Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 113

< Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class review

U.S. Route 113 edit

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.

Promoted to A-Class! –Fredddie™ 11:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

U.S. Route 113 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
Nominator's comments: This article passed the Good Article process without a problem. The article has been gradually improved since then, but I am now looking for constructive criticism to take it to the next step.
Nominated by: Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Dough4872 02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. "US 113 is the primary highway within Worcester County, Maryland", maybe indicate it is primary north-south highway as US 50 is an important east-west road in the county.
    •   Fixed Added north–south adjective to the sentence.
  2. "US 113 is one of three major north–south highways in Sussex County", maybe indicate what the other two major highways are.
    •   Fixed Added "Along with US 13 and DE 1" to the beginning of the sentence in question.
  3. In the history section of the lead, it may help to indicate the northern terminus was in Dover when the highway was created.
    • Dover is mentioned in second sentence of the history paragraph ("in Delaware the highway was the Selbyville–Dover portion of the DuPont Highway"). It sounds like you think that fact should be more explicit. My first idea is to start the next sentence with "The Pocomoke City–Dover highway was designated US 113..." Would that be explicit enough or do you have a better idea?
      • I just thought it may help to mention Dover was the northern terminus of the US 113 designation initially so that a reader does not assume US 113 only followed the Dupont Highway to Milford. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Fixed I added a variation of my idea to make it explicit that US 113 was designated in 1926 between Pocomoke City and Dover. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The sentence "After the intersection with MD 365, the highway turns north and reduces to a two-lane highway, then traverses Purnell Branch, crosses the Snow Hill Line of the Maryland and Delaware Railroad at-grade, and turns northeast again as the highway receives the other end of US 113 Business" is too long and needs to be split.
    •   Fixed Split into two sentences.
  5. "scattered industrial concerns" sounds a little awkward, try a different word here.
    •   Fixed Changed concerns to properties.
  6. If I recall correctly, the section of Selbyville that US 113 passes through is more commercial than industrial.
    •   Fixed I added commercial to the description.
  7. In the route description, there seems to be missing details about the physical surrondings. For instance, the article does not mention whether the road runs through residential or business areas of the towns it serves as well as the part between Berlin and the Delaware border. In addition, the article seems to imply that US 113 simply passes through forests between Georgetown and Milford. It may help to mention the road passes through farmland near the DE 16 intersection.
    • I am not sure that level of detail is necessary, and I would like a second opinion on that. I realize description of surroundings may be inconsistent in this article, so I would like further guidance on how detailed I should be.
  8. "US 113's interchange with US 50 was built in 1976, along with a future interchange with MD 90 that sat unused for a quarter century", the use of "quarter century" does not seem right here as it was more than 25 years since the interchange was put into use.
    • According to NBI, the interchange was built in 1976. According to the 2000 Worcester HLR, the interchange opened for use in 2000. So 24 years. I like the use of "quarter century" or "almost a quarter century" to suggest a long time, but if precision is more important here, I can replace it with the number of years. Also, should I add state highway map references for that interchange?
      • Using "almost a quarter century" or "24 years" would be more politically correct here. Also, map references would help here. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Fixed I rewrote the two sentences in the particular paragraph, using the term "24 years," and added map references. I also added the bridge reference for the US 113-US 50 interchange that was missing. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The only part of the old State Road that has that name runs from Milford to just north of Georgetown and does not run all the way to Selbyville. Is the original State Road that crossed the county know by other names in some places today? If so, it may help to mention what the segments are known as today.
    • The point of mentioning the State Road is to reference the DuPont Highway's predecessor road, not to go into detail about that road. US 113 never followed the State Road, so it is even less relevant to mention the names of the roads that follow the path of the State Road.
  10. Some more detail about the Dupont Highway can be added to the history.
    • Do you have specific details you would like to see? Can you suggest any resources I should use?
      • Reference 6 has a bunch of information about the planning of the Dupont Highway that would make the article more interesting, such as the designs that were initially planned for the road. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Expansion of US 113 to a divided highway began in the latter half of the 1950s. US 13's bypass on the south and east side of Dover was completed by 1952; US 113 and US 113A's courses did not change, as US 113 was co-signed with US 13 on that portion of Bay Road, which had been upgraded to a divided highway, to the same northern terminus", it may help to indicate where this location is in the present.
    •   Fixed Added location of the northern terminus: State Street near Dover International Speedway.
  12. When mentioning the completion of the US 113 Frederica bypass, there should be a mention that DE 12 was extended along part of the former US 113 to the route north of Frederica.
