Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 34 in Iowa/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 December 2022 [1].

U.S. Route 34 in Iowa edit

Nominator(s): –Fredddie™ 05:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at garnering a promotion for this article. This time I will be more proactive about getting people to review my work than I did before. Anyway, I am proud of this article and believe it's my finest work yet.

US 34 is an original U.S. Highway in Iowa. It started out as a muddy auto trail, then became a state highway, and finally a U.S. Highway. The article also talks about changing highway policy over the years and how that affected the highway as it is today. It even initiated the creation of a federal law regarding handling Native American remains found during highway construction. –Fredddie™ 05:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I will review this article soon. Feel free to ping me if I haven't gotten to it within, say, 3 days. Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "It begins on a bridge over the Missouri River west of Glenwood and travels east where it meets Interstate 29 (I-29) and US 275." - Dumb non-Iowan comment, but does US 34 meet I-29 and US 275 at the same location? You mention locations for other interchanges in the lead, e.g. "Its interchanges with US 59 near Emerson and US 71 near Stanton and Villisca are located away from populated areas".
  • "Just east of Ottumwa, where the road meets US 63, the road joins with the four-lane Iowa 163 for the remainder of its trek through the state" - So, it becomes concurrent with Iowa 163?
  • "US 34 was one of the original U.S. Highways when the system was created in 1926" - Could this be condensed? For example "US 34 was part of the original U.S. Highway system, created in 1926"
  • "The Blue Grass Route was assigned Primary Road No. 8 for its entirety" - Should this be "in its entirety?
  • "Their subsequent lab analysis and not immediate reburial" - I think "not immediate" is slightly awkward. Perhaps "delayed"?
  • "Since the early 1990s, modern bridges that can handle high volumes of high-speed traffic have been built at both the eastern and western state lines. Both new bridges replaced older obsolete truss bridges." - I think these could be combined, e.g. "Since the early 1990s, obsolete truss bridges at the eastern and western state lines were replaced with modern bridges that can handle high volumes of high-speed traffic". You don't need to say "older" obsolete bridges, as it's implied that these truss bridges predated the current bridges.

Route description:

