Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 16 in Michigan/archive1

U.S. Route 16 in Michigan

U.S. Route 16 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 16 in Michigan/archive1

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the more historical highways in Michigan, connecting its two largest cities until it was decommissioned as an active designation in the 1960s. In an earlier era, it was a footpath used by Native Americans before European settlement of the Great Lakes State, then it was a wagon trail called the Grand River Road. As is typical now for me, this is one of the best resources on the Internet available today on the history of US 16, and I feel it warrants nomination for FA status. Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that I intend to take a look at this one. I'm leaning support since I reviewed it at the ACR, but there have been some changes since then, so I want to do my due diligence. --Rschen7754 07:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that source 28 isn't a SPS - could you elaborate? Otherwise, I didn't find any issues. --Rschen7754 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Rschen7754: I had tracked down Forsyth's source, so I can switch it out with a manuscript published by the East Lansing Public Library in 1933, eliminating that web-based source. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Support issue resolved. --Rschen7754 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I supported this article at ACR. I have looked over the changes that have been made since then and feel this article meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 02:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful article. Well researched and scrupulously documented An important part of highway and Michigan history. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the model WP article LavaBaron (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Support (having stumbled here from my FAC.

• Is Carferry really a term? Seems like that might need a link. You use it three times without explanation (although it's pretty obvious what it is).
• "With the coming of the Interstate Highway System, US 16 was shifted from the older roads to the newer freeways. " - was US 16 shifted because of the expected arrival of the interstate? Or was it because of the development of the interstate?
• You probably can't affect this, but could you put Grand Rapids in the map in the infobox?
• "The freeway was then designated Interstate 96 (I-96) east of Grand Rapids or I-196 west of that city." - why or and not and?
• was an Indian trail. This trail - given the redundancy here, could you merge the sentences? It makes for better flow.
• These two highways ran concurrently out of town to the south through Muskegon Heights to Norton Shores. Here - Is "here" appropriate for a wiki article? No one is actually "here" (unless they're reading the article at that intersection), so shouldn't it be "there"? Very semantic/pedantic, but I feel it's worth asking. Ditto later with "From here east".
• "The freeway intersected the contemporaneous routing of US 131 along the East Beltline and curved south through the eastern edge of Grand Rapids to meet the then-current end of I-96 east of downtown." - it's a bit confusing. I don't think you need to be so careful about the wording here. It's clear that US 16 was decommissioned, but the freeway still exists, right? In that case, I think you can get rid of "contemporaneous" and "then-current".
• "which carried US 16 east all the way to Downtown Detroit" - I think "continuously" would work better than "all the way"
• "Grand River Avenue ends at Cascade Road, but the historic routing carried it through Ada and Plainfield Township along the Grand River." - I don't think you should mention the historic route here. It just confused me as I was trying to follow the description. And you wouldn't need as much info here (which is detailed enough as it is).
• "Near Farmington, I-96 left what is now its current routing and continued to the southeast of the present-day I-96/I-275/I-696/M-5 interchange along the current M-5. Grand River Avenue through here was Business Loop I-96 (BL I-96)." - a little time travel wonkiness
• Is there an article for "Indian trail"? You mention it several times, but you never describe it. Was it an official designation? Was it just a nickname for a series of roads? Does the term "trail" mean something specific here? Like, I know there was the Oregon Trail that was a [[Westward Expansion Trails], as a wagon network, but what is it here?
• "Detroit created 120-foot (37 m) rights-of-way for the principal streets of the city, Grand River Avenue included, in 1805." - weird sentence structure here. I'd put "in 1805" first
• "and drivers charged between four and seven cents a mile (equivalent to $0.82–1.44/mi in 2013[19])" - 2016? Ditto - "with an appropriation of $25,000 (equivalent to $14.7 million in 2013[21])"

All in all it looks very good, just some minor comments here. I'll be happy to support with these fairly minor changes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: sorry for the delay in replying. All of the above copy edits have been applied. Regarding a few of your comments:

• Oddly, "car ferry" itself is a disambiguation page that says the North American usage applies only to train ferries, and points to Roll-on/roll-off for the automotive use case. The ferries on the Great Lakes did start out carrying train cars and branched out to automobiles. Later, they dropped train service.
• @Fredddie: about the map, unless I get around to playing with it myself. (It's an SVG, so it's highly editable.)
• Since US 131 followed a different routing through Grand Rapids at the time, I left in "contemporaneous" in that sentence.
• Sadly, we don't have an article on Indian trails, which were the footpaths used by the natives before Europeans arrived. I applied a few edits to hopefully clarify that.
• The inflation values are given to 2013 for a specific reason. The tolls are adjusted using the Consumer Price Index, which has a dataset up through 2015, but capital appropriations are adjusted using the Nominal Gross Domestic Product per capita index. The NGDPPC values use a data set only current through 2013 because that index takes longer to calculate for each year. (I traditionally remember to update the dataset on April 15, Tax Day, each year.) I set both template calls to adjust to the same year for consistency, and once the NGDPPC data is updated, both update in the article to 2014 values.

Imzadi 1979 → 13:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me amend that last point slightly, the dataset can be updated this year to 2015 NGDPPC values soon. The government released figures on February 26, 2016, and will update them on March 25, 2016. That means the way that I coded the inflation templates, they'll both jump to 2015 when I remember to check the website again. Imzadi 1979 → 13:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies, happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - source and image review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review. Everything is cited and formatted correctly. Cite 67 is unusual, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be as accepted as a Rand McNally map. So, no complaints here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review - While this was checked in 2013 at the ACR stage, I checked the images again and found nothing of concern. --Rschen7754 04:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: source and image reviews done. Thoughts on moving forward? Imzadi 1979 → 08:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)