Talk:U.S. Route 223/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC) The proper approach is to request a second opinion if you disagree with the review, not to start a review. WP:IAR does not explain your conduct.

Then I shall withdraw this review as well. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't avoid a content dispute by repeatedly "withdrawing" a GAN. The question outstanding is how to interpret the sources regarding plans to include I-73 in the 2011 Highway Bill, both in the lead paragraph and in the Future section. If you want a second opinion, please let me know. However, I have spent substantial time on this GA review and I think that we owe it to Wikipedia to sort this out. I am placing this on hold.Racepacket (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Second Opinion Wanted

We want a second opinion on two very narrow questions: 1) Should the sentence in the lead be changed from " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state has plans at this time to complete the freeway." to " Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state is actively working on completing the freeway."

2) In the Future Section, adding a sentence at the end saying, "Any future work remains subject to the availability of federal funding of I-73."

The sources relevant to these changes are:

• http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/10/09/1742860/lahood-dot-is-an-ally-for-i-73.html
• http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13251657/association-votes-to-add-interstate-75-to-the-group?redirected=true
• http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/13291027/lahood-arrives-in-pee-dee-for-important-i-73-talks
• http://www.i73.com/states_michigan.html
• http://www.i73.com/aboutus.html (Adrian, MI businessmen on Board of I-73 coalition)
• http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr05.html - probably not a reliable source, but it concludes, "As of December 2001, the Interstate 73 freeway is on hold pending fund identification. In addition, the State of Ohio has also stopped its feasbility study for Interstate 73, leaving the freeway in doubt in these two states for the immediate term. Longer-term, Interstate 73 is a possibility, but it is certainly not definite."

We look forward to your advice. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RP - I believe Imzadi1979 has requested that this GA-review be withdrawn at this time on several occasions, yet you keep pestering him on the issue. I concur with him that in that if he feels the process should not go any further right now, he should be entitled to that without you dragging this out further. It has been stated for years that Interstate 73 will not happen in Michigan or Ohio. Imzadi1979's sources back this up. Given the economic circumstances of Michigan and Ohio, where would they get the money to support anything related therein to Interstate 73? This is why it might be worthwhile to respect Imzadi1979's wishes and withdraw the GA-review process for U.S. Route 223. DanTheMan474 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are WP:OWN issues, which we can ignore. Many people have invested a lot of time in this article, and absent this one issue, it is close to geting the GA, so we are going to proceed. The point of the sources cited above is that the Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is trying to forge a coalition to include I-73 in the 2011 HIghway Bill and that Adrian, Michigan businessmen are lobbying for that federal funding effort. The question is how to reflect that in the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you're hellbent to continue this process, then you've forced me to reply. Now then, that first i73.com page is purely a list of state legislators and counties along the proposed route. That there are 3 board members from Michigan on an advocacy group that will obviously attempt to spin everything they do to indicate the road will be built doesn't mean that the road will be built. I fully agree with Wizardman's post to your talk page in reply to your WP:CANVASSed opinion: All of this is great information for Interstate 73, not U.S. Route 223. Did you not read [1] where it says that MDOT considered (past tense, all official studies for MI ceased in 2001) three options? One option didn't use US 223 at all. One used only part of it, and one used the I-73/I-74/I-75 association's mapped corridor. These are facts, supported by secondary sources that the coalition doesn't reflect on their website. MDOT released a press release just 6 months later that they've stopped considering the freeway. Both are currently sources in the article.

Turning to the press sources you've listed, the first only mentions the proposed endpoint in Michigan. It says that LaHood wants the governors to meet, but LaHood can't force Michigan to join in. The second only says that an advocacy group has updated its focus to include I-75. The article under review here is not Interstate 75 in Michigan. The third talks about South Carolina and the region. Last time I checked, Michigan was in the Great Lakes or the Midwest, not the South. Until such time as we actually see what any highway bill says about I-73, including it in this article (U.S. Route 223) is speculation and fails WP:CRYSTAL.

If you want to add this information to the Interstate 73 article, feel free. It's a perfect fit. As of 2001, the agencies that actually maintain the roadway that's the subject of this article have abandoned consideration of I-73. There's an advocacy group that pushes for the expansion of US 131's freeway northward. That doesn't mean that MDOT will be studying or engineering further freeway miles. In fact, the expansion of US 131 on the south end is a two-lant bypass of Constantine, not more freeway, even after the legislature and then-Governor Granholm instructed MDOT to restudy building a freeway there.

