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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a go. No immediate reasons to quickfail.

• This 1949 map of Detroit is US Government produced and hence public domain - could extracts of it appear in this article?
  • No need to include it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure? What other historic out of copyright map do you have in the article showing all of M-102? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is this in the GA criteria? --Rschen7754 19:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you want good articles on Wikipedia that inform and educate the reader, or do you want to tick a box and get a nice green blob on your user page? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • All that matters in the GA classification is whether or not the article meets the criteria. Can you point to any of the GA criteria that back this up? --Rschen7754 19:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead : "...boundary of Detroit known as 8 Mile Road..." should read something like "...boundary of Detroit, and is known as 8 Mile Road..." - without this it seems to suggest that the northern boundary of Detroit is called 8 Mile Road.
  • Tweaked in my own way. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence starting "As a county road or city street" doesn't have a finite verb in it
  • Fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "leaves 8 Mile on the eastern end" - eastern end of what?
  • Of it's route, of the county, it's an intentionally vague reference, and totally appropriate in American English. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure? Leaving things vague will confuse the reader. Better to avoid ambiguity. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "US Highway 23 (US 23)" looks redundant - just "US Highway 23" with the wikilink should suffice
  • This is the standard method used in upper-tier articles (GA, A, FA) for introducing the abbreviation convention on first usage, and therefore it is intentionally redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I see it is cross referenced later in the article. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the infobox and the junction lists uses the abbreviated format, we've always introduced the abbreviation conventions, even if there was only one US Highway mentioned in all of the prose. It's just like a newspaper that uses "Mitt Romney" or "Barack Obama" on first mention and "Romney" or "Obama" on subsequent mentions. Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Extensions to the highway designation move" - "move" should read "moved"
  • Tweaked Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikilink to "U.S. Route 16 in Michigan" - wikilink inconsistent with "US Highway 23" - which is correct in WP:MOS?
  • Tweaked, somehow the link got unpiped at some point, no biggie. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More later.... --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Route description : "Starting at an intersection with Hamburg Road" - Hamburg Road where? Detroit?
  • "... along the Livingston–Washtenaw county line..." as the sentence says... Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "one mile (1.6 km)" and "eight miles (13km)" - should the imperial distances not be numeric?
  • Even numbers less than 10 are spelled out per MOS:NUM. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off topic for this review, but who on earth decided only even numbers were? That makes no sense! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's standard English 101 stuff here; whole or even numbers less than 10 are spelled out; numbers 10 or greater are reduced to numerals. Our MOS allows, but does not require, other numbers to be spelled out if they can be rendered in two words or less. Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "and 8 Mile Road and runs eastward along 8 Mile Road" - repetition, can probably just say "... and runs eastward along it"
  • That's a necessary redundancy since the "it" could refer to M-5 (Grand River Avenue). Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, repetition generally doesn't scan right. How about "runs eastward along the latter road"? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "On either side of 8 Mile Road, the area is filled with residential neighborhoods of the two cities with commercial businesses immediately adjacent to the highway." has no reference
  • That's cited by the Google Maps aerial view which is fn 7, so yes, it is sourced. Everything in that paragraph up to the words "Plum Hollow Country Club" is cited to those two sources. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have to say this sounds a bit like original research - you've taken an aerial view and synthesized a trend out of it. Google Maps doesn't actually say "Look! Commercial buildings here, here and here!" does it? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been standard practice to allow translation of information from a visual to textual medium, where the translation does not require specialized skills to do. Again, this is something that's been allowed time and time again at FAC, ACR or GAN. Since Google Maps does label businesses/landmarks as well as show the aerial photography underneath, it's doesn't even require that much translation.Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 8 - to avoid confusion with a self-published source, don't put "self published" in the reference, but instead explicitly state that it's the photograph you are citing. I nearly added ((verify credibility)) before I saw the comment in the source.
  • It's still self-published, and that's perfectly permissible, and should still be explicitly called out. Not all SPSs are bad. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, as I've discovered, it's easy to make the mistake. Cite the photograph. I've cited maps which are self published but can be traced to archive documents in the National Archives, British Library etc. Why run the risk of someone (erroneously in this case) thinking "omg unreliable source PANIC!!!111one1" and tagging it? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The photograph is cited, on the webpage that gives it context (a caption), which is on a self-published source. Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Had problems loading reference 10 - will come back to this
