Talk:U.S. Route 27 in Michigan/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about U.S. Route 27 in Michigan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Route vs. Highway
MDOT's term is "US Highway". U.S. Route 41 in Michigan passed its FAC with similar wording used in this article. There is no requirement that the article title be used verbatim in the text of the article. The article on Bill Clinton uses "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton" in its lead, and a mixture of "Clinton" and "Bill Clinton" throughout the article. There is no need to change this one article to "U.S. Route" when the MDOT term is "US Highway", and the other Michigan articles are consistently using that phrasing. Imzadi 1979 → 03:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The WP convention is "U.S. Route" per WP:USSH. All relevant Michigan articles should have "highway" changed to "route" to be consistent with the articles covering the rest of the country, regardless of FAC status. It's a national system, so we need to look at this from a national perspective, not a state one. Note that I have said nothing about the M-xx convention since that's self-contained. (Since this is now more than just about US-27, this discussion should probably be moved or copied.)
- In any case, there's no reason not to change the hatnote to "Route" since that's the actual name of the target article. What the article body says should have no bearing on the hatnote, since that's independent. Mapsax (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The hatnote may contain a redirected title. As for the WP:USSH convention, there is a discussion already started here for that. The article titles may need to be under the same names for consistency per USSH, which is a naming convention, not a style guide, but the article text need not exactly follow the article title. Additionally there is Use Common Names to consider, and in Michigan, the common name is "US Highway" not "US Route". This is akin to WP:TIES/WP:ENGVAR applied on a sub-national level as the US does have various dialects. British English articles already reflect the spelling differences between Oxford English (which uses -ize like the US as the biggest variational difference) and other British English (which uses -ise). I'm asserting that the Michigan vernacular be applied to a purely Michigan article. We already use the different abbreviation styles in the templates as appropriate to the states. Imzadi 1979 → 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. The reason I mention US 41 is that if anyone would have commented on the dichotomy of nomenclature, it would have been mentioned during either of the FACs on the article while the MOS and FAC "police" were reviewing it. Imzadi 1979 → 04:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll post comments over there (USSH talk) soon; as for this article in particular, the actual article name could have been kept after I changed it as well as it could have been reverted. Note that it was a secondary edit; my main reason for editing was the Michigan House resolution info. Mapsax (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Information that is sill in the article? That was never removed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, what I am saying is that I didn't edit the article just to change "highway" to "route"; I edited it to add the still-extant note about Old 27, and decided to tack on the other edit since I was already editing. I could've left it alone, but you could've left my edit alone once I did it because of the interchangability. Mapsax (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Information that is sill in the article? That was never removed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll post comments over there (USSH talk) soon; as for this article in particular, the actual article name could have been kept after I changed it as well as it could have been reverted. Note that it was a secondary edit; my main reason for editing was the Michigan House resolution info. Mapsax (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 27 in Michigan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 13:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to review this later today. TCN7JM 13:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've fixed, like, six typos in the first section of the RD alone, and I'm too tired to finish the review, so between now and tomorrow when I plan to resume the review, please check over the remainder of the article for typos. Thanks. TCN7JM 06:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Continuing the review:
- I'm seeing some problems with tense in the RD. There's at least one sentence (at the beginning of the second section) in which the tense changes midway through, and some more in which the tense doesn't make any sense given the noun used in the sentence. For example, saying "The freeway intersected the northern end of the business loop..." doesn't make much sense because from what I'm seeing, the freeway still does despite not carrying US 27 anymore. If possible you should try to fix more confusing sentences of this nature.
- "The US 27A loop into Shepherd was removed the next year in 1939." – Isn't this redundant? 1938 was just mentioned in the previous sentence.
- What does MSHD's request for more Interstate mileage have to do with US 27?
This is all. I have finished my review and am putting the article on hold. TCN7JM 02:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- All are done, but could you please skim the RD again to see if I missed something? Imzadi 1979 → 04:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. I will pass the article now. TCN7JM 04:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)