Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Delaware Route 17

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: I'm uninvolved with this article and its editors and feel confident that there is a consensus here. Article remains a GA, but valid concerns of different kinds are noted. One concern is with the boilerplate nature of this and other articles on similar routes, some of which were recently promoted to GA: the length of this GAR and the number of comments on the quality of the article are indicative of serious problems with content. Second, and this is more serious in my opinion, the quick and apparently cursory review (of this and other articles) is criticized by a number of editors, and that Status states that this GAR is nothing but "reviewer thrashing" and "blown 'way' out of proportion" (their only two comments) is, frankly, weak: a reviewer should stand by their review and not dismiss counter arguments in this way. A third, related, and equally important concern is the speed with which a GA backlog drive seems to have been executed. This is not the place to go into the pros and cons of such drives and how they are organized, but the critique ought to be noted by those involved with them. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Clarification requested on "broad in coverage" I am nominating this article for reassessment as I don't think it meets criteria #3a Broad coverage. The article provides some geographic description of the route but it does not explain many major aspects of the subject. In particular, from a broad coverage it is missing:

  • An explanation of the role of the road within the larger transport network. There is no illustration to help understand this either.
  • The history seems to cover mostly the history of the naming/designation, not that of the road itself. When was the road first built, when was it upgraded? What was the surface like, and when was it changed?
  • Characteristics: Only the overall length of the road is given, but not the width. Does the width vary? What is the altitude, are there any slopes?
  • Structure: What materials is the road made of? what is its structure? how is drainage resolved?
  • Regulation: What speed limit is in force along the road, how many traffic lights are there? etc.
  • Statistics: When was the cited traffic count been done? What are the trends (increasing or decreasing traffic)? What are the accident rates?

I am not a road/traffic expert, these are simple questions which arise for anyone interested in an article like this. Therefore I think it either needs to be expanded to answer the above questions or delisted. --ELEKHHT 22:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does describe the layout of the road, it is a two-lane undivided road its entire length. That is all the reader really needs to know about the road. I added that the road was paved. A lot of the other details, such as slope, width, change of traffic counts, and drainage, are too technical to be included in a road articles. Also, speed limits and number of traffic lights are technical and indiscriminate information for a road article. The history does mention when the road was built, when it was built as a state highway, it became a paved road. This article follows the same formula as hundreds of road articles that are GA. Dough4872 22:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the 40 or so FAs about U.S. roads are like this and do not include the technical details you are requesting be added. Dough4872 22:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there might be many GAs and FAs sharing characteristics with this article should not impede a merit based review of this article. Indeed the results of this community re-assessment might have bearing on other articles of similar scope. Regarding your assertion of what "is all the reader really needs to know about the road" if you can explain who and where has decided that, it would be of help for this discussion. -ELEKHHT 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the stuff that you request can't even be reliably sourced. --Rschen7754 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the information would be necessary for building the road in the first place, and being a public road it would be publicly available information, although might be not on-line. --ELEKHHT 23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USRD/STDS calls for what should be in a road article. The route description section is "for describing the route itself and its progression across the state or country." In describing the route itself, it should mention the physical surroundings and the basic details about what the road is like. Concerning the latter, the number of lanes, whether it is divided or undivided, whether it is limited-access or not, or whether it is paved or not, is sufficent. Per WP:WHIM, Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information, and listing all the technical details of this route violates that. Dough4872 23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Does it matter to the reader that there are 2,343 traffic lights on U.S. Route 50? (I made that number up). Where would you even get that number? Google StreetView? How long would it take to figure that out? And what if the imagery isn't updated regularly or isn't available? It's not in the California route logs. --Rschen7754 23:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHIM section 3 states that "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." Adding these technical details clearly violates that. Dough4872 23:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be assured that I very much value concise articles and by no means do I ask for indiscriminate collection of information to be included. I did not ask for "long and sprawling lists of statistics". As said, I am not a traffic expert and the nr of traffic lights question was only by way of example. As a reader I am interested how fast I can travel on a route, speed limits and traffic lights have bearing on that, that's all. Perhaps there is also an issue with GA criteria #1a calling for clarity. Above in this discussion it was stated that "it is a two-lane undivided road its entire length" but in the article it is only clear that is a two-lane undivided road at the Selbyville section. Furthermore the width of a road seems to me to be such a basic characteristic that it would warrant its mention in the lead. --ELEKHHT 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified that route is two lanes, undivided, and paved its entire length in the Route description. I also mentioned the route is two lanes and undivided in the lead. However, I still feel that including the measured width of the road is still indiscriminate and the reader would probably not care as they would assume that one lane is wide enough to hold one car. As Rschen mentioned, there is no way to easily source traffic lights, and the DelDOT route log does not mention which intersections are signalized. Speed limits are also monotonous and indiscriminate to the reader and they are not mentioned in the route log either. Dough4872 23:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a situation where editors have found a formula and created a massive number of articles, with seemingly little effort compared to other GA articles. The road articles usually use vague terminology like "created by 1938" and "By 1996, DE 17 was cut back to its current western terminus at DE 54" and when asked to be more specific, the editor says that's all the information available. They use what are considered in other articles as "primary information", that is, from the Delaware State Highway Department for example.