    • I do not have a source that states or shows in what year that extension happened (neither does the DE 12 article), so I would prefer not to mention that.
      • I would assume DE 12 was extended as soon as US 113 was relocated to keep the two routes connected. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Fixed I added information about DE 12 being extended to US 113. If anyone can find a source to when DE 12 was extended, the year can be added later. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The references in the article appear to show US 113's northern terminus cut back to the junction with US 13 prior to 1976. Is there perhaps a non-map source that could possibly verify this?
    • If there is such a non-map source, I am not aware of it. Since you are more familiar with Delaware, do you have any suggestions?
      • I would not happen to know of one at the current time, but I would assume AASHTO may have something regarding any possible truncation. Also, looking at the DelDOT maps, it appears US 113 was removed from US 13 between the 1965 and 1966 maps, as the 1965 map has US 113 on US 13 and the 1966 map does not. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Fixed I see what I did wrong here. I corrected the information to reflect your explanation, which matches what the maps say. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The History section does not mention any information about how the routing of US 113 was affected when the DE 1 freeway was constructed in the area of Dover Air Force Base in the 1990s.
    • I do not think the routing was affected significantly. US 113 may have hopped onto the freeway from Bay Road for a few miles, but I am not sure how I would source that.
      • When DE 1 was constructed, the portion of Bay Road in front of Dover AFB became a freeway with a diamond interchange for the base's main gate. Northbound US 113 left the freeway for Bay Road at the interchange for DE 10/DAFB north gate and southbound US 113 joined the freeway further north at the point where DE 1 passes over Bay Road. Try looking at maps from the 1990s as well as non-map sources. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a sentence explaining the upgrading of US 113 to a freeway from the southern end of Dover AFB to Exit 95. Since Exit 95 involves both the ramps at DE 10 and where DE 1 crosses Bay Road as two complementary partial interchanges, I did not explain the stretch of Bay Road "within" the interchange. Is an explanation necessary or would it be too much detail or too confusing? Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sentence that was added seems fine in terms of detail, however there is redundancy in mentioning the dates at the beginning and end of the sentence. In addition, the 2001 date for this upgrade is inaccurate as it actually took place between 1990 and 1994 when the DE 1 freeway was built between Dover and Smyrna. Dough4872 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Some information about why US 113 was truncated from Dover to Milford could be added to the article.
    • The only information I could find on a rationale was in the US 113 article at AARoads. That information is sourced to a personal email. Until I see a more official source, I am going to treat the rationale as speculation, which is something to be avoided in Wikipedia.
  16. More information about the dumbbell interchange at MD 12 as well as the freeway plan in Delaware can be added to the Future section.
    • Unless I missed something, the freeway plans in Delaware are still under study. I am not sure what more I can add about the MD 12 interchange. Perhaps you can point me to some sources on these proposed projects that go beyond what SHA/DelDOT are saying?
      • For the MD 12 interchange, the MD 12 article has some additional detail about the planned interchange. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not think adding the dollar amount of the interchange (which is likely out of date) or an explanation of the type of interchange (the linked article does that) would be helpful, so I am going to leave it out. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I am not sure if the intersections with unnumbered roads in Maryland should be included in the junction list, even if they were formerly part of routes.
    • I would like another opinion on that, since we disagree here. Also, I am not sure DE 24 Alt should be included in the Junction list, since the mileage cannot be sourced and the designation is not official in the DelDOT Traffic Reports.
      • DE 24A is a signed route and junction lists are supposed to include all state routes, whether mileposts are known or not. For reference, DelDOTs route log for other state routes does not have mileposts for some intersecting state highways. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The Bannered routes section needs references. Dough4872 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My impression is the information in the Bannered routes section are essentially Lead paragraphs inviting the reader to head to the main article to get the details and sources. Is that interpretation incorrect by Wikipedia guidelines?
      • I had actually split the two bannered routes out of this article and left the leads here to provide a summary with a link to the main articles. From that perspective, this may be a place where references are not needed as the information can be verified in the subarticles. Dough4872 03:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Dough. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also missed something important in the history. When mentioning the 2004 truncation of US 113, the whole route north of Milford was not replaced by DE 1. The northernmost part between Dover Air Force Base and US 13 became an unnumbered part of Bay Road. Dough4872 03:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Fixed I added a sentence about Bay Road being unnumbered north of Dover AFB after US 113 was truncated. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed everything, either fixing it or asking for a second opinion, except for #10. I will look through the DuPont Highway source in the next few days and see if anything relevant can be found to add to the article. Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Dave

