Talk:Wisconsin Highway 131/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheCatalyst31, I will review this article. I'll leave some in-depth comments later. 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

Check for resolution of previous issues:

There are inconsistencies in abbreviation usage. Once an abbreviation convention has been established for a type of roadway, all highways of that type should be abbreviated. - This has been resolved.
"A U.S. district court" -> "A U.S. District Court" as a proper name. - This has been resolved.
While not a part of the GA criteria, MOS:RJL has been updated to require a table footer, and this article's junction list does not comply with that requirement. - This has been resolved. All legend markings are adequately explained in the table.
The entries in the table should include cardinal directions for junctions with highway termini or concurrency termini. - This has been resolved. As a side note, in regards to the convention of using "[direction] end of [route] concurrency", it is not consistent across states. Some articles, like California State Route 3, use "overlap" rather than "concurrency" while others, like Delaware Route 1, use "terminus" in place of "end". So I will not consider this a factor in the GA review.
There's some WP:OVERLINKing in the article. - There still remains one overlink, Wilton, Wisconsin, in the La Farge to Tomah section.

Seeing as how most previous issues have been resolved, I'm now posting the prose comments.

Lead:

The highway is located in Wisconsin's Driftless Area, and it passes through Crawford, Vernon, Richland, and Monroe counties. - The wording "and it passes through" can be reworded as "passing through".
however, when the dam project stalled in 1975, part of the rerouting between Rockton and Ontario was put on hold as well - I would mention the postponed rerouting between Rockton and Ontario earlier, e.g. "however, part of the rerouting between Rockton and Ontario was put on hold when the dam project stalled in 1975".

Wauzeka to Viola

3-way intersection - "three-way" per MOS:NUMERAL
WIS 131 begins to follow the Kickapoo River here, and it runs within the river's valley until Wilton. - this comma may be unnecessary
The concurrency between WIS 131 and US 61 is part of the National Highway System; this portion of WIS 131 and its short concurrency with US 14 are the only parts of the highway which are part of the NHS.[3] - perhaps this would be better suited after mentioning that WIS 131 follows US 14 across the river.
WIS 131 enters northwest Richland County while in Viola, and it remains in the county for a short distance northward - same issue with a possibly unnecessary comma.

La Farge to Tomah

The road crosses the Kickapoo River seven times on the 7.3 miles (11.7 km) between Rockton and Ontario - in the 7.3 miles
Between Wilton and Tomah, WIS 131 is designated as a Long Truck Route by WisDOT; trucks are not subject to weight or length restrictions on this section of the highway. - Are there restrictions on other parts of the route?

There are other sections that are marked as a Long Truck Route, and on reflection this probably isn't all that interesting or useful to the reader, so I removed it.

Sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3-way intersection - also "three-way"
according to WisDOT, the average daily traffic along this portion in 2017 was 6800 vehicles - I suggest active voice, e.g. "according to WisDOT, this portion had average daily traffic of 6,800 vehicles in 2017}}.
WIS 131 terminates at a four-way intersection with US 12 and WIS 16 in southern Tomah; the road continues northward as US 12 - This should probably be clarified. while the route ends here, traffic continues straight onto US 12.

History

The second paragraph is very long. I would suggest splitting it.
The first section of WIS 131 to be moved, between La Farge and Rockton, was realigned away from the river ~~onto a route built~~ to the east in 1976 - I would remove the stricken-through portion as it's unnecessary.
Kickapoo Valley Stewardship Alliance - is this the same group that opposed the relocation of the highway?

The opposition to the highway's relocation came from a lot of sources, many of who were just area residents who weren't part of any broader organization and just didn't want more traffic on a local highway, which is why I summed it up as "local opposition".

Oh, I see, like NIMBY types then. Epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

@TheCatalyst31: Sorry for the delay. There is one outstanding error in the references. Epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rand McNally & Company (1923). "District No. 8, Wisconsin, Northern Illinois, Northeast Iowa, Northern Michigan" (Map). Rand McNally Official 1923 Auto Trails Map. [c. 1:657,000]. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. Retrieved December 6, 2020 – via Wisconsin Historical Society.[page needed]

That reference is to a standalone map which wasn't part of an atlas or another broader work, and therefore doesn't have page numbers, so I removed the maintenance tag.

20 of 28 sources are maps. I would recommend finding other types of sources if possible, but I can understand there may not be better sources, particularly about a highway in a rural area.
None of the sources are blatantly unreliable.
There is also nothing that is unsourced or original research.
Spot checks of the online sources came up OK. Epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images and copyright

All images are public domain (route shields) or appropriately licensed.
Copyright check came up clean.

General comments

Before looking at this article, I'll check to see if the issues raised at Talk:Wisconsin Highway 131/GA2, where the article was delisted from its previous GA status, have been resolved. Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I replied to a few of your comments. Anything I didn't reply to is fixed based on what you recommended. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCatalyst31: No problem. I will take another look at references, images, and copyright in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for other issues, I do not see anything that prevents this from becoming a GA. The page is relatively short but meets all the criteria, so I'll be promoting it. Epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]