When I tried to write an article on a state park, I was told that information from secondary sources had to be used, and what the state park system says was a primary source. Not true with roads.

If you look under Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology#Transport, specifically under Road infrastructure: Northeastern United States or Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States for example, you'll see a massive number of articles with basically the same formatted information [substitute specific road]. If someone has bothered to get a photo, then wow! The GA evaluation for this article Talk:Delaware Route 17/GA1 is typical, I suggest. When I reviewed road article, I at least went through and tried to get the article to make sense, but I believe many reviewers don't. And we can look forward to many many more.

It is an oddity at GA that some articles undergo excessive examination by comparison, e.g. Talk:Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore/GA1 while others can be turned out by formula. But hey, if the road people can get away with this, then that's wikipedia for you! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that we do have a lot of crummy road GAs out there, and it's on my todo list to conduct a bit of a sweep. But, most of the information demanded by the above editor just isn't available for the vast majority of roads. --Rschen7754 00:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but the majority of information that has been requested by the reviewer is standardized engineering measurements or statistics. This information is better included in article that cover the construction techniques and technicalities of roads in general. Lane widths, for example, vary between 3.2 and 3.8 metres on any freeway. It would be unreasonable to expect this information in individual road articles, as road width is never constant. Some articles (ie Highway 401) cover the lane widths with a table, while others make mentions in the route description. The only source for this information is usually satellite imagery. The other points do apply to some roads, but many roads are simply not extravagant enough to expect sections covering the cultural heritage or the community effects of any given road. You'll notice most roads do not cover the route turn by turn, and so to expect hill by hill or lane by lane coverage is indeed expecting coverage of trivial statistics. I can't speak for others, but I believe that every Ontario road GA does cover the historical significance of the road with regards to settlement and colonization in the 19th century and early 20th centuries - that IS a reasonable expectation of the history, but only where such history does indeed exist. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you raise a very significant issue, and therefore it is important to gather views from the broader community. IMO an article should only be marked as "Good" if is considered such by most readers, not just a particular group. In that regard it is important to remember that general MOS guidelines always have precedence to any WikiProject guideline. I invited further input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. But is important to keep the general discussion separate from the specific discussion about the merits of this article. --ELEKHHT 00:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, photos are not required for GA. --Rschen7754 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so your interpretation of #6 "Illustrated, if possible, by images:" is that "photos are not required". --ELEKHHT 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If possible" means if someone can get a hold of an image for the article. Not all the time can editors go out an get a picture of a road or find a suitable image on Flickr. For the record, DE 17 does have a photo, so that is a moot point concerning this article. Dough4872 00:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The shield does count as an image. --Rschen7754 00:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#Assessing_the_article_and_providing_a_review #6 says "Images are encouraged but not required." This alone should not be an issue. –Fredddie™ 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An OpenStreetMap illustration would massively increase the quality of the article and is available. --ELEKHHT 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before this blows up into another pissing match, KML is on the way. –Fredddie™ 00:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KML added. Dough4872 00:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assume the information to answer your questions and the sources to back up that information is all available. Should it be included? Wikipedia is geared toward a general audience. I recognize there are some very technical articles and sections of articles, even Featured Articles, but efforts are made to relate the information to a general audience.

I agree with you on a few of your points; I will come back to those later. But first I will address a few of the points I disagree with. They all fall under items a general audience (as opposed to an engineer) is not likely to care about. Does a non-engineer care whether a road is used by 10000 or 15000 vehicles each day? Does a non-engineer care whether the road is 22 or 24 feet (6.7 or 7.3 m) wide? Does a non-engineer care when the highway surface was changed from concrete to asphalt? Does a non-engineer care about accident rates? Does a non-engineer care about the slope of the road? In 99.99% of cases, the answer is no. That being said, there are situations when a general audience does care about those details. In those situations, it makes sense to include that information, and explicitly address why it matters. Why does a road have an accident rate ten times the state average? Why is a road that carries 25000 vehicles a day still two lanes? Are there plans to widen it? Why would a general audience care about this information?

I agree with you on the following:

  • I agree about adding at least some explanation of the role of the road. One sentence in the Lead should suffice. It should at least mention it connects Selbyville and the Bethany Beach area; there is no mention of the latter location in the article. Anything further, like serving various non-notable farms and residences, is not necessary.
  • I recognize the distinction between when the road was built and designated, and that this article does not say when it was paved. On the other hand, the fact that the road surface was changed from concrete to asphalt in a random year in the 1950s is not really notable.
  • I am not a fan of including traffic counts in isolation. I only include them if needed to support another point. However, you make a good point that the year of the traffic count should be included.