Comments: Lead:

  • US 113 is part of the National Highway System along its entire length-> All of US 113 is part of the National Highway System. IMO sounds a little better, but not a big deal.
  • There is an article about DuPont Historic Corridor. This highway mentions a "Dupont Highway" Are the two related? if so, the articles should be linked and the connection explained. Regardless the origins of "Dupont Highway" should be explained.
    • The DuPont Highway mentioned in the historic corridor article is not the same as the DuPont Highway in this article. The DuPonts were a leading family of Delaware, so they had many, many things named for them, including multiple highways. While the origins of the DuPont Highway are explained in the History section, I added a little more info to the sentence in the Lead, explaining the highway was a philanthropic measure initiated by one of the DuPonts. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

  • Mataponi Creek and Corkers Creek and passes the entrance to the Shad Landing unit of Pocomoke River State Park. IMO you should briefly explain what makes these features notable, especially the state park.
    • Many of these minor bodies of water are included as reference points. The state park is notable as being a state park, and is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. There is only so much you can say about a state park whose location is on a river, contains wetlands, or containing some unique wildlife configurations. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five Mile Branch, Massey Branch and Poplartown Branch also need explanations. My take is these are rail lines from the context. However, I do think it is possible that the mentions of railroad crossings could be referring to the M&D railroad previously linked and the branches could be a creek or street. If all these are indeed railroad branch lines perhaps say "US 113 crosses the Snow Hill Line of the Maryland and Delaware Railroad and has several crossings with branch lines of this main as the route traverses Maryland" or something like that.
    • All of the above are bodies of water that US 113 crosses. The term "branch" is used for many minor bodies of water in Maryland. I find it easier to disambiguate a branch as a rail line than as a body of water, since it is awkward to say "Five Mile Branch river" or "Five Mile Branch stream" but not so to say something like "the Columbia Branch rail line." Do you have any suggestions? Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Humm. I definitely think something needs to be done, as rail lines was my first guess. If it's a branch of a river, perhaps you could say "Five Mile Branch of XYZ river." Or perhaps "Five Mile Branch which empties into XYX Lake/Bay/Ocean." Either of those would make it clear it's a body of water. You would probably only need to do this on the first "branch". However, for me using the word "branch" alone to describe a body of water is a foreign concept, so it does need explaining.Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disambiguated all bodies of water with "branch" in their name in the Route description. There are a few "branches" in the History and Future sections, but they had previously been disambiguated in the RD, so I left them alone. Viridiscalculus (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink "concurrency."

History:

  • "relocated to its present alignment as the first carriageway of a future and later upgraded to a divided highway through Newark and Ironshire as well." is a little rough. The crossouts may help, but there is probaby a better way to re-word this.
    • I reworded as follows: "In Newark and Ironshire, US 113 was relocated to its present alignment as the first carriageway of a future divided highway." Is that better or does the sentence need further work? Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dualized" - Is that a word? (I don't know, i'm asking an honest question).
    • The term "dualize" is mostly used in British English, referring to constructing the second carriageway of a divided highway. It was used more often in the U.S. earlier in the 20th century. Should I change the terms used? Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say "upgraded to a divided highway" personally. But if it is a legitimate word, you're ok to use it. Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was built in 1976, the same year a future interchange with MD 90 was constructed." That doesn't make any sense.
    • Can you elaborate on what does not make sense? My first instinct is the "future interchange" part, but I want to be sure before I correct it. The point I am trying to get across is an interchange was built on another highway but was not put into use for 24 years. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taken literally this sentence implies a highway engineer had a time machine. A future interchange built in 1976? Dave (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reworded this to what I think you meant to say. Let me know if I did this right. Dave (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The way you rewrote it implied MD 90 was not yet built, when in fact MD 90 was the highway that was completed in 1976 and waiting for the other highway to be built to make the interchange functional. I rewrote the set of sentences as follows: "US 113's interchange with US 50 was built in 1976.[18][20] MD 90's interchange with US 113 was also constructed in 1976, but it sat unused for 24 years until US 113 between Berlin and the Delaware state line was partially relocated and expanded to a divided highway between 2000 and 2003.[21][22][23][24][25][26]" Let me know if that solves the confusion or if that introduces new problems. Viridiscalculus (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, you've got features along the route in the History section such as "Dover Air Force Base" and "Dover International Speedway" that aren't mentioned in the Route description. Unless the route no longer passes by these features, they should be mentioned in the Route description.
    • The route no longer passes by those features. They are used as modern reference points to explain where the route once extended. This is explained at the end of the History. The Lead also mentions the highway originally extended north to Dover but was moved south to Milford. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikilink DelDOT
    •   Fixed I expanded the abbreviation to Delaware Department of Transportation and wikilinked it because I had not yet used the expanded form in the prose. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • US 113 in Maryland -> The Maryland portion "US XXX in ZZZ" is a USRDism that isn't really correct english, though I'm guilty as sin as doing it too.
    • As a title, it is a USRDism, but it still works in prose as a reference to "the part of US 113 that is in Maryland." Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was specifically referring to the hatnote at the exit list. I agree that a minor change, such as "the portion of US 113 in Maryland" works. My apologies for not making that clear.Dave (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked for the phrase "US 113 in Maryland" and I removed the "in Maryland" part in the two instances it seemed unnecessary. I changed the Junction list hatnote to "US 113 runs entirely within Worcester County in Maryland." Viridiscalculus (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bannered routes:

Content: Looking at the sources used, with the exception of the future section, they are almost entirely map and database sources. I see very few prose based sources. I have two concerns with that. 1- I strongly encourage to do a search of period newspapers (i.e. when major segments were opened or under construction) for the area. I make a habit of doing this. While not always, it's surprising how often you can find quite a bit of notable information about the highway not available in map based sources. 2- I've seen articles at FAC get grilled for relying too much on non-prose based sources. Just an FYI.Dave (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review, Dave. I am not sure what I am going to do about finding more prose sources, because finding information about highway construction from more than a decade ago is not as easy or profitable as you make it sound. Viridiscalculus (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know all too well that it's not easy. Fortunately the archives search at news.google.com has improved significantly over the years. Dave (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - your most recent fix addressed my biggest concern. Two things for the record. I still think you should search period newspapers for some more prose based sources. I know how tough it can be (believe me) but it does help. And I think not doing so may cause you some grief should you take this to FAC. Second, I don't have a problem with it, but I have seen where articles with future sections get raked over the coals too. The theory is that you've got a section that is guaranteed to be out of date soon. Just something to think about. Dave (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Admrboltz
Resolved issues from Admrboltz (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Image Review:
    1. File:US 113 map.png - Lacking key and GIS source.
      • I did not make this map, so I am not sure what to do here. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Legends are pretty easy, see the Iowa ACR or M-6's ACR. As far as the GIS, you can ask the map creator where s/he got the data from. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never created or altered a map image before, so I have put in a request for map correction at WP:USRD/MTF/R. Since this article is in ACR, the request should be filled in a reasonable amount of time. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your not altering the map though, your just changing the image description page on commons. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Alt text. I know its no ones favorite, but FAC is going to look for it. Check the tool, it will show you which ones are missing alt text.
  2. "The highway runs 74.75 miles" - I may know the context of runs, but a non roadfan may not. Suggest "spans" or something similar.
    • I think a non-road fan would be able to figure out what it means given the length is the very next thing in the sentence. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "dualization" - once again, I know what this is, but most would not. I don't think theres a article on this. If someone can scrounge up some sources, it might be an important article for a lot of these older highway articles.
  4. "All of US 113 is part of the National Highway System.[3][4]" - fact appears in lead but not in prose. Add to prose and remove cites from lead.
    • Facts that are mentioned in the Lead do not always have to appear in prose. In this case, the fact only appears in the Lead and is referenced there. I am going to keep it that way unless there is some kind of rule that states otherwise. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In RD - MD, how do you know all these roads are unsigned MD routes, and former alignments of the hwy. I tried to look at the log book, but I dont see this noted.
    • Unfortunately, I am not sure how to properly reference that a highway is unsigned in a way that is not original research. I think the information is important and should be kept, but if it comes down to referencing it or it has to go, I think I can work it out. The former alignments of the highway can be referenced using the same sources used in the History. Since the information about old alignments is referenced in the History, does it also need to be referenced in the Route description? Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would the MD highway log book show the highway and the street name? --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The MD log shows both the highway and street name. However, the log does not indicate whether a highway is signed or not. I am not sure if there is a resource that states which highways are signed and which are not. The only way to find out that I know of is to go out into the field, which borders on original research. Typically, highways longer than a mile are signed and highways under a mile are not, but there are too many exceptions both ways in the Maryland highway system to be able to claim a particular highway is signed or not without actually observing it. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "The divided highway was extended north along the Frederica bypass in 1965; DE 12 was later extended north from Frederica to the bypass along old US 113.[36][44][2]" - -refs out of order.
    • I am seeing the references in the correct order. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should be ref 2, then 36, then 44 not 36, 44, 2. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand what you want me to do. I just am not seeing it; when I look at the article, I see "The divided highway was extended north along the Frederica bypass in 1965; DE 12 was later extended north from Frederica to the bypass along old US 113.[2][36][44]" The reference calls are in the correct order in the edit interface. Viridiscalculus (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Major intersections table missing scope parameter per MOS:RJL.
  8. Wikilink Right-in/right-out interchange in Major intersections.
  9. If US 113 Alt. doesn't exist anymore, why is it in the '08 log book?
    • By log book, I am guessing you mean reference 2, the "Traffic Count and Mileage Report: Interstate, Delaware, and US Routes." for 2008. I commend you for a great catch as I had forgotten to investigate updating that reference with the 2009 report. Incidentally, the 2009 report does not have US 113 Alt listed. The 2008 report also did not reflect US 113 being truncated. I have no idea why DelDOT kept that info in there for four years after it was removed. The AASHTO reference, reference 55, backs up the claim that US 113 Alt was removed in 2004. However, this brings up a new issue. I would like to put in a reference to the 2009 report, but I should really keep the 2008 report reference because the 2009 report does not contain the mileage number for the northern terminus. Should I link to one report, either 2008 or 2009, or both? Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would update the whole article to use the 09 log, but if you have access to an 04/03 log then use that to cite the mileage for the Alt route, and then just cite the end date w/ ref 55 in the {{infobox road small}}. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Fixed I updated the 2008 report references to 2009, and added the 2003 report to use for US 113's total DE mileage and US 113 Alt's mileage.  VC  19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Refs 11 12 14 16 17 why are the dates bold?
  11. Suggest abbreviating Delaware Department of Transportation in the first ref (e.g. Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) then using DelDOT in the remainder of the references to tidy up the ref list.
    • I am going to keep the names spelled out as they are for consistency. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ref 57 58 59 60 should be changed from ALL CAPS to Start Case per MOS:ALLCAPS.

