean me; I'm not advocating any change to the status quo; the MoS already allows for coordinates in articles about roads; as you well know, having had this pointed out several times recently. What does WikiProject Geographic coordinates have to do with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:LOCALCONSENSUS states: "For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The problem is that there is no policy that requires the inclusion of coordinates in articles. There is no generally accepted guideline that states that linear features need to have coordinate data. There is only a draft guideline from a WikiProject devoted to adding coordinates to articles that has not been generally accepted as applying to roads articles at this time. I say that it hasn't been generally accepted because the overwhelming majority of the over 10,000 US road/highway articles lack coordinates, so LOCALCONSENSUS cuts two ways, Andy. The only way out is an RfC, which you've so far refused to start. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have this arse-about-face. Again. The MoS allows for coordinates in articles about roads. Your project colleagues insist that your local consensus forbids them. It cannot. An RfC is not needed to maintain the current MoS. You also ignore the FA criteria, to which I have ready referred in a comment which you removed from this page; and which local project consensus also cannot override. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The FA criteria do not require coordinates. M-185 (Michigan highway), an article to which you opposed in its FAC, was promoted last night without the addition of coordinate data. FA Criterion 1(b) states: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". No major facts have been neglected as this article states where the subject is located. It just does not do so in a manner you'd like using blue-linked strings of numbers. I remain unpersuaded that displaying sets of geographic coordinates is necessary to make the article "comprehensive", so I have not added them. You've said your piece, I've said mine. It's time to let the delegates/director weigh in because circumstances won't change with any more discussion. I'm walking away from this point, feeling it has been addressed several times now. Imzadi 1979 → 00:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please feel free to point our where, in my objection to this FA, I invoked WP:LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added a weighted average AADT value computed using an Excel spreadsheet version of the AADT report from MDOT. The average is weighted by segment length because some segments MDOT measured were less than a half mile, and some as long as 10 miles. If that is not appropriate, please advise what I should do instead. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, what you have have done here looks fine. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Check wording of caption for 1936 Manistique image. There are a couple of other captions where phrasing could be improved
• File:U.S._Route_2_in_Michigan_map.svg - need source info. On what existing map or data set was this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, the GIS source is listed for the map. My Internet time tonight is limited, so I'll play with the captions tomorrow unless a fellow wikiproject member dos so before I get back online. Imzadi 1979 → 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the source. The captions could still use tweaking, though, when you've got a minute. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tweaked them somewhat, but I'm at a loss if that's not what you wanted to see. Imzadi 1979 → 03:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tweaked them myself a bit, see what you think. The Manistique one is still bothering me, though: "horizontally across the top third off the map" - should that be "of", or "and off", or is there a better potential phrasing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewrote that one along slightly different lines. Let me know. Imzadi 1979 → 04:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This edit from the nominator, unilaterally removing the comments of oppose votes, is unethical. No comments on the article itself, but I must oppose this nomination because it is neither fair nor acceptable for nominators to do this. Either put it back, point to a statement where an FAC delegate explicitly stated that the comments should be removed, or I will take this to AN/I and bring it up when this is written up in the Signpost. Refactoring comments is a blockable offense. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that the discussion surrounding the opposes (which is linked from the opposes) is entirely spill-over from discussions at MOS:RJL regarding coordinates on road articles. The nominator was not trying to sweep it under the rug, but rather trying to keep that discussion from dominating this nomination. The delegates would obviously check the link to see what the reasoning behind the oppose votes (which remain here) was. I do believe there is a greater need to assume good faith here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the nominator notified a delegate right after he moved the discussion to the talk page. He moved the same comments (almost verbatim) from M-185, which was promoted just days ago. –Fredddie™ 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had I seen that one in time, I'd have opposed that too. If discussions take up too much space, you collapse them, you don't sweep them under the rug. What the nominator is doing is unethical, plain and simple. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, actually no, not at FAC. To help page loading times at WP:FAC, extended irrelevant discussions are moved to the talk page, not collapsed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions in question are not irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The !votes are not irrelevant, but according to two FAC directors now, the discussion on coords as part of an FAC is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And when did the community devolve such decision-making powers to those few individuals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 has been the FA Director since August 2004. SandyGeorgia has been an FAC delegate since November 2007, and Karanacs' appointment as an FAC delegate dates back to March 2009 according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-16/Dispatches. Ucucha's appointment dates back to August of this year according to WT:Featured article candidates/archive52#New FAC delegate - Ucucha. Imzadi 1979 → 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; but that's not what I asked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can go find the history behind it yourself, but that is how the featured article process has always been. Those few individuals, known as FAC delegates, have the absolute authority here. This particular nomination is not the place to dispute that authority. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Those few individuals, known as FAC delegates, have the absolute authority here" Please provide a citation for that remarkable assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the FA for M-185 should be revoked, at least until the objections are properly resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that I didn't know about that, when it's my comments that were hidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, neither of you are FAC delegates, so that's not your place to decide. Sweeping under the rug would also imply no link was left behind. Andy, you were well aware that they were moved, hence why you continued to respond on the talk page to those comments, without issue. Don't play coy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Floydian, you grasp the wrong end of the stick when attempting to describe my feelings and thoughts; and once again in such a manner as to create a falsely negative picture of them. Funny how you never wrongly say anything positive. My comment above refers to a post on SandyGeorgia's talk page, which discusses me, but about which I have only recently become aware. How the fact that I'm not a FAC delegate is supposed to affect that is beyond me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means its not up to you to reopen a closed FAC, but you're always welcome to start an RfC (but you won't). Funny how you think after several months of being a tempest in a teapot that there is anything positive for me to say about you, but that is an aside. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted a different road FAC a few days ago over objections about coordinates, and I will continue to do so until the use of coordinates in this context is required in the Manual of Style. It is disruptive to repeat the same discussion at several FACs—such general discussion should instead take place at the relevant MOS page, which apparently is WP:RJL. However, it is not appropriate for the nominator or other involved editors to take it on themselves to move commentary to the talk page; please don't do that again. Ucucha (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also promoted it despite censorship of objections, like that discussed above. Your FAC colleagues advised us to bring up objections under individual nominations. WP:RJL discusses road junction lists, but not the use of coordinates for articles as a whole, nor for features which are not junctions in lists. :The MoS already supports the use of coordinates in articles about roads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, you have "Before European settlers came to the UP, the route of what would become US 2 was used as part of two Indian trails, and the Michigan segments of the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway and the King's International Highway auto trails"; does that mean the Teddy Roosevelt and King's Highways were created before there were settlers in the UP? Ucucha (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 19:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]