Finally, I am going to address speed limits, because you want to know how fast you can get from A to B on this particular road. The consensus in our project is that speed limits, like many other things in the list you mention, are not notable without justification. On a rural highway like this, there are so many factors that impact how fast you can go. The speed limit is one, but there are also traffic lights, towns, curves, farm vehicles, left-turning drivers, law enforcement, etc. Saying the speed limit is 40 miles per hour (64 km/h) would not help you very much. There are two general situations I can think of where speed limits are prudent. Freeways lack most of the factors I listed two sentences ago. Barring an accident or bad weather, if the speed limit on a freeway is 70 miles per hour (110 km/h), you can easily calculate how long it can take to get from A to B. The other situations are speed traps, some of which are notorious and get press. For instance, several years ago the American Automobile Association advised motorists to avoid or be careful along a particular stretch of highway in Florida because of speed traps. Now that is something a general audience will care about!  VC  00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I profoundly disagree with your dismissal of the general audience, 99.99% of whom, according to you, are not going to be interested in a whole list of what seems to me to be interesting stuff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE was crafted specifically for this reason. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning what, exactly? I come to this article to learn about a road in some far away country. Here's some stuff I don't know about the road having read the article. I don't know what it's made of. Concrete? Tarmac? I don't know if it's relatively flat or has a gradient. I don't know anything about the speed limit. I don't know (though I accept your argument below about source) the accident rate. Even one bit that I do know, you appear to dismiss as inconsequential, which is the usage rate. Only by virtue of the infobox do I know anything about arrangements for the road's maintenance - something which in the UK is a matter of some topical importance. Looking at the article at the start of this reassessment, there was no map nor any sentence describing the basic purpose of the road (to connect place A to place B). How is it acceptable to set so low a standard as to dismiss what seems to be basic information? I just do not have the assumptions and/or a priori knowledge I think you have when coming to read an article on a US road. I expect my encyclopedia to give me what I consider to be basic info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (I know, I'm suprised too (; ). The article should mention if it is a paved road or gravel... concrete or asphalt perhaps (ie when there is significance to why one was chosen over the other... acoustics, heat absorbtion, maintenance, initial cost). It should mention if the road is flat or undulated. The usage rate can very significantly from one intersection to the next, and so it would require more tables of date. Instead, I would think it more significant when the heavy usage starts to raise commentary from local media, advocacy groups or politicians, or when it triggers the expansion of the road to a freeway... in other words when it is covered by secondary sources and not just primary statistics. The maintenance of the road is mentioned in the lead sentence and history (it's a state highway; that article could use more, or perhaps it could link to the article on highways in Delaware?). Again, I'm not trying to say this article is a stellar example, I'm simply trying to defuse the idea that this is consistent amongst all our good articles, which have been reviewed by dozens of non-road-project members. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • To address the issues raised by the reviewer:
    • An explanation of the role of the road within the larger transport network. There is no illustration to help understand this either.
      Most article include maps; can't speak for this one specifically. The route description and the junction list provides this context among the surrounding transportation network.
    • The history seems to cover mostly the history of the naming/designation, not that of the road itself. When was the road first built, when was it upgraded? What was the surface like, and when was it changed?
      The article should include when the road was paved if that information is possible to obtain. Most significant and historical roads in North America were established as foot trails and gradually adopted into expanding road systems during the first three decades of the 20th century as automobiles became the prevalent form of transportation. Most roads were paved in the two decades following World War II as heavy diesel equipment, labour, and money became available, in addition to the sudden surge in transport trucks. This information simply does not exist in many cases, especially with regard to a specific road; it's unreasonable to expect a centuries deep historical exploration of a topic that has only been significant as long as it has been under government control.
    • Characteristics: Only the overall length of the road is given, but not the width. Does the width vary? What is the altitude, are there any slopes?
      Pavement widths vary constantly based on minute changes in road geometry and surveying imprecision. To list of the slopes along the road would certainly require hands-on investigation... or original research. Length is a single number, and it is a significant value. The width is generally not, but some articles (again, Highway 401 is an example) do include the lane configuration from one end to the other.
    • Structure: What materials is the road made of? what is its structure? how is drainage resolved?
      We would cover this statistical engineering information in articles on road construction, drainage/ditching, and road surfaces. All that matters here is whether it is paved or not. Significant structures (bridges, skyways, tunnels) are mentioned in most articles in the route description and/or junction table.
    • Regulation: What speed limit is in force along the road, how many traffic lights are there? etc.
      This I do have to call WP:INDISCRIMINATE point 3 on. Some articles mention the speed limit on the road if it is unchanging or where there is some significant drop because of road geometry (ie Ontario Highway 403 mentions the general speed limit of 100km/h, but also notes a reduction to 80 at the bottom of a mountain pass).
    • Statistics: When was the cited traffic count been done? What are the trends (increasing or decreasing traffic)? What are the accident rates?
      You won't find accident rates for specific roads. It could also vary significantly from one stretch to another. Some roads are a kilometre long; some cross the continent. The cited traffic count was done on the date provided on the ref. Trends would mean we would synthesize commentary out of primary sources... which is what we're already being accused of relying too heavily upon.
That is all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with all articles owned by the various roads projects (see the point below about "The Way That A Few Highly Active Editors Do Things"), and as previously discussed at length, this one fails to have "broad coverage", because it does not include coordinates for the start and end points; and key features such as major intersections. And no, an attached KML file does not provide an adequate substitute for them, as I can't access my preferred mapping services from it directly in my browser, nor read it on a printed or offline version of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous; as you well know, they are not required at FAC, so they should not be required here. --Rschen7754 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point applies equally, if not more so, to FACs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the RfC which doesn't endorse your personal preferences. Also, four FACs have been promoted by delegates, three of which were after a thorough debate of the issue that included your input. (M-185 FAC, US in MI FAC, NY 319 FAC, ON 401 FAC). Imzadi 1979 → 19:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of which rebuts - and some of which evidences - the points I made above. Your attempt to portray this as being about my "personal preferences" is laughable; the vast majority of geographically-related articles outside these projects have coordinates. It is those projects, not me, who are marching out of step. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't marching out of step, you're a one man marching band! Feel free to encourage your "preferred mapping service" (aka your personal preference) to adopt the open-source KML specifications, which are coordinate based. You could also encourage the maintainers of Geohack, who as a member of the coordinates wikiproject you certainly must be in touch with, to create a tool that can read the KML and provide links to the start and end terminii. However, this is far outside the scope of this review; you are failing to grasp the consensus that has been arrived at through an RFC and established despite having it explained to you by nearly a dozen editors, which in this case is also WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and you are trying to be a bully without any weight to push around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Floydian, your misunderstandings, whether deliberate or unintentional, always amuse. I'm not asking or "My preferred mapping service" to be added to this or any other article. I'm asking for the necessary facility for anyone to use their preferred mapping service - i.e. instances of {{Coord}} - to be used, in accordance with what happens on the majority of Wikipedia's geographical articles. There was no consensus against doing so, in your RFC, as every attempt by you to prohibit them was rejected, as I do tire of pointing out to you and your roads projects colleagues. That is where your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review this article should have had

