Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 11:51, 1 June 2011 [1].

Brockway Mountain Drive

Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brockway Mountain Drive is a famous scenic drive in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that was built as a project of the US government during the Great Depression. Unlike most of my nominations, this is not a state highway, making it the first county road to be nominated at this forum. Imzadi 1979 → 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I will now Support the article. Dough 48 72 02:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1#Dough4872. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Ref 8: formatting
ref 13, 16: page(s)?
Retrieval dates for online copies of print-based sources are not required, but if you're going to include them you must be consistent in doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with ref 8's formatting?
- As for ref 13, that issue is not paginated.
- If a print-based source has a URL indicated, it has a retrieval date; if it does not have a URL given, it does not have such a date. That is consistently done. Please advise if it hasn't. Imzadi 1979 → 19:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ref 8 has no retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, it does now, and I don't know why it didn't before. Imzadi 1979 → 21:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is a picture in my senior yearbook of me and my girl on Brockway during prom night. Good article, well written, well sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ I've never been there, with or without a female companion, so some quibbles, I'm afraid Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1#Jimfbleak. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - what a pleasant surprise to find an article on this at FAC – I went up to Copper Harbor and saw this back in 2009. :-) I can't see any major problems, so I'm supporting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ Someday I'm going to do the Copper Country Color Tour and conquer this mountain. I ~~look forward to~~ support~~ing~~ this wonderful article. ~~Until then, I'd like to hear your thoughts on a few minor things.~~ Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1#Two Hearted River. Imzadi 1979 → 00:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The US does not have freedom of panorama for publicly displayed works like that depicted in File:Brockway_Mountain_Lake_Superior.jpg. Do you know the copyright status/author/date of this work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The signs are de minimis, as the majority of the photograph is related to the view of Lake Superior. The text of the signs is not legible at the angle shown in the photo. I will have to wait until Tuesday, May 31, to call the Keweenaw County Road Commission to clarify, but those signs date back before 1978 without a copyright notice, so the Chicago Picasso precedent would apply, rendering the signs in the public domain. Until clarified, I've swapped out the photo with another, File:Brockway Mtn (west) Eagle Harbor.JPG. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:M-Blank.svg: on what source was this drawing based? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All Michigan highway markers are public domain; the 2005 Michigan supplement to the 2003 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states on page I-1: "Any traffic control device design or application provision contained in this Manual shall be considered to be in the public domain." I have updated the file description accordingly. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a well written and thoroughly sourced article that kept my interest, even though I've never previously heard of the subject and aren't generally all that interested in roads. Good job. Coolug (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has a spotcheck for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources been done? (Imzadi, if one was done on previous noms of yours, pls include link.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth did one at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M-6 (Michigan highway)/archive1 earlier this year. Imzadi 1979 → 17:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Imzadi. She only checked with the automated tools, which are limited in what they pick up-- I'd prefer to see someone manually review a couple of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

"great and unusual foliage destinations" - quote doesn't match source (closest match includes "fall")
"Many locales in the Keweenaw Peninsula are frequently praised for their beauty and pristine appearances" - source?

Checked 8 sources, found no overly close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated quote of the headline.
That is a summary sentence for the following two paragraphs. Ergo it is backed by just about every citation that follows it for the entire section of the article. Most of those news articles mention more than just Brockway Mountain Drive and cover all of the Keweenaw Peninsula or the Copper Country. (Those two names are essentially interchangeable for the same region.) I don't feel it's necessary to add a couple dozen citations to verify that every year or so, at least one major newspaper, magazine or TV station/network profiles the region in a travel segment when there are already several examples used in the subsequent paragraphs. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Brockway Mountain, the place, a redirect to this road rather than a red link? "Several viewpoints along the route allow for views ... " view, view, can sentence be rephrased to avoid repetition? " ... climbs to a height of 1,320 feet (402 m) above sea level ... ", why not just "climbs to 1,320 feet above sea level", isn't height redundant there? Is this correct grammar? "... visible some 50 miles in distance". Does David D. Brockway meet notability? (It seems he would if a mountain is named after him)-- if so, he should be a redlink. There are several places, names in the article that probably meet notability and should be red-linked ... more prose review needed. Is "beginnings" correct grammar? "Brockway moved to Copper Harbor in 1846 at the beginnings of the area's copper boom." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because outside of the state of Michigan, it wouldn't be called a mountain? Yes, the state has two mountain ranges, but they're nowhere near Copper Harbor. Brockway Mountain is essentially an overgrown hill or ridge, and there isn't going to be any more to say about that landform that isn't covered in this article's "History" or "Scenic opportunities" sections. Unless there's something else to write about that hill, everything is here in one article.
Mr. Brockway himself isn't really notable beyond being the the namesake for a really big hill that itself is the namesake for a famous roadway. The only other references to this Daniel Brockway that I've found are to a collection of diaries at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, MI. The university is about 45 miles south of the Copper Harbor area and has them in its local history archives.
All of the miscellaneous lakes, streams and other landforms that are mentioned in the article without links are not notable enough to have articles.

Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough explanation-- more prose review pending. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of your other comments are addressed as well, if you care to strike them too. Imzadi 1979 → 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.