  • "The eastern third of the route is a four-lane expressway; part of a corridor between Des Moines and Burlington." - This should be a comma, not a semicolon, since the latter half of the sentence is not a standalone clause.
  • "The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) designated the entire length of US 34 as the Red Bull Highway, in honor of the 34th Infantry Division." - Is there a specific date for this? If not, you should instead say "The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) has designated".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to @Epicgenius: I have seen your comments, but I have not had time to address them. That should change this weekend. –Fredddie™ 03:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I must have forgotten about this. I'll leave more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick question before I review the rest of the page. I see that, in "Western Iowa", the sentences "East of Afton, US 34 and US 169 run concurrently east; the road curves to avoid the BNSF Railway line. Some distance comes between the road and the rails and the highway straightens. US 169 turns off to the north and US 34 continues east toward Thayer." do not have inline footnotes. Is this also supported by the Iowa DOT citation (currently reference number 6)? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I probably juggled around where the section breaks were after I placed the refs. I moved Ref 6 to the right location. I have everything addressed so far except for the first point, which I'm still unsure how to address. But as to your question, both I-29 and US 275 meet US 34 at the same location east of Glenwood, though US 275 follows US 34 until Glenwood a few miles away. –Fredddie™ 01:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. I'll leave some more comments tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Any further comments? --Rschen7754 03:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I will post a few comments shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Route description:
  • "Continuing east, US 34 briefly curves to the north in order to pass over the BNSF Railway line that carries the California Zephyr." - I also think "in order to" is redundant.
  • "East of there, the highway heads southeast toward Stanton; it straightens out to east again near Viking Lake State Park." - Unless the section heading southeast is particularly serpentine, the phrase "straightens out to east" should be reworded
  • "It crosses the middle and eastern branches of the Nodaway River, the latter branch on the outskirts of Corning. There lies an intersection with Iowa 148." - Does US 34 meet Iowa 148 above the eastern branch of the river, or on the outskirts of Corning? The exit list suggests the latter, but the grammar is unclear.
  • "Some distance comes between the road and the rails and the highway straightens." - The first part of the sentence may be redundant, given that you've already said "the road curves to avoid the BNSF Railway line."
  • "The two roads split; US 65 turns to the south and US 34 curves to the northeast and then back to the southeast." - I'd add a comma after "turns to the south" to clarify/emphasize the diverging paths of US 65 and US 34.
  • "US 34 heads due east again. It passes the small towns of Russell and Melrose, both of which lie along the railroad so access to the towns is provided by short connector roads." - I get the second part of the sentence, but it might be confusing to a general reader. Do the connector roads exist because the small towns are on the opposite side of the railroad from US 34?
  • The connector roads exist because the state tended to build straight(ish) roads on section lines while railroads meandered wherever they wanted. Should I add an adjective suggesting the railroad isn't straight since I mentioned the road heading due east? –Fredddie™ 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon reaching the expressway on the eastern side of town, US 34 and US 63 split and head in opposite directions." - Would it be better to just say "US 34 and US 63 head in opposite directions"?
  • "It is the eastern leg of the Des Moines to Burlington Highway, which was given the Iowa 163 designation in 2009." - Is the entire Des Moines to Burlington Highway known as Iowa 163, or just the eastern leg?
  • The whole thing is Iowa 163. –Fredddie™ 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I'd rephrase this as "It uses the eastern leg of the Des Moines to Burlington Highway, which since 2009 has carried the Iowa 163 designation" or something like that. Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment on the "History" section later. Sorry it took me so long to respond @Fredddie. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where I didn't make a specific comment, I will clean those up. –Fredddie™ 00:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The route was first organized as the Blue Grass Route" - I would replace "first organized" with "established". In this context, the word "organized" seems a bit out of place.
  • I think that organized works in this sense. Each auto trail had an association that promoted and maintained the road. They rounded up businessmen from each city and town along the proposed route and held meetings and such. Today we'd describe the process as grassroots. –Fredddie™ 23:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see now. In that case, can this situation be clarified? Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paving of the highway was completed in 1930; US 34 was the first road in Iowa to be completely paved" - This could be rephrased to remove the need for the semicolon and the repetition of the word "completely". For example, "US 34 became the first road in Iowa to be completely paved in 1930, when the state finished paving the highway."