edit

Looking at the actual article, I do see some areas where improvement is needed. To be blunt, the review was quite poor; I would have held the article, had I reviewed it, on these reasons:

  • The route passes several homes before leaving Selbyville and entering rural areas of farms with some woods and homes. ... *cringe*
    • Still not addressed. Cut down on "woods" and "homes."
  • Two sentences beginning with "The route" right next to each other.
  • In 1939, the Chief Engineer of the State Highway Department described DE 17 as "inadequately measured for present-day standards", and recommended it be widened and resurfaced. - so was it?
  • By 1924, all of the route had been completed as a paved state highway. DE 17 was designated by 1938 to run from US 113 in Selbyville to DE 26 near Millville, following Church Street and Main Street in Selbyville before picking up its current alignment. - okay, so what was DE 17 before it was DE 17? It was in the state highway system...
  • Map citations. These are generally acceptable, but you usually want to cite two maps for each statement if you are trying to pin down a date. Generally two of the same map, 1 year apart, is the best, but that may not be possible. This is to avoid situations like this: "By 1996, DE 17 was cut back to its current western terminus at DE 54." But what if it happened in 1990 and you couldn't find that map? If you can find any more maps to put a bound on both sides of the date ranges, that would greatly help.
  • I would also throw in what I call a FAC disclaimer. This article does not have a wide variety of sources, and that is fine for GAN as the article is complete, but this would fail at FAC. Generally, you look for newspaper articles if you can regarding the opening dates, etc. --Rschen7754 03:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some fixes to the article. I removed the bit about the recommended widening since I could not find any indication whether it was actually widened and that it is a minor detail that does not need to be mentioned. Dough4872 00:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from an outsider

edit

Hi,
I came here because ELEKHH posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias suggesting possible problems of systemic bias.

  • WP:CSB concentrates on broader issues of bias relative to the outside world; gender, language, the global South &c. Bias towards one WikiProject's norms over some other group of editors is not really within CSB's remit.
  • However, I would argue that sometimes WikiProjects can develop norms which are somewhat inward-looking and effectively set in stone The Way That A Few Highly Active Editors Do Things, rather than encouraging new ways to write articles which serve readers better. That's not a CSB problem, per se. I'm not going to comment on whether that problem affects the U. S. Roads wikiproject.
  • On this particular article, there's a severe shortage of secondary sources. The GNG requires substantial discussion by independent sources; the fact that this road appears on a map doesn't make it notable, any more than appearing in the phonebook would make a person notable. The GNG isn't just an arbitrary benchmark for whether we keep articles or delete them - it's a good rule of thumb on whether it's possible to write good content, which should surely be built on independent sources. Here, once we set aside all the sources written by government bodies responsible for actually building or operating the road, all we've got is a google map.
  • I'm not a GA guru but I would expect that if we were to showcase this as some of the encyclopaedia's best content, it should have more breadth, rather than flatly describing when the road was built and where it goes. If sources do not support that breadth then sources do not support a GA.

