The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: It's been a while since I've been to ACR with my own article, so here goes. A few things I want to mention first.
I am acutely aware of the lack of pictures. I will work on this while the ACR is open.
I have been asked in private to make markers for the auto trails.
There has been a push to get US 6's historical route signed. So far it's been one guy making the push and only in eastern Iowa, so it hasn't had a lot of coverage outside his website (SPS problems). It should still be mentioned.
It is signed in places as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway - Where? or is it just intermittantly? The main US 6 article gives the impression that this name covers all of US6, if so it should be mentioned as such, and then noted the signage is intermittant.
Iowa is a little funny with how and where GAotRH is signed. The signs are indeed intermittent, not every US 6 signs has an accompanying GAotRH sign, but some do. It is mainly signed along the parts of US 6 that do not overlap I-80, but it is also signed on the former sections of US 6 that are now county roads. Weird, huh? –Fredddie™04:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the signage along former US 6 is remnant, it should probably be ignored. Better yet, if the situation is complex -rather than say what it is "signed" as, mention that it is "declared" or "<insert term>" as GAotRH instead-- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little more digging on this reread the part I wrote about it, and where the GAotRH is signed today is where US 6 was located in 1947. Hope that explains it a little more. –Fredddie™05:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a result, the least-traveled sections of the route were moved onto I-80. -- As a result, the least travelled sections were decommissioned and parts of the original route where moved onto parallel sections of I-80
I don't like the word decommissioned, but I get what you're saying. –Fredddie™
The route parallels I-80 for most of its length; however nearly one-third of the route overlaps the Interstate Highway - its mot going to be immediately obvious to international readers that I-80 is an interstate highway
Isn't that the purpose of the I-80 article? –Fredddie™
US 6 crosses the Missouri River via the Grenville Dodge Memorial Bridge into Council Bluffs, Iowa with I-480 --> ... as part of a duplex (or insert term of choice here) with I-480
Mentions of CR routes, or perhaps just the first mention, should link to the appropriate article concerning county routes, international readers have no idea what CR stands for
Oops. That was an artifact from copying over some text from the I-80 article. –Fredddie™
There actually no articles about Iowa's county roads, just a section on the primary highway system article. Given that, I don't think a link to county highway would be appropriate here since it doesn't really mention Iowa in depth. This doesn't mean I disagree with you, though. –Fredddie™05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one-half mile (0.80 km) -- convert to 800m instead. (similar with other sub 1km conversions)
It would be great to get a shield, signage, or other marker for the early routes (all appear to be pre-23 so hopefully no major copyright issues) [just noticed that this was mentioned by the nom, consider this a public request then]
Might have to use better terminology than "overlaps" (and similar), such as duplex or concurrency
I disagree here. I think two routes "overlapping" is an easier concept to grasp than two routes "being concurrent". Plus, a road "duplex" is a neologism. –Fredddie™
Sounds fair enough, Id personally prefer concurrency to "overlaps" but your usage is consistent. Done
Information to do with previous versions of the US6 shield (if applicable) would be interesting
That would do nicely, though you could alternatively link to another generalised article that shows example or template versions rather than re-do for each road - your choice :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the mileage in the lead is rounded to the nearest whole number and not to three decimal places like it is in the infobox?
We've been criticized at FAC for being too precise in our route descriptions. This is me addressing that. –Fredddie™
"From there, it travels east through Oakland and Atlantic, Iowa.", is it really necessary to mention that Atlantic is in Iowa. The title of the article should imply that it is in Iowa.
Must have been from when I delinked a bunch of stuff with AWB. You could have done this, btw. –Fredddie™
Toward the end of the second paragraph of the lead, you continuously refer to US 6 as "it". Can some varied wording be added here?
"The three routes run together for four miles (6.4 km), when US 6 / US 71 split away from Iowa 83 and continue north to I-80. At I-80, US 6 splits away from US 71 and joins I-80.", you use "split(s) away" in two consecutive sentences. One of the instances should be changed.
"It turns off of Iowa 14 and enters the western side of Newton, passing through its downtown area and the Jasper County courthouse.", does US 6 actually pass through the courthouse? I would use better wording here.
"On November 11, 1926, members of the American Association of State Highway Officials approved the plan to create a system of interstate highways across the country.", don't you mean U.S. highways? I would change the wording to avoid confusion with the Interstate Highway System that was created in 1956.
It's not wrong. When the US Highway System was created, they were called interstate highways (note the common noun form). –Fredddie™
You could perhaps provide a little more context on where US 6 was extended from to from in 1931.
"The abandoned section became an extended Iowa 83 and an Adair County road.", what was the name or number of this county road? Dough487203:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do this myself, but it's easily visible in the lead, so I thought I'd check first: I'm not sure a comma is the correct punctuation mark after mentioning the two auto trails. I think a semicolon or just a full stop would fit better.
There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the RD mini-lead. It says the route is two lanes away from I-80, but then that the portion between Adel and Waukee is four lanes. It's unclear that that portion is away from I-80 as well.
Not sure if you're missing the "while" in there, but that sentence reads differently if you don't see the "while". I did add in a "however" to show a continuation of the thought. –Fredddie™
US 6 rejoins I-80 for the second time and the interstate returns to its four-lane configuration. – Forgive me if I missed something here, but it isn't clear that I-80 ever deviated from its four-lane configuration.
In Eastern Iowa, the article seems to imply that US 6 rejoins I-80 as it's approaching the Quad Cities, but that isn't really clear.
You'll have to be a little more specific. I don't see anything like that. –Fredddie™
In the last sentence of the first paragrah, US 6 and Iowa 38 are heading toward I-80, and in the first sentence of the second paragraph, US 6 and I-80 are running toward the Quad Cities, though it isn't mentioned that US 6 ever rejoined I-80. TCN7JM06:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: since this has been inactive for over 1 month, with outstanding replies, this discussion has been suspended. It will be automatically failed 6 months from this posting if there are no attempts to resolve the issues in that time. --Rschen775403:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to, but I would like to see more news coverage first. Right now, what's out there makes it seem like it's one guy going from city to city and asking to put up the signs. I don't think would be quite enough for a whole paragraph just yet. –Fredddie™23:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.