  • "Work began in the 1950s to modernize Iowa's highway system" - To maintain the continuity of this clause, you should move the verb phrase to the end of this clause, i.e. "Work on modernizing Iowa's highway system began in the 1950s".
  • "Construction on the eastern and western sides of the state, in Burlington and Glenwood, respectively, did result in parts of the highway becoming four lanes, other highway projects were cut back during the 1970s recession" - There should be a semicolon after "becoming four lanes".
  • "In the mid 1990s" - And this should be "mid-1990s".
  • "At both state line crossings, modern bridges capable of handling four-lane, high-speed traffic, were built to replace old and obsolete truss bridges" - The comma after "traffic" is redundant and should be removed, as "high-speed traffic" isn't being used as a parenthetical here.
  • "The Great River Bridge opened in Burlington in 1994 and the US 34 Missouri River Bridge replaced the Plattsmouth Bridge in 2014." - It may be helpful to note which bridge is on which state border. This is the first time either bridge is mentioned in the article.
  • The Great River Bridge is mentioned at the end of the RD. I didn't mention the name of the Missouri River bridge in the RD because I thought it would have been redundant.
US 34 enters Iowa on US 34 Missouri River Bridge over the Missouri River near the mouth of the Platte River. –Fredddie™ 23:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Iowa Department of Transportation" - This is already linked and abbreviated as "Iowa DOT" above, so the link should be removed and this should be shortened to "Iowa DOT".
  • "The Blue Grass Route, also called the Blue Grass Road, was a route that connected Council Bluffs and Burlington" - To avoid repetition, I'd say "The 310-mile-long (500 km) Blue Grass Route, also called the Blue Grass Road, connected Council Bluffs and Burlington."
  • "The route was first organized in 1910" - Similarly, "organized" sounds like a weird word to use here.
  • "In 1913, shortly after the Iowa General Assembly passed legislation allowing road associations to officially register their route with the Iowa State Highway Commission." - This is a run-on sentence.
  • You mean it's a sentence fragment.
  • Yeah, sorry. I meant to say that it's a sentence fragment. Epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three years later, it was determined that the association had not completed its registration application, thus the road was not the first to be registered in Iowa." - This is also a run-on, but less severe than the preceding run-on; it could be fixed by replacing the word "thus" with "so".
  • "No. 8 followed a path through southern Iowa that resembles the path of US 34 today..." - While I don't doubt the veracity of this information, the entire paragraph needs an inline citation.
Actually, I'll have to comment more on this later. Please ping me if I haven't returned within 24 hours. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have either responded or fixed the issues above –Fredddie™ 23:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Highway origins
  • "In the mid-1920s, automobile associations continued to sponsor their named routes — there were 64 such named routes in Iowa — on top of the route numbers given by the state highway commission" - I'd change the parenthetical "there were 64 such named routes in Iowa" to "of which there were 64 in Iowa", as you are already talking about named routes in the preceding clause, i.e. "associations continued to sponsor their named routes—of which there were 64 in Iowa". By the way, the em-dashes should be unspaced per MOS:DASH.
  • "This proved to be more confusing than helpful to the casual traveler" - Is it possible to just say "This was confusing than helpful to the casual traveler" or even "This confused casual travelers"?
  • "Across the country, support for the system was nearly unanimous among state highway officials" - It may be better to phrase this as "Support for the system was nearly unanimous among state highway officials across the country", but this is optional and not a big deal.
  • "The Iowa State Highway Commission chose to renumber a few highways as to not have conflicting route numbers along important routes" - I feel like there is either a missing word or an extra word here. But this can be avoided completely be rewording the sentence, e.g. "The Iowa State Highway Commission chose to renumber a few highways so important routes did not have conflicting route numbers"
  • "the same as Primary Road No. 8." - Just so we're clear, the same terminus?
  • "at which over 5,000 guests, including Governor John Hammill, were in attendance" - Could this be just "attended by over 5,000 guests, including Governor John Hammill"?
  • "The Glenwood-to-Plattsmouth section that became part of US 34 in 1935 was paved in 1946 and 1947" - Another minor nitpick, but in the phrase "that became part of US 34 in 1935", "that" should be "which". The word "that" implies that there's more than one section between Glenwood and Plattsmouth that became part of US 34 in 1935, but the word "which" states that there is only one section and that it became part of US 34 in 1935. I would also put commas before "which" and after "1935", i.e. "The Glenwood-to-Plattsmouth section, which became part of US 34 in 1935, was paved in 1946 and 1947", for clarity.
  • "But by the 1950s, increased traffic and wider vehicles took their toll on highways. In some parts of the state, highways were widened to withstand modern vehicles." - The word "but" can be removed.
  • "to 22 feet (6.7 m) total width" - I suggest "to a total width of 22 feet (6.7 m)"
  • "a new road was going to be $2 million cheaper" - Instead of "was going to be", I suggest "would be".
  • "provide fill dirt for the relocation of US 34" - I would link fill (land).