Those are my principles; if you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • GNG is a notability issue, not a GA issue; notability, while important, does not belong at GAR; that is what the deletion venues are for.
    • State department of transportation sources have been accepted at FAC. While at the USRD A-class review we will not promote an article with absolutely no secondary coverage, there are some facts that can only be obtained through the DOT, such as the length of a road down to three decimal places. There will also be some circumstances where some history information is best verified by looking at DOT maps, and outside sources would be less correct, if they exist at all; sometimes, outside companies are hired for the cartography, so this would add independence. Finally, you cannot write a California road article without mentioning the state law. The state law defines what the route's legal definition is, because it is the law!
    • I agree that there should be more secondary sources here, but I also believe that is a matter for FAC and not GAN. Every article should have the capacity to be a GA; GA is for the articles that cannot make it to FA. --Rschen7754 09:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would contest the argument that "Every article should have the capacity to be a GA" since the community has, in its wisdom, decided that some articles should be kept even though there are insufficient sources to allow the article to be developed beyond the most basic stub. For instance, geographical articles where the sole source is a row in a census table or a point in a GIS database. I would be very surprised indeed if we had a policy which said "Every article should have the capacity to be a GA" in this way, guaranteeing that we can make every article a GA even in the millions of cases where there's no way to write good content.
      • Conversely, if "Every article should have the capacity to be a GA" were reframed as a way of saying that some articles shouldn't be created unless there were sufficient sources to allow good content to be built, I would happily go along with that - but that's an alternate universe in which Delaware Route 17 was never written.
      • We all realise that the GNG is a notability rather than a quality standard. However, I doubt the wisdom of promoting an article as meeting some of our highest standards if it can't even pass the first hurdle that we expect of newly-created articles - a requirement which is directly related to the ability to build good content.
      • To suggest that some of these government agency sources are accepted at FAC is a red herring; that's not the issue. I'm sure the relevant transport officials are accurate sources for technical details of some of their roads, just as the phonebook is an accurate source of phone numbers. Doesn't mean we can build good content on that alone. An article which lacks independent sources would be laughed out of FAC. bobrayner (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my last experience with GAR, we decided the article was not notable and wanted to merge it into something else, but GAR refused to handle the merge; it had to be done outside of GAR. This is typical of all good and featured content processes; if a FAC is sent to AFD, the notability question is handled there, and the quality question is handled at FAC.
        • Regarding your last point: exactly. An article does not pass our A-class review if it has only DOT sources and maps (even third-party maps). When I wrote my one FA I used maps, yes, but there were also newspaper articles too. But that's FAC, not GAN. --Rschen7754 09:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bob. I have quite strong and explosive opinions on road articles anyway. An intricate description of where a road happens to go, unless it's something really historically important such as The Lincoln Highway or US Route 66 (which, after all, will be supported by multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources!) is, IMHO, not suitable for an encyclopaedia and should be deleted per WP:NOTTRAVEL. If you want to know where a road goes, take a look at Google Maps or OpenStreetMap, which will present the information in a much more accessible format. Actually, I could probably make a case for nominating this article for AfD - it doesn't assert importance anywhere, it's entirely based on a single source (Delaware DOT), and Google Maps is so full of errors I don't trust it as a reliable source at all (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B1438 road for an instance of this). And the recent hoo-ha about 'x on twitter' articles being both GA nominated and AfDed at the same time proves there is no consensus on this. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perverse reading of WP:NOTTRAVEL to suggest that there should not be route information ("an intricate description" - not something this article actually has) in the article. The pertinent section is point 2: Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. I suspect we're very much more asking for Eiffel Tower and Louvre level information, rather than the street address of your favorite hotel. "If you want to know where a road goes, take a look at Google Maps or OpenStreetMap..." is an eye-poppingly ridiculous basis for writing road articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "perverse" or "eye-poppingly ridiculous" are convincing counter-arguments, as is cut and pasting a policy page. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I posted the section from the policy page is that I'm sick to the back teeth with people like you pointing to policy without explaining exactly how it supports your view. It's an ugly form of shroud-waving. Any reasonable reading of the relevant section would suggest that the amount of route information in the article should be proportional. That's what I meant by my Eiffel Tower and the Louvre analogy. Now if you don't wish to deal with the substantive point, that's fine. But I stand by my assertion that your use of WP:NOTTRAVEL is bogus and your argument ridiculous. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put personal attacks on project pages. Thankyou. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attacking your arguments, not you. Do you have anything to say on the substantive point - that road articles should describe the route of the road? You appear to be ducking that point. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first road article review