Otherwise looks good. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Admrboltz. Viridiscalculus (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Rschen7754
  • Lead - what is a post road? (link?)
    •   Fixed A post road is a highway designated by the government to carry correspondence between towns back when mail was the only form of long-distance communication. I wikilinked the term.  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highway between Pocomoke City and Dover was designated US 113 as part of the original U.S. Highway System in 1926. The highway was widened in both states in the 1930s and 1940s. - same beginning
    •   Fixed I changed the second "the highway" to "US 113".  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD - intro - two sentences start with "Known as". Not particularly engaging.
    • I changed the wording in the second sentence for more variety. This may change again depending on what I change further in the Route description.  VC  05:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.1 - "section" and "old alignment" repeated too. Again with "crosses".
  • Run-on- The highway crosses Church Branch of the Shingle Landing Prong of the St. Martin River then another old alignment of US 113 splits to the west, accessed at its southern end via a right-in/right-out interchange southbound.
  • 1.2 - Median widening - where are you sourcing this from?
    • I removed information about the median.  VC  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • at grade - that supposed to be hyphenated? (unsure on this one)
    • At grade is hyphenated when used as an adjective ("at-grade crossing") and not hyphenated when used as an adverb ("crosses the railroad at grade"). I think I have the hyphenation correct, but I would check my work.  VC  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing - all off the DOT site and maps. FAC may complain. Just a warning.
  • The RD fails to address the question of "Why does the reader care?" All I get from reading it is that the road intersects other roads and crosses rivers. I suspect this does have to do with the first part being based solely on the DOT site and maps.
    • I added a bunch of non-road specific sources and information about the towns along the route to liven up the Route description.  VC  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • History - US 113 is the descendent of an old post road - descendant?
    •   Fixed I changed "descendent" to "successor".  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.1 first paragraph - four sentences in a row start with The.
    • I am not sure how to fix this. The highway did not have a name in the 1910s, although I can try to find something. It would be incorrect to use US 113 because the highway did not receive that designation until 1926. The definite article "the" is being used properly here, so barring new information the sentences should remain as they are.  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just restructure the sentences so they don't all begin with "the". --Rschen7754 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I diversified sentence structure in the first paragraph of Maryland history.  VC  18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 cites for one sentence!?
    •   Fixed I split the sentence into multiple sentences and added some missing information. No sentence should have more than three cites now.  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.2 - in the end the DuPont Highway was constructed in Sussex County as a 14-foot (4.3 m) roadway on the 200-foot (61 m) right-of-way. - 14-foot wide?
    • That is correct. Many roads built in the 1910s and 1920s were built that narrow because automobiles were smaller and not capable of today's speeds.  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you clarify and say wide as opposed to long? --Rschen7754 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junction list - end of Maryland - it looks like US 113 exits from itself!?
    • I agree that is awkward. Should I combine the two junction lists into one? If yes, should the mileages remain separate or be treated as one highway?  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually I've seen colspans used to make the distinction more clear. --Rschen7754 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I combined the state Junction lists into one Junction list.  VC  04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the route description, the article looks great. You just need to fix the RD and make some minor edits and you should be good to go.