More later (this is a long article, so I have quite a few comments). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I haven't forgotten about this. Most of the rest of the article looks good, though I have a few nitpicks that I'll post later. In the "River crossings" section, I do see an issue with the first paragraph:
  • "Upon entering and exiting the state, US 34 crosses a major river—the Missouri River in the west and the Mississippi River in the east. Historically, the highway crossed each river on narrow, two-lane truss bridges. More recently, both river crossings have been replaced with modern four-lane bridges capable of handling high-speed traffic."
This paragraph should have some inline citations, but this is relatively easy since the information is already cited below. However, the phrase "more recently" can run afoul of MOS:DATED, so you should change this to a more definite time frame. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four-lane upgrades:
  • "Most of US 34 fell under the plan; from I-29 to Ottumwa, the road would be built to expressway standards and from Ottumwa to Burlington, it would be built up to freeway standards" - I'd add a comma after "expressway standards". Also, though I know the difference between expressway and freeway standards, the general public may not know the difference, so it would be good to clarify that.
  • "The routing of the freeway was not without opposition." - This is redundant to the next sentence.
  • "Ultimately, land through North Hill was acquired, but at a cost of $2.6 million" - Do we know the original cost?
  • "Traffic wider than 12 feet (3.7 m) could not pass between the westbound tollbooth and railing." - This is the first time that a toll is mentioned. (I see that it's also mentioned later in the article, but you should mention the toll earlier.)
  • "42 percent inflation of construction costs" - I would say "42 percent increase", as "inflation" in finance refers specifically to inflation.
  • "of which, at least $40 million (equivalent to $152 million in 2020[24]) was allocated for Iowa projects" - The comma after "which" should be removed.
  • "In 1971, during the grading phase of the project, about twenty gravesites along with the skeleton of a Native American teenage girl were found by highway workers." - Could this be in active voice, e.g. "In 1971, during the grading phase of the project, highway workers found about twenty gravesites along with the skeleton of a Native American teenage girl"?
  • "to pay for the costs to move the remains" - This should probably be "to pay for the costs of moving the remains".
  • ""right to remain an Indian," even in death" - The comma should be outside the quotation, per MOS:LQ.
  • "Pearson protested to Governor Robert D. Ray, by gaining an audience with him after entering outside his office in traditional attire. "You can give me back my people's bones and you can quit digging them up" she responded when the governor asked what he could do for her." - There shouldn't be a comma after Ray's name (as the second half of that sentence isn't a clause that could stand as its own sentence), but there should be a comma after the quotation.
  • "Plans to begin work on the new highway" - Should this be "Plans for the new highway", or are you specifically emphasizing the beginning of work?
  • "the Congress would fund projects individually" - If you're talking about the U.S. Congress, shouldn't it just be "Congress" without "the"?
  • "The MacArthur Bridge was dismantled shortly after the Great River Bridge opened" - I suppose the new bridge didn't charge any tolls?
  • "There were two Missouri River crossings in the project area, the Plattsmouth Bridge and the Bellevue Bridge, which carried Nebraska Highway 370 (N-370) and Iowa 370, that required traffic to pass through populated areas" - The current phrasing makes it sound like the Plattsmouth Bridge carries N-370 and the Bellevue Bridge carries Iowa 370. To clarify things, I recommend "There were two Missouri River crossings in the project area, the Plattsmouth Bridge and the Bellevue Bridge—which carried Nebraska Highway 370 (N-370) and Iowa 370—that required traffic to pass through populated areas"
  • "The bridge was dedicated on October 22, 2014. Governors Terry Branstad of Iowa and Dave Heineman of Nebraska, both of whom spoke at the opening ceremony, felt the bridge would be a boon to the local economy and attract jobs." - I'd move this to after the sentence "The US 34 designation was applied to the new bridge in May 2014, before construction was completed"
  • "An agreement to transfer jurisdiction of Iowa 370 on the Iowa side, from the state to Mills County, was reached in 2010" - The commas in this sentence seem like they might be emphasizing the wrong thing. I suggest something like "In 2010, an agreement was reached to transfer jurisdiction of Iowa 370 on the Iowa side from the state to Mills County."
That's all I have. Sorry about taking literally a month to finish all these comments, but it took me a few hours overall to examine the entire article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "'Ultimately, land through North Hill was acquired, but at a cost of $2.6 million' - Do we know the original cost?" are you asking if there was an original offer that became $2.6 million after negotiations? –Fredddie™ 20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fredddie, yeah. That's what I was asking. This is a relatively minor issue though. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed everything or asked for clarification. –Fredddie™ 00:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although there is still one issue outstanding, it's relatively minor, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. Nice work. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dave (talk) edit