  • This works for me. Maybe it is blocked for non-American readers? Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works for me now - but the reference does not appear to cite the word "beltway". --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have to, since the word summarizes the concepts discussed in the article. We don't have to parrot the exact same language when concepts and synonyms for those concepts are clear. Imzadi 1979 → 20:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Bel Air Center Shopping Center" is a redlink
  • Nothing wrong with a redlink in a GA or FA. --Rschen7754 15:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be a typo. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if it is, it's a very common typo. Imzadi 1979 → 20:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "M-102 separates the city from the suburb of Eastpointe once near" - "...once near" doesn't scan right. Does it keep the same meaning if you remove "once"?
  • It's fine in American English, and yes, the meaning would change if the word is removed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do sources 6 and 7 really go down to a granularity of 1,700 feet (520 m)?
  • Google Maps has variable scale, and the MDOT map's Detroit inset is at a scale of 1 in:2 mi, so yes. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Initial designation dates - rather than "in late 1928 or early 1929", can you give explicit dates? (In the UK, the Hansard Parliamentary Archive is a good source for this, not sure what the equivalent is in Michigan). Maybe "between fall 1928 and spring 1929" (or whatever the publication dates are on the maps) would be better?
  • "fall" and "spring" are highly frowned upon because in Australia, they don't mean the same times of the year. --Rschen7754 15:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What wording would you suggest? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Similar wording is used in FAs about state highways in Michigan, therefore I won't change this. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, but don't say "I won't change this" as that's just a little bit uncivil. "I'll keep it per consensus" means that same thing but does not carry the connotations of ownership - consensus says you couldn't change it even if you want to. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As volunteers, we are not required to do anything; ownership is not implied here. --Rschen7754 19:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I said that I wouldn't change it, however GAN reviewers are allowed to make minor changes to the articles they review, which means my statement doesn't preclude someone else from changing it. However, this wording is still fairly standard from upper-tier articles, so there really shouldn't be a reason for someone else to change it either. Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Facepalm Firstly, you'll notice I'm agreeing with you here. Secondly, you've completely missed the point that it's how you communicated compared to what you communicated. Go and read WP:PRAM. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 22 is a Detroit News article - is there a web link for this?
  • That was copied from a clipping I have, so no. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 24 does not mention "Woodward Avenue" and I can't obviously see where it cites that it's becoming more ethnically diverse. The article mentions a shift in the percentage of black people in Detroit, but doesn't appear to specifically attribute that to 8 Mile Road.
  • From the article's page 2, "On Woodward Avenue in the downtown area, for instance, young whites are moving into lofts and condos. The computer company Compuware is building its new world headquarters in that vicinity. That may draw young, creative computer workers to the booming spot where, increasingly, blacks and whites eat, drink, and dance together." Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found it now. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 25 seems to go to a search page.
  • That's from a template that I can't change. We can't link to specific results from that page, so that's all we can do, sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I can't verify it, it needs to be fixed or tagged, sorry. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that logic, books are not reliable sources. --Rschen7754 19:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Since US Census information for essentially all of our state/county/city/village/CDP/township articles is cited using that template, there's not really much to fix. Imzadi 1979 → 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand how the paragraph attributed to references 25 and 26 is relevant to this article - do they relate specifically to 8 Mile road being a dividing line between two communities? If so, where in the source is this attributed to the road?
  • That's specifically stating the statistics related to the segregation of the Detroit area, and showing the level of change in the last decade. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reference 27 is a book reference, so I can't directly check this - can you just confirm this is citing the entire paragraph?
  • Yes, I can. I have a copy of the journal article here. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure there's sufficient coverage of the social and political significance of 8 Mile Road as a boundary in Detroit. There some other sources that aren't referenced in this article, but could be mined for information. For instance this, this and this all appear to be reliable sources and could be used.
  • The main topic is addressed, and GAs aren't required to be held to the level of detail of FAs, which have to be "comprehensive". That said, there's not much additional information from the USA Today that expands about the movie in relation to the road. The National Journal article is about a presidential campaign and doesn't really address this road. It does have information about perceptions of race between the suburbs and the city, but we're straying dangerously far off course. This is an article about M-102, which follows 8 Mile Road, and yes, there are these issues. However, they're best explored in more fully in an article on the metro area, and not just here. Also, you have to note that the character of 8 Mile as a dividing line has changed significantly in the last decade; it's no longer the sharp division it once was. That's where the Index of Dissimilarity comes in. Blacks are moving out of Detroit now and moving to the suburbs. To focus on articles from the time of the movie's premiere will skew that information, and place undue weight on a past condition that doesn't quite exist anymore, as evidenced by a scientific study. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Taking the above comments on board, I can summarise the review as :