When there are concrete developments that affect US 223 in Michigan and Ohio, then this article should be updated. Until then, it's all speculation or details best left to the proper article, I-73. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me state this now. When an article goes to FAC, the nominator is free to reject any or all suggestions for "improvement". The FAC delegates will weigh the arguments. We don't have a third party here, but I can still reject your suggestions as not applicable to this article. They're all great suggestions for information to add to Interstate 73. Please add them there. We have no guarantees at this time that Congress will include funding for I-73. Nor do we have guarantees that any funding would include Michigan and Ohio. Congress doesn't convene until tomorrow, and the House will be dealing with organizational stuff and the GOP plan to repeal the health care bill in the near future. A transportation bill is not yet on any agenda, except as talking points in a bureaucrat's speeches 3 months ago in a state that is actively building I-73. (You seem to forget that your press sources are all located in South Carolina. Find something from Michigan or Ohio, and we'll talk.) Now then, I have withdrawn this article from consideration. Please respect that wish. I have other things to do for the remainder of my vacation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to the two questions posted by Racepacket:

1. First I will explain why the wording of the sentence in question should not be changed from the first option to the second option, then offer a third option. To use the word "actively working" might confuse the reader by suggesting the two states might be passively working on the project. There is no evidence to suggest active or passive work by the proper organizations, which in this case are MDOT and ODOT. USDOT and, in general, the federal government are not the proper organizations; all they do is serve an advisory and funding role. The federal governments cannot force the state highway departments to build the Interstate; they can only entice them with funding. Clearly, there are a group of states in the South that are eager to accept federal funding to build a freeway; however, a subset of states doing it does not mean all states are doing it or even contemplating doing it. A group of Adrian businessmen is also not a proper organization because the businessmen are lobbyists, not construction workers or state highway officials.
   I can see how the verb "plans" could be problematic. Therefore, I suggest changing the sentence to the following:
   • "Congress has designated this corridor as part of Interstate 73 (I-73), although neither state intends to complete the freeway."
2. The additional sentence proposed for the Future section should not be added. Michigan and Ohio are not waiting for federal funding to work on this project. Neither of the highway departments is doing any preparatory work to make the construction of a freeway a reality. If the two states were seeking federal funding, you would expect plans be available and ready to execute once the funding arrives. There is no indication the two states intend to move ahead with any such project.

If these two issues are the only ones holding this article back from being a Good Article, then I strongly suggest that once consensus has been reached on their resolution, that changes be implemented and the article promoted. I also suggest that after the resolution of this GAN, Racepacket voluntarily desist from reviewing any of Imzadi1979's GANs for a period of time, perhaps six months, until the bad feelings suffered and wounds inflicted in this conflict have healed and both editors have learned their lessons from these unfortunate events.  VC  18:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some digging through the press reports on the I-73/I-74/I-75 Coalition website and found the last news story they list that actually discusses the situation in Michigan and Ohio. "South takes the lead: I-73 will push from South to North"] from the Marion Star and Mullins Enterprise on Aug 22, 2007. There is quite the write up on the situation quoting various roadgeek websites like AARoads and roadfan.com To quote the article:

With numerous sources indicating that construction of the northern leg appears remote at best, hearing local officials continue to refer to I-73/74 as “an interstate corridor from Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., to Myrtle Beach, S.C.” can seem misleading. Mitchell Metts, I-73 project manager for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, explains, "The road continues to be defined by those parameters because the federal law is written that it will run from there to here." Interstate 73 in its entirety is part of High Priority Corridor 5: I-73/74 North-South Corridor. Its designation is written into law. "However,” Metts continues, "the law left it up to each individual state to determine how and when, and each state was expected to fund construction independently.”

Racepacket, your proposed changes echo the very issues the SCDOT official and the news article find misleading. Now, using this news article in the US 223 article, we can quote exactly when MDOT took down their website, thus ending MI's state involvement in this freeway. Anything else should be added to the I-73 article, not this one. I can support "intends" as a substitute word in the lead, and I agree with none of your proposed changes to the Future section. The only thing I would no change there is the addition of the 2002 timeframe of the website removal, if we feel that such a thing clarifies just how dead this highway is in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)