Placeholder comment:I have finished reviewing the prose. In the next few days, I plan to also do some source spot checks, image checks, and infobox/table checks. I've reviewed your content before and these have never been a problem. However, in the interest of a thorough review I'll try to do some. Dave (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • comment, this sentence " Its interchanges with US 59 near Emerson and US 71 near Stanton and Villisca are located away from populated areas." was confusing at first. I had to read it twice to understand it. There's nothing wrong with it, and I can't tell you why it took me twice to understand it; it just did. Not going to hold up the review over it, but if you are copyediting the lead again, maybe take a look at this sentence.
  • Truss Bridges should be wikilinked
Route description
  • Saying the route crosses the BNSF Railway isn't really helpful, as the BNSF owns dozens of rail lines. The article for the California Zephyr lists the specific rail lines used for the route, so you should be able to find that there. That list came from a table of Federal Railroad Administration data. I'll find that table I was staring at, so you can use it as a source if you so choose.
Regarding the lines, it looks like it's the Creston and Ottumwa Subdivisions. Both of those are redlinks at the moment, so am I being too cautious for not wanting to add redlinks, or does the line still merit a mention? –Fredddie™ 21:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found it [2]. Not the easiest db to use, but it is an official government source for rail line names. My $.02 is that it is worth mentioning. Again just saying BNSF railway doesn't really help, they own dozens of rail lines all across the country. Plus, they won't likely stay red for too much longer. There's a small team on the WP:Trains project that is creating articles for them. In fact, there's quite a few that subdivisions have route diagrams created, just waiting for someone to throw an article together to place it in. But I also accept that's my opinion and if nobody else agrees so be it.Dave (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this [3] 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The route description is void of any description of the geography the highway traverses. Granted, I did a quick scan with a topographical map and there's not a lot of named mountains etc. along the route, so I accept there may not be a lot to be said. However, in the interest of being comprehensive I think you should add at least a couple of sentences. It looks like there's a lot of rolling hills in the western portion with some fairly dramatic geography to the west of Ottumwa, then fairly flat east of there. It also looks like even some of the portions that appear strait, that specific latitude was chosen so the route could run along some ridge-lines and avoid some more hillier terrain. Also, granted the types of bridges for the notable bridges (cable stayed, etc.) are mentioned in both the history section and in the articles for the individual bridges. However, I don't think it would be overkill to mention here also.Dave (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • consider a piped wikilink to List of historic auto trails in Iowa on first instance of Blue Grass Route?
  • As written the article implies (but does not explicitly state) the US 534 designation was colloquial, but not official. Any way you can make that more clear and still stay true to what the sources say?
  • Friendly suggestion: IMHO the most interesting parts of the article are the river crossings and the portion about finding Native American remains, both near the end of the article. Not a requirement for FA, but if in your copyediting you feel the need to re-order the article I'd find a way to move this content up. Dave (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The history section is largely chronological. There is a little skip backwards from the Glenwood section to the DSM-to-Burlington section, but that gap is smaller than if the sections were reversed. That section kinda of flows into the Burlington bridge part of the bridge section. The Missouri River bridge opened within the last 10 years, so it fits best, chronologically at the end.
    I'm all ears if you have a better location. –Fredddie™ 04:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moabdave, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I received a message from Dave on Discord saying that he was going to be incommunicado for a couple days due to an issue with his phone/2FA. –Fredddie™ 18:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support promotion. I'm not 100% happy with the US530 part. I'd ideally like a clear statement like "though this designation was not approved by AASHTO." However, I accept that sources to prove a negative often simply do not exist, and the statement in the article today is both an improvement of what it said before and is likely the limit of what can be said without violating WP:OR. As such, I reluctantly accept the issue as resolved. I'm not judging, I have some similar "I'm 99% sure this is what really happened, but without a source I can't say it" issues in articles I've worked on. Still, if in the future a source is found that clears it up, please reconsider revising this section. Dave (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave I know you've already supported, but you did mention that you'd do some sourcing spot checks. Are you still willing to do that? I just don't want this review to fail because it loses steam. –Fredddie™ 02:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I promised I'd do some source spot checks then forgot to do it with the above hinted real life issues I was having. I'm still willing to do some spot checks. I'm just not sure how it would look with me already voting support. However, I'll do it if nobody here has any objections, and trusts that I have enough integrity to rescind my support vote in the event I find something (and I would. However, I doubt I'll find any serious issues, I've reviewed your stuff before).Dave (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dream out loud edit