edit
  • When I reviewed my first road, (my 97th GA review) I thought a road article was supposed to be interesting and include scenic sites, available trails etc. along the road. I made some suggestions, as I usually do in a GA review (See Talk:Black River National Forest Scenic Byway/GA1) and I was told in no uncertain terms that road articles were not supposed to include such things per WP:USRD/STDS. In other words, the road articles are not supposed to be interesting to the general reader, and if I looked up a road to learn a more well-rounded description of the road, I'd be disappointed. I'm not sure what audience the road articles are written for. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it is a good idea to look to Wikipedias in other languages. I have experience in the Wikipedia in Spanish where I wrote four FA about roads (es:Autovía 2, es:Ruta Nacional 7 (Argentina), es:Ruta Nacional 9 (Argentina) and es:Avenida General Paz). In their nomination pages they were elected as FA because of the information which is not in the standards cited in the previous paragraph. Notice that their layout is completely different than the one proposed in this Wikipedia. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are completely mischaracterizing what really happened in that GA review. No, WP:USRD/STDS was not brought up to invalidate your prose suggestions, just to justify the way the article was structured. The prose suggestions you offered, if accepted, would have either introduced unverifiable content and original research into the article, or off-topic content that had nothing to do with the article's subject. It had nothing to do with WP:USRD/STDs, which was mentioned a grand total of once.
  • This GAR in general appears to be flying off the rails in favor of turning into a yet another pointless and frustrating USRD bash-fest (have we not had enough of those?) and should really just be marked closed and abandoned as a result. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Each Wikipedia has their own set of standards. I took a look at one of the articles you mentioned (having some familiarity with Spanish) and noticed a few things. The list of service stations would not go over well here, as a violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL and because bare lists are generally discouraged here. The junction list would be done differently, since the graphical format provides less information and does not comply with WP:ACCESS. Finally, some of the other information, such as altitude and AADT, is discussed in many of our FAs. Delaware Route 17 is not exactly the "showcase" article of our project. --Rschen7754 20:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice that the Road description section can very easily convert to a boring verbose description of the same data that can be shown in the diagram. Of course, that section in this Wikipedia in general contains less information (information != number of bytes), because it does not show bridges and railroad crossings, which are, in my point of view, essential to a road article. Alpertron (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that a table cannot convey why the road is important, or why we care about it. Look through some of our FAs (Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles for better examples of route descriptions. Also, the pictorial table is useless to those who are visually impaired. --Rschen7754 21:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see why the road is important in the introduction rather than buried in the road description section. For the blind people I think that using CSS we can make the screen readers to read only the two rightmost columns: the kilometer markers and the description, while other people can see the entire table. Alpertron (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for an example of why the route description is important, take a look at Interstate 15 in Arizona. You would never get a good sense of the eastern part of the freeway from looking at a diagram. (It was scary when I drove through at night about a month ago with all those curves and random inclines that I was quite unfamiliar with!) In the daytime there's a lot of bridges, and the scenery is quite impressive. As far as the accessibility issues, I believe that is still a violation of the guideline; all of the information has to be accessible to anyone, so having the screen readers omit it entirely is not an option. --Rschen7754 22:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the end of diagram of es:Ruta Nacional 7 (Argentina) you will see a lot of tunnels and bridges, which obviously means a road in a mountain zone (the Andes), and you will also see that zone described in another section but there is no need to be excessively verbose. With respect to accessibility concerns, you are suggesting to delete all photographs, maps and diagrams from Wikipedia, because some people cannot see them. Are you sure? Alpertron (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why WP:ALT exists. And you still have not addressed my comments about scenery, which cannot be conveyed in a table or diagram. --Rschen7754 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of Wikipedia_talk:Route_diagram_template/Archive_6#Alt_text_in_route_diagrams is that the provision of ALT text in route diagrams is provided for and that there are no accessibility issues. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the scenery, this is also in prose in the "Estado del camino" section of that article. Notice that you are comparing a 47 km road against a 1224 km road. So just imagine what would be the length of the road description section of that article. Most of it would be many KB of boring description. Alpertron (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me like all this boils down to is editors' personal preferences. The same information is covered, just in different ways. And that's perfectly fine. It's not a good reason for delisting this article. --Rschen7754 22:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very clear cut that a list of service stations violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Clearly opinions will differ. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We just had this discussion a few weeks ago at WT:USRD. There are concerns that mentioning the specific brands amounts to commercial promotion. --Rschen7754 20:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NOTTRAVEL is gone now. In this case there is no commercial promotion since all service stations are listed. Note that the articles also mention construction companies, maintenance company (which also operates the toll booths) and so on. Are these also commercial promotion cases? Alpertron (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would see that as essential to the article; it would be like excluding the companies that provided the parts from the iPod article. --Rschen7754 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

edit
another comment
I added a source to the current map to verify that its current western terminus is at DE 54. Dough4872 01:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References and "broad in coverage"

edit

I'm not sure if we've fully discussed the sourcing of this article, not least in the context of the enquiry which launched this GAR. In the Talk:Good Article Criteria discussion referenced at the top of this page, ThaddeusB makes the comment:

Surely, there is a point when there simply is not enough information on a subject for it to meet GA. WP:Reviewing good articles says "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." To me, broad means broad - it doesn't mean if very little is written in RS about this subject it gets a free pass. Am I wrong?

