Talk:Wisconsin Highway 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics Wisconsin Highways
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.
This article's exit list has been marked as needing attention.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Good article Wisconsin Highway 29 was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Removed "Wis 29 Corridor" link as this no longer exists on destination site (WisDOT) Added a list of communities served, Added info on study projects found on site for freeway conversion (they also appear on Bessert's page) Also added info on the Wausau upgrade project and proper sources. --Master son 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mileposts

I'm done with the first chunck of mileposts in the exit list. Tomorrow, I will work on the others, and hopefully get this exit list ready for GA status. -- JA10Talk • Contribs 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On hold

I'm working on the mileposts for a while but I should be able to finish when I have some free time. -- JA10Talk • Contribs 01:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed

I've failed this because the mileposts are at this point incomplete, which is supposed to be complete when this article was nominated for GA status. (→zelzany - new age roads) 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I failed this, not because of any minor points like mileposts, but because the source for the history is not a reliable source. --NE2 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. (By master sonT - C, 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC).)

The article was reinserted into the nominations list. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I'm doing the review, comments soon. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First comments:

  1. Intro is much too short, doesn’t even mention history or future plans. I would expect total length (miles and km) in the intro as well as the infobox
  2. Please give metric conversions formatted as eg 5 miles (8 km)
  3. Style is very staccato in places with one-clause sentences: "WIS 29 goes here. WIS 29 goes there," Can’t some of the sentences be run together to improve flow?
  4. Reference needed for While traffic crashes have declined significantly, numerous memorials to those who lost their lives on the road still dot the route.
  5. Paras should ideally have at least three sentence. There are a number of one-sentence paras that should be fixed if at all possible.
  6. I assume that CTH in the table means County Highway. Can that be made explicit? Also if followed by a single letter, eg CTH T, why not use a no-break space?
  7. Bannered highway link - I shouldn’t have to go through another article and a redirect to find what this means
  8. Not clear to a non-American that “business route” is an example of a bannered route, please make that clearer in this short section, and perhaps explain what a business route is for us limeys
  9. Please check for typos, esp capitals at start of sentence and proper names.

I haven’t checked refs yet, and I’ll have at least one more read through Jimfbleak (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. "Junction" seems to be used as a verb more than once, eg and junction with Interstate 94. Shouldn't that be "joins" or "has a junction with"?
  2. Expressway isn't explained or linked. I assume it means a toll road, but needs to be glossed or linked
  3. It seems perverse to link freeway at virtually the last of its many mentions
  4. What's "Corridors 2020."??
  5. Would it be better to move the first picture to halfway down its section? It will still sandwich text, but in a less narrow place.

Refs are OK, look forward to improvements, Jimfbleak (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  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:

No changes made in a week, so assessing as is, fail. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)