Article looks really good, but I have a few comments:

  • The highway shield in the U.S. Highway origins section seems out of place. I know it's not common to see shields outside of infoboxes or templates, but just adding the image without context doesn't work. Perhaps you can create a thumbnail image with a caption?
  • In the junction list table, some rows have an emdash "—" where there is no exit number, while many rows just leave the column blank. There should be some more consistency here.
  • Iowa DOT should be linked in the Route description
  • Lots of overlinking in the references (e.g. Newspaperarchive.com, Google Books)
  • If the alt name "Red Bull Highway" is mentioned in the infobox, it should also be somewhere in the lead

–Dream out loud (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed everything but the first bullet point. Sometimes less is more. –Fredddie™ 05:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dream out loud, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The inconsistency of the "Exit" column in the interchanges table still needs to be addressed. Some rows have emdashes, while many are blank. Also, there are many blank rows where espan is used and others where it's not used. Additionally, I disagree with the "less is more" statement regarding the lone highway shield - it needs some context. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree regarding the shield, so I have removed it entirely.
  • I have placed two notes at the top of the Exit column that should explain it. –Fredddie™ 11:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Paging Dream out loud. –Fredddie™ 05:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this nomination. I didn't like the 2 consecutive footnotes in the intersections template so went ahead and merged them into one. No other issues to report. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

Coordinator comment: I'm sorry, but at about three weeks in without any general supports, this nomination is in danger of having to be archived. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Having to be"? Based on what? Some arbitrary deadline imposed by the superusers that dictate this process? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

  • No issues with image licensing. Images are all either public domain due to age, Wikipedian-made images of features not subject to freedom of panorama restrictions, or are public domain HAER images. Hog Farm Talk 23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You're inconsistent about including publisher locations in your citations -- about half the cite book citations have a location; one of the four cite journals, most but not all cite news.
  • You're missing the publisher parameter for Myers and Morrison; you have it for the other web citations.
  • What makes the three external links reliable sources? Myers is a blog; Morrison appears to be an enthusiast site; the video is apparently a private account.
  • Suggest changing "dignataries" to "dignitaries" in FN 20 per MOS:TYPOFIX.
  • Suggest marking FN 22, 79, 80, 83, 85 as paywalled.
  • The link for FNs 26, 28, 41, 57, 72, 77 do not work.
  • The Plundered Skulls source is fine, but you're quoting the conversation as if Colwell was reporting actual speech. The section you're citing is clearly a dramatization -- perhaps quite accurate according to the recollections of those depicted, but we can't treat it as a verbatim record.
  • Neither the link nor the archive link for FN 84 works.
  • FN 85 says it's minutes for a 2017 meeting but the linked document is dated 2010.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed your concerns.
  • I did not add locations for the Des Moines Register, the Omaha World Herald, and the Lincoln Star Journal, since I believe they are major enough cities to not require it since the city name is in the masthead.
    Not required, but I would suggest adding the location for those three too, since although all three qualify as major cities in the area, any non-US reader may well have never heard of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented out the ELs because on one hand, WP:ELMAYBE #4, and WP:NOBLOGS on the other.
  • Given your comment on FN 85 later, I assumed you meant 86, which came up with a paywall when I double checked it.
  • The Iowa DOT reorganized their website. It happens.
  • I shortened the quotation from Plundered Skulls. After Pearson died in 2003, the Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society dedicated an entire issue to Pearson and included a piece she wrote called "Give Me Back My People’s Bones: Repatriation and Reburial of American Indian Skeletal Remains in Iowa." I'm trying to get a copy of it, but herding cats is easier. Anyway, I'm taking the concurrency of the quote and the title to mean she actually said those words.
  • Oops. I transposed the date and access date, though I don't know where the 2013 date came from. 2017, when I cited it, was a long time ago.
Thanks for the source review. –Fredddie™ 09:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most points fixed.

  • For FN 41 the title should be "Official Description Change".
  • Sorry, I don't think we can treat it as direct speech unless we have a source that makes it clear those are her words. I think just taking out the quotes would be enough: "Pearson responded that he could give her back her people's bones". If the article you're looking for gives you the actual quote then of course that's fine.
  • FN 84 is still broken for me (both links).

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've fixed the first two. The third ref is controlled by a template, which I edited earlier this morning. The original link is dead, but the archived link should work. It's downloaded the Word Document each time I've clicked the link since I corrected it. –Fredddie™ 16:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. I suspect that Word document download was working for me too but I just didn't notice it. All good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_34_in_Iowa/archive2&oldid=1128202202"