A straw-poll of Delaware Route articles indicates many are cookie-cutter affairs with an identical set of references, to 7 or 8 maps and 1 PDF, at least five of which are arguably from the same primary source. All GAs. e.g. Delaware Route 42, Delaware Route 286, Delaware Route 17. Do we really think it's reasonable to suppose that the paucity of sources used in the article represents all that exists by way of coverage of the roads? Should we be concerned about the extreme narrowness of the sources in the article when doing a GAR, per the recommendation in WP:Reviewing good articles? Is there a systemic problem of grade inflation w.r.t. Delaware (and perhaps other states) GAs? (I note for completeness that I'm very grateful for the articles; they're well done.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "narrowness"? --Rschen7754 00:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the vast majority of references are to a set of maps released by the same single organisation (5 or 6 references to Deleware State, 1 to the Feds, and 1 to Google ... none whatsoever to any other soutrce). The concern I'm echoing is well stated in ThaddeusB's comment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to think this one over a bit, though I see your point (the FHWA source here doesn't really count as it is used to say that the route is not in the NHS by the absence of it from the source). I do have to say that such an article would not pass our A-class review. I also have to say that 9 of my 11 GAs (about 1/3 of the CA GAs) all have newspaper or book sources backing up portions of the history, and the other 2 have sourcing with both the state DOT and the Federal Highway Administration, which are completely separate organizations (besides the nonstarter NHS). Of course, that is a small portion of our GAs (I'm a week away from my bachelor's degree, which I've been working on for the last four years!) but I know that many of our GAs have newspapers or third-party maps backing up the history. So I know that the issue brought up here is not true of every U.S. road GA, and certainly is not true of our recent A-class or any of our FAs. (Footnote: I come from a state where the DOT maps are nowhere to be found, so it is very easy to stay away from citing them!) --Rschen7754 10:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you might have underestimated the difficulty in finding sources specifically focusing on some of the less important routes in a highway system. Very seldom does someone write about an individual highway--many times if such a highway is mentioned in the press at all, it is only as a setting for what the article is really about, like a crash or some other event. We can of course include notable crashes in an article, but much of the time crashes are not really the result of any characteristic of the road, so it feels almost off-topic. Generally the only time a road will have something written specifically about it is if it is especially scenic and it is recommended as a recreational getaway, or if it is a particularly controversial project. Routes like DE 17 are usually fairly anonymous.
I would like to invite you (and anyone else in this discussion that wants to participate) to research a highway article so you can get a feel for how this works in practice. Currently Georgia's road articles as a whole need the most attention. Try pulling up a Georgia stub and see if you can bring it up to your proposed GA standard. I think you would find the experience may not be exactly what you expect. And even if you feel the same after you're done, we'll have a working example to follow. 11:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY]
I do not underestimate the difficulty of finding online sources for Routes. I have searched for additional references for DE 17, for instance. I do, though, heed the advice in WP:Reviewing good articles which says "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." Can I be more clear? If we cannot find more than a very narrow set of references, should we say A. "We've cited all the refs that we can find, let it be a Good Article" or should we say B. "There are too few references available to enable this to be a Good Article". The advice cited seems to point to B, not A. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, what part of the GA criteria do you think this fails? Number 2 or 3? --Rschen7754 19:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources, expectations, and such

edit

I'm seeing a disturbing trend in comments here, and I feel that I can't allow it to go undiscussed. I've written and nominated 10 FAs, 5 A-Class articles (also GAs) and 176 GAs that aren't A-Class in the last four and a half years. There is some confusion and conflation of terms regarding the classification of sources at work here that is causing a problem in this discussion. There are also applications of personal preferences at work above that come across as requiring expansions of what the WP:WIAGA criteria require.

  1. A source can be classified as primary, secondary or tertiary, all of which are acceptable for use as sources on Wikipedia articles. A source can be first-, second-, or third-party. See Wikipedia:Party and person for an explanation.
  2. Taking that into account , a DOT road map is a first-party secondary source, while the same type of road map from Rand McNally is either a second- or third-party secondary source. (Maps are based on GIS data or aerial photography, making them secondary sources.) News articles in the newspaper or in a magazine are also normally a second-party secondary source.
  3. WP:WIAGA, which is the set of criteria used to determine if an article is a GA or not, is silent on what kinds of sources we use, so long as they are reliable sources under our policies. However, if you read our policies, primary sources are allowed so long as they used correctly.
  4. Commenters above are conflating the ideas of primary and first-party, and classifying sources first-party sources as "primary", and calling them "bad". Policy does not do such a thing.
  5. Scott is very correct in his statement that most highways are fairly anonymous affairs. Unless a roadway is known for being unique, scenic or historic, there aren't going to be people writing books (or entries in books) or news articles about them. There are many more miles of highway that aren't specially recognized, yet they're still considered notable for coverage.
  6. Dozens of times over, WP:FAC has accepted road and highway articles that base a substantial portion of their history sections on old DOT maps. The FA criteria are stricter than the GA criteria on this point, specifically requiring "high-quality reliable sources" while GAs only require "reliable sources". If old DOT maps are good enough for FAC, then they're good enough for GAN, period.
  7. That isn't to say we shouldn't strive to find additional sources. A pair of maps can narrow the opening of a roadway segment to a year, while a newspaper could provide the exact date it opened.
  8. Finally, if there are gaps in coverage in an article, they should be fixed. However, some of the topics requested are not completely appropriate to an article on a state highway. We have articles that specifically cover speed limits in the United States, road surfaces, road surface markings and the like. Under WP:Summary style, we don't need to repeat those topics in every state highway article.