Rschen7754 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all of the non-Route description issues. I will need more time to work through the RD issues.  VC  21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-review of Maryland RD section
US 113 heads northeast as a four-lane divided highway with a wide, tree-filled median - again with the tree-filled, that's not sourced.
I removed the information about the median both here and in the fifth paragraph.
As of 2011, the divided highway extended south to Goody Hill Road between Newark and Ironshire. - be more precise, say like the fourth quarter of 2010.
I rewrote the sentence to indicate the present extend of divided highway and the section under construction as of October 2010, and referenced it.
which contains several museums and preserves buildings from the late 19th century when Berlin was at the intersection of the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington Railroad (now the Snow Hill Line) and the defunct Baltimore, Chesapeake & Atlantic Railway. - That's a bit too much detail. Also, there's a period before and after the ref.
I removed the specific railroad lines from both the Pocomoke City and Berlin sentences. I also removed the extra period.
Next sentence - intersects intersects.
Fixed.
with a narrow, guardrailed median - again with the medians.
Removed.
Throughout the RD you overuse "farmland and forest".
I removed all references to farmland and forest from the Maryland section and will do the same with the Delaware section later. I will save the forest descriptions for when the route passes through state forests, which the highway does in both states. The reader can assume that since the highway passes through a flat, rural area, there is a lot of farmland along it.
The last paragraph seems a little long.
I did some consolidation to shorten the paragraph.
As far as writing the DE part - you're on the right track with the MD part, but don't go too far off on a tangent. This is the US Route 113 article, not some other article. Briefly explaining what something is is fine, but don't go overboard. --Rschen7754 02:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed several items above in the Maryland RD. A few left to complete.  VC  19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed remaining items. Now time to work on the Delaware section.  VC  20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delaware section of the Route description has been rewritten.  VC  16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rereview of DE part of RD
First paragraph is long. Keep in mind that just adding breaks in between paragraphs is an option. However in this case, the first paragraph is a little detail-heavy.
I removed a few details and rewrote a few sentences to make the paragraph more concise. I also moved the image to the next paragraph so the paragraph does not look so long.  VC  07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "The U.S. highway" is overused. --Rschen7754 05:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced some instances of U.S. highway with U.S. route.  VC  07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with disclaimer When I first reviewed the article the RD was void of any description indicating why the reader should care about the article. The article has definitely improved since then. However, a concern I have is that upon taking this article to FAC, some may complain that there is too much tangential detail. It's a hard balance to find the point where the RD remains interesting and has details yet there isn't a "detail overload". It's also hard to tell where FAC will draw that line as well. I think the article is to the point where if FAC draws the line more towards the less-detailed side, the changes could be made without much difficulty. But again, it's FAC, and who knows what will happen there. Otherwise, the article is good and I have no reservations about the rest of it. --Rschen7754 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/U.S._Route_113&oldid=1136426031"