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few minor presentation issues

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments about other sources

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No recent edit wars. Wonder what this was about?

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Has potential, main issue is expanding the social and political implications of the road

There is too much arguing in this review (from both sides), so I'm taking it to a second opinion --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agrees I am willing to offer a second opinion. Are there any specific points you want an opinion on or is it the whole article? AIRcorn (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misreading, the are only a few things without stated agreement or solution, so I'm not sure why a second opinion is needed. The initial reviewer should be able to make a decision on them and conclude the review in a short time frame. If you want to comment, the only issues that I see where there isn't agreement or solution are:

1. Ritchie's desire to see a section of an old topographic map added. I don't feel it's necessary since not even all of the various Michigan highway FAs have old maps displayed. Given that the the map he suggested doesn't label M-102 nor 8 Mile Road, nor would it show the highway in a different location than the current one, I don't see a benefit to including it in the article.
2. A sentence that says, "The routing of the state highway leaves 8 Mile on the eastern end to follow Vernier Road and the eastern terminus is at the junction of Vernier and Interstate 94 (I-94)." Ritchie says that it's vague what "eastern end" is, but it should be clear from context that it's "of the routing" since that's the subject of the sentence... although it could be equally "of the county" as well.
3. The level of coverage on the social and political significance of 8 Mile Road (and therefore by extension, M-102) as the northern boundary of Detroit.

• However, as I expounded upon above, two of the three suggested sources date back to the middle of the last decade and offer little extra content that isn't in the article, and recent census data shows a shift in those demographics. The authors of a study stated, in their own words, that there was a "substantial decline" in their Index of Dissimilarity, a measure of racial and economic divisions in a geographic area.
• The third suggested source is about the current presidential campaign, and the impact of race. The reporter interviewed people in the Metro Detroit area, but the piece isn't specifically about Detroit, rather it's about race, welfare, and presidential politics, not Detroit nor M-102 (8 Mile Road).

Imzadi 1979 → 21:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Old map. I don't think the inclusion, or not, of this map should impact the GA status. After some searching I managed to find the road, but like Imazdi says it is not marked so unless some modifications are done to it, it is not going to be very useful to the average reader.
2. I find the whole 8 Mile, M-102 description in the lead pretty confusing. Based on my reading, M-102 is called 8 Mile for most of its length, but 8 Mile extends east and west of the M-102. The first part suggests that the M-102 is longer otherwise 8 Mile should be its whole length, while the second part suggests 8 Mile is the longer as it extends east and west. The only other alternative I can think of is that there is a cross roads at one end where 8 Mile and M-102 diverge (the dog leg at the eastern end?). A map showing the two would be amazing. The two names seem to be used interchangeably throughout the article too, which maybe they shouldn't be if they are describing slightly different roads, especially like in the third paragraph where it starts off saying 8 Mile and ends on M-102. As such, it was not clear to me what "eastern end" meant, but that may be more to do with the general 8 mile M-102 confusion.
3. This section seemed at GA standard to me in terms of broadness. I scanned the sources mentioned, but nothing jumped out that wasn't already mentioned or trivial. If there are some examples of what is missing that could help.

Overall it seems to be at Good article standard, although a better distinction between 8 Mile and M-102 would help. AIRcorn (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I applied some c/e and tweaks to the lead on that distinction. Let me know if that's good. Imzadi 1979 → 02:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. AIRcorn (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the original reviewer's recusing himself from this review, and the second opinion reviewer thinks it looks good. I will be bold and promote the article. –Fredddie™ 01:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]