- Lede
- I've never been a fan of "running" as a verb for describing highways. I'd suggest "travelling concurrently" in this case. YMMV in each of the cases that I mention it below.
- Again in the second case, and remove the link to concurrency.
- I think I shifted this around forever ago... Imzadi 1979 → 05:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Route description
- Nitpicky, but "crosses into Calhoun County and over the St. Joseph River." - if the county line is the river, then you should swap the order of these.
- Intersecting M-60?
- "North of I-94, I-69 has one more interchange before crossing into Eaton County" - You mention the road at other interchanges, but not this one.
- "Near Olivet, I-69 begins to turn in a northeasterly direction. As it continues in that direction, it runs to the north side of Olivet." - Reads somewhat awkward, and again with the run bit.
- " I-69 follows the path of a line of the Canadian National Railway" - I'm assuming you mean parallels it?
- "I-69, the railroad and the Swartz Creek all run together" - sounds like a marathon :) There's another "run" shortly after this too.
- "It jogs to the north around Lake Nepessing on the southwest of Lapeer." Reads weird/grammatically incorrect.
- "follow part of the Black River in the area." - "in the area" seems redundant here.
- All tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Cutting it down to just a few runs makes it read much better in my eyes. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- History
- I believe left aligned photos are supposed to be placed above level 3 headers to align better.
- "The first major overland transportation corridors in the future state of Michigan were the Indian trails.[9] None of these followed the path of the modern I-69 however." - Just curious why you put this here, it seems irrelevant to I-69 in this case.
- Because if I didn't, people will ask for more back history from before the 20th century. In this case, it's somewhat northworthy to have a 2dI that isn't a former Indian trail. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "By 1936, the highway was extended all the way into Flint to end at M-21." - M-78 or M-104?
- The second paragraph of the Predecessor highways section gets confusing when you introduce M-78 into the picture. It may be prudent to mention as you go along which segments of these would line up with I-69, since Pittsburg, for example, isn't mentioned in the RD.
- Pittsburg isn't along modern I-69, and I tried to clarify this. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a lot better now, especially the latter half of the paragraph. However, a map from the pre-interstate era showing these predecessor routes would go a long way. I'll let you decide how to handle it though and give a pass on it. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the last paragraph of Interstate Highway era, you mention that BUS I-69 was designated in 1984, congress extended the designation for a final time in 1987 to Port Huron, but the final segment of the route wasn't completed until October 1992. This is rather confusing.
- I think I cleared that up. Let me know if more needs to be done. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "...the Michigan Legislature designated that I-69... would be named..." - declared would be more appropriate than designated in this case.
- "The following October" - is that October 2001 (that October) or October 2002 (the following), as I would come to read it?
- Reworded, but it's 2001 (PA 142 of 2001 as mentioned in the next sentence). Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it ever be a mistake to head to Canada? ;)
- Well, if you didn't have your passport and bridge fare handy... Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exit list
- Business loops
- May want to use a better source than Gmaps for validating that the loops followed those predecessors, as I can only see evidence of the ones in Coldwater and Charlotte being US 27
- Refs
- Ref 2: Scale / "Scale not given" needed
- Chicago/APA/MLA based style guides don't require a scale on dynamic maps like this one, just maps with fixed scales, like a paper or PDF map. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it may be better organized to group your refs so that maps can be given their own section? I've thought of doing this on a few articles with over 40-50 refs.
- I'd need more information on what you mean, but I think it would be less confusing to leave all sources with numbered footnotes. Imzadi 1979 → 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at the refs section in QEW for an example of what I did. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my history review in the next day or two. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Or seven. Since you haven't replied yet, I've just inserted the history review above. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point it's looking to be a support. Just wanted to get your thoughts on the map and the reference reorganization. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, not fond of separating the references that way. For shortened refs, I've just mixed them in with the other footnotes, which is what we did with U.S. Route 41 in Michigan several years ago when I started that article. It passed FAC that way in 2009 so there's ample precedent to mixed shortened and unshortened refs together in a single list. As for the map, I just need a few minutes to get it made and it will be added, done similar to the one on the U.S. Route 23 in Michigan article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|