The "through mostly fields" isn't ungrammatical. The land in that area the highway passes through is mostly fields. However, the sentence has been tweaked.
As for the business route, there isn't enough content to warrant a stand-alone article, especially given that M-50 was rerouted to replace its own business route. Merging a related highway into the parent article is fairly standard practice when there is only one or two such roads to merge. For Michigan alone it has been done with:
U.S. Route 12 in Michigan, current and former business routes related to US 112 (US 12 replaced US 112, former BUS US 12 routes are now BL I-94 routes)
I-69, I-75, I-94, I-96, I-196, US 10, M-21, US 23, US 24, US 31, US 127 and US 131 have separate lists for business/connector/related routes because of
WP:SIZE; if size weren't an issue they would be merged into the parent articles.
In conclusion, there is ample precedent to merge a business route into its parent article unless there is enough content or historical distinction to warrant a separate article. Imzadi 1979→20:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
That is a grammatical error and should be changed to "mostly through". And about the business route I agree with your point.
(
edit conflict)That is a grammatical error and should be changed to "mostly through". And about the business route I agree with your point. I found some more grammatical errors in the article such as:
Okay, as you wish. But before I approve this request, could you just go thoroughly over the whole article and check for any more grammatical errors. And just a note, no need of any pings as I have watchlisted the article.--
Ankit MaityTalkContribs07:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm confused by it too... since part of the point of having someone else review the article is to find the missing comma for you that you've stared past umpteen times in working on the article. I had a friend of mine who doesn't edit on Wikipedia skim through for me, and I made his changes. Reviewers are even encouraged to make the minor changes rather than hold the article. Imzadi 1979→08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The termini of a road are stationary; they can't "run along" another highway. To imply that M-50's western terminus runs along I-96 is false.
We don't have "routes" in Michigan. Here, a "route" is the path a highway takes, and not the highway itself.
You've repeated Lake Michigan in rapid succession when "that Great Lake" (Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario are well-known as the Great Lakes) served as an appropriate reference .
You've inserted unnecessary prepositions; M-50 runs along Alden Nash Avenue, not "with" it.
"Junction" isn't a good verb to use with highways, it's best left as a noun.
MDOT doesn't actually maintain "all" of the state highways; the segment of I-75 that crosses the
Mackinac Bridge is under the maintenance of the
Mackinac Bridge Authority, ergo we can't say "all" in that sentence.
Thank you for the review, but be careful in copy editing work because it's easy to change or distort the meaning of the writing. Imzadi 1979→21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
You know, I am not really related to Roads, Highways and all. So, the type of copy-editing will also differ from topic to topic. Sorry, I introduced those inaccuracies. Actually, that was also another reason why I refrained from making those edits. So, if you have not discovered any more inaccuracies just inform me here.--
Ankit MaityTalkContribs06:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The "through mostly fields" isn't ungrammatical. The land in that area the highway passes through is mostly fields. However, the sentence has been tweaked.
As for the business route, there isn't enough content to warrant a stand-alone article, especially given that M-50 was rerouted to replace its own business route. Merging a related highway into the parent article is fairly standard practice when there is only one or two such roads to merge. For Michigan alone it has been done with:
U.S. Route 12 in Michigan, current and former business routes related to US 112 (US 12 replaced US 112, former BUS US 12 routes are now BL I-94 routes)
I-69, I-75, I-94, I-96, I-196, US 10, M-21, US 23, US 24, US 31, US 127 and US 131 have separate lists for business/connector/related routes because of
WP:SIZE; if size weren't an issue they would be merged into the parent articles.
In conclusion, there is ample precedent to merge a business route into its parent article unless there is enough content or historical distinction to warrant a separate article. Imzadi 1979→20:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)reply
That is a grammatical error and should be changed to "mostly through". And about the business route I agree with your point.
(
edit conflict)That is a grammatical error and should be changed to "mostly through". And about the business route I agree with your point. I found some more grammatical errors in the article such as:
Okay, as you wish. But before I approve this request, could you just go thoroughly over the whole article and check for any more grammatical errors. And just a note, no need of any pings as I have watchlisted the article.--
Ankit MaityTalkContribs07:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm confused by it too... since part of the point of having someone else review the article is to find the missing comma for you that you've stared past umpteen times in working on the article. I had a friend of mine who doesn't edit on Wikipedia skim through for me, and I made his changes. Reviewers are even encouraged to make the minor changes rather than hold the article. Imzadi 1979→08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The termini of a road are stationary; they can't "run along" another highway. To imply that M-50's western terminus runs along I-96 is false.
We don't have "routes" in Michigan. Here, a "route" is the path a highway takes, and not the highway itself.
You've repeated Lake Michigan in rapid succession when "that Great Lake" (Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and Lake Ontario are well-known as the Great Lakes) served as an appropriate reference .
You've inserted unnecessary prepositions; M-50 runs along Alden Nash Avenue, not "with" it.
"Junction" isn't a good verb to use with highways, it's best left as a noun.
MDOT doesn't actually maintain "all" of the state highways; the segment of I-75 that crosses the
Mackinac Bridge is under the maintenance of the
Mackinac Bridge Authority, ergo we can't say "all" in that sentence.
Thank you for the review, but be careful in copy editing work because it's easy to change or distort the meaning of the writing. Imzadi 1979→21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
You know, I am not really related to Roads, Highways and all. So, the type of copy-editing will also differ from topic to topic. Sorry, I introduced those inaccuracies. Actually, that was also another reason why I refrained from making those edits. So, if you have not discovered any more inaccuracies just inform me here.--
Ankit MaityTalkContribs06:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)reply