- Lead
- "The highway runs north-northwesterly from an interchange with Interstate 43 (I-43) in Bellevue, Wisconsin, near Green Bay to a junction with US 41/M-28 near Covington, Michigan."
- A few things jump out at me here in the sentence: "...an interchange with Interstate 43 (I-43) in Bellevue, Wisconsin, near Green Bay to a junction..." - First is the use of interchange and junction in a single sentence, which in many places are synonymous but in others well defined and distinct; junction being another word for interchange or for a "T"-like intersection (or simply an at-grade intersection of two or more numbered roads). This should be clarified in some way. Second is the unclosed aside, "near Green Bay", which should have a comma following it.
- Adding the missing comma. As for the rest, I don't know that it quite matters, per se. The two words can act as synonyms for word-choice variety while still implying technical difference in meaning that does exist. We could link to interchange (road) and junction (road), but I normally avoid that as they are common-enough terms. Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since the 1960s, the section south of Green Bay was converted into a freeway in segments."
- These clauses clash; "was" should be "has been".
- "This freeway is now I-43, and since the 1980s, US 141 has ended southeast of Green Bay in Bellevue."
- This is an odd sentence in the context of the previous one. Something like "Since the 1980s, US 141 has ended southeast of Green Bay in Bellevue - the southern freeway segment having been redesignated as I-43." may be more appropriately worded.
- "divided-highway"
- Should this be hyphenated? Normally it isn't.
- RD
- "and the two highways run concurrently through residential subdivisions."
- Should "run" be linked as well?
- "at the interchange for exit 170."
- Isn't the interchange itself exit 170?
- "The two highways run together north and northeasterly"
- "The two highways run together westward"
- You may want to be more consistent with the word concurrency, as an average layman would undoubtedly confuse the two.
- "US 141 turns to the northwest to run along River Street into Niagara."
- Shorten to "US 141 turns northwest along River Street into Niagara." Increase concise index by OVER 9000!!!
- "US 2/US 141 makes a 14.5-mile (23.3 km) run through Florence County, passing the Spread Eagle Chain of Lakes."
- Is Spread Eagle Chain of Lakes the name of the geographic feature or should "Lakes" be lowercase?
- "...transitions to forest, and the freeway..." and "...farm fields and forest to the county line." (in the Green Bay to Niagara section), "...the trunkline runs through forest land near several smaller bodies of water..." "continues through forests to the community" (in the Qunnesec northward section)
- Note different approaches: forest, forest, forest land, forests.
- History
- "In 1919, Michigan signed its highway system,[12] and the state did not have a highway running south from Quinnesec to the state line."
- and should be replaced with but or possibly yet, as the second thought is a negative.
- "The routings though for two highways were different in Michigan in the 1925 than on the final 1926 map."
- Though essentially equals however. Interchanging the two helps determine the best location for either. In this case, "However, the routings for two highways were different in Michigan in 1925 than on the final 1926 map." - Also note removal of the preceding 1925.
- "US 102 was to have replaced M-15 from US 2 at Rapid River, continue via Marquette into Baraga County, where it would have ended at US 41 near Covington."
- This sentence is constructed very odd. A comma splice I believe.
- "US 141 in both plans was only routed between Milwaukee and Green Bay..."
- Should be "In both plans, US 141 was only routed between Milwaukee and Green Bay..."
- "Later, a new routing from the state line north to Crystal Falls was opened in 1940"
- Using later and then supplying a year seems redundant
- "This terminus location was..."
- Redundancy again methinks. Location can be tossed here.
- "divided-highway"
- Two more instances of this. See my note for the lead.
- "...opened the next year..."
- "...opened the following year..."
- "This request was rejected in the 1960s, but it was approved in the 1960s, and the state started the process to convert US 141 between Milwaukee and Abrams into a freeway."
- Was rejected in the 1960s, but it was approved in the 1960s? Use of it in the second clause is a parallelism issue. The remainder should be split into a second sentence.
- "The next year, an extension of the freeway opened southward from Locust to North Avenue."
- "By 1965, the bypass of Sheboygan was opened,[45] and the Milwaukee area freeway was extended northward to Brown Deer Road the following year."
- Comma splice. Works better as "By 1965, the bypass of Sheboygan was opened;[45] the Milwaukee area freeway was extended northward to Brown Deer Road the following year."
- "The last section of US 141 opened as a freeway in the city of Milwaukee opened in 1968"
- Some redundancy. Better as "The final section of US 141 in the city of Milwaukee to be converted to freeway opened in 1968"
- "...the southern terminus of US 141 was moved again, shortening the highway to end in Bellevue by 1983."
- Shortening sounds odd. Try "...by 1983, the southern terminus of US 141 was moved again, truncating the highway in Bellevue."
- Exit list
- Looks good, no issues that I can spot.
- Overall
- Ref 11 - Missing cartographer
- Ref 12 - Missing author?
- Refs 13, 19, 20, 24 through 30 and 39 - Missing the map section. Is this intentional or are there no grids on these maps? (I notice the NHS maps do not at least)
- Refs 31 and 32 - Seasons shouldn't be capitalized
- Refs 29 though 36 - The titles for these maps are very inconsistent. Is this intentional?
- Refs 43 and 44 - "1 in:14.5 mi." - other refs use "1 in=xx mi.", these two are the odd ones out. On the same topic, you seem to provide scales on a very inconsistent basis.
- The scales provided are as they are printed on the map; if the map didn't give a printed equation, it wasn't included.Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough for the ones without scales. I'd still personally recommend making 43 and 44 consistent in format. A colon or equals sign are interchangeable in this instance without changing the scale. YMMV. - Floydian τ ¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 43, possibly 44 - Uses "Michigan Department of State Highways" / "MDSH" as the publisher / cartographer. However, the MDOT article states that the department wasn't renamed until August of 1973. Generally the official map is published much earlier in the year (only the 1934 and 1955 editions appear to have been published after July, at least among the refs on this article), but at the very least I believe 43 is incorrect.
- Ref 45 and 63 - Is ref 63 an updated version of ref 45? If it is and has all of the material that the earlier doc contains, use the new doc for all four citations.
- Ref 71 - I don't believe the XLS format should be indicated unless the document is being linked...
- I indicated it lest someone ask why that document lacks page numbers when the other has them. (Yes, it's weird, but I only have two of the five regions in print and the rest in XLS.) Imzadi 1979 → 07:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense. Perhaps I should begin doing this. FYI, you can change the view in Excel to Page View to view it as if it were a printed document. I did this with the connecting link and 97/98 download tables I was provided by the MTO. - Floydian τ ¢ 08:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-- Floydian τ ¢ 20:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|