I'm not saying that this article can't be improved, just that we have people here who seem to want to demand things of this article that even the FAs on US highways don't have. There are comments indicating a higher level of scrutiny applied to sources, based on incorrect terminology and misapplication of policy that would exceed what FAC reviewers have required of similar articles nominated there. Since the FA criteria are stricter than the GA criteria, by design, something good enough for FAC should be good enough for GAN. Imzadi 1979 → 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to respond to much of the above, and will not for a few days. I'm also sorry to see good faith go out of the window. "torches and pitchforks" Indeed. From a couple of quick read-throughs, the post doesn't seem to address the questions: is broad enough coverage credible in an article based almost exclusively on a set of maps from the owner of the asset? Should any note be taken of the guideline which states: "It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.)"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DelDOT is the official source for information on that state's highway system. If FAC has deemed the equivalent agencies' publications acceptable for other states' highway articles, why should GAN do otherwise? FAC is by definition stricter than GAN after all.
My good faith only extends so far, and yes, I feel like there are metaphorical torches and pitchforks when half of the commenters here are straying away from this specific article and what may or may not need to be fixed with it. Instead, we're getting comments on an entire category of article, questioning "broadness", based only on the publisher of the sources used. If government sources are not acceptable because the government owns the asset, then why do we allow Department of Defense publications for the history of battleships? I just looked at USS Wisconsin (BB-64), a Featured Article, and 14 out of 28 footnotes use sources from the ship's association, the US Navy, the US Congress or other US federal government sources. Do they all need to be replaced because the ship was owned by the US Navy? Should we demote that article for relying on information from the former "owner of the asset"? It's a Featured Article that relies heavily on government sources (the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships footnote is repeated 56 times in the article...) yet it still merit FA status.
Now, I this specific article here could use some work. The GAN review was a rubberstamp, and we've found issues with the article. No one's discussed it, but let me quote the entire GAN review: "I am very sorry for the wait. Well written and sourced article. No issues to be found! Keep up the great work! Statυs (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)" That's it. However, we need to stop questioning an entire category of article (highways and roadways in the US) for the usage of the official sources related to them. If the official sources are not deemed to be acceptable, then we have battleship articles or the hurricane articles that rely on NOAA/NHC publications that need to be delisted. If there are missing details from Delaware Route 17, request them, or accept that in some cases they can't be made to exist. In cases where the details can't be made to exist, say a road that hasn't been changed in decades other than routine maintenance, they you have to accept that the article is as broad as it can be, and short of making something up, it meets the standards. Imzadi 1979 → 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the rubberstamps. For example: Talk:U.S. Route 40 in Delaware/GA1, Talk:Delaware Route 26/GA1, Talk:Delaware Route 72/GA1, Talk:U.S. Route 202 in Delaware/GA1, Talk:Delaware Route 14/GA1, Talk:U.S. Route 202 in Delaware/GA1, Talk:Delaware Route 16/GA1, Talk:Delaware Route 20/GA1, Talk:Delaware Route 16/GA1, Talk:Delaware Route 20/GA1 Talk:Delaware Route 18/GA1, all sourced to primary sources and apparently without any errors according to the reviewer. The reviews consists of variants of "After reviewing the article, I have found zero issues with it. Keep up the great work!" I think the GA process needs to take some responsibility for this. Somewhere on one of these talk pages, an experienced reviewer said that it was ok to leave a short review. But is it really? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that maps aren't primary sources. They might be first-hand sources because they came from the maintaining agency, but they aren't primary. Even so, primary sources are allowed per policy. Otherwise I tend to agree. Imzadi 1979 → 19:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the editor looking at the primary source (created by the DOT) and translating the visual map into words, thus the wikipedia editor being the secondary source? Could I look at a painting, describe in in my own words, then attribute the description to the painting as a secondary source? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant discussion about maps and primary sources: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_39#Regarding_maps_being_.22primary_sources.22_according_to_this_policy --Rschen7754 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source is raw GIS data. A published map is not raw data; it has been selectively chosen based on the scope and purpose of the map. An engineer or cartographer has determined what raw data is worth including and what is best omitted. Our interpretation of maps (a basic skill; we do not need a source to interpret a map for us) makes the article text a tertiary resource. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed a few of these articles and I looked in google books and web and concluded considering the lack of sources they're pretty good articles. You can only use what sources are actually available. It is not as if there's tons of sources available which are ignored. I concluded that the articles were informative enough to reach GA standard, similar to a lot of TV episode articles we have in length. I think providing the maps are reliable (which they are ) then if they can be used to write an article then that's not a problem. I think its fine for GA, but obviously not good enough for FA, that's my opinion anyway. But I must express concern for the lack of critical review on a lot of these by the same reviewer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While a map which shows the route 17 confirms its existence, I do not think that looking at a 1936 map where the route number is not marked and then looking at a 1938 map and the route number is, we can really infer that the designation route 17 was made in 1938. Many maps of this kind are based in the previous map and then some corrections are done. It is possible that they forgot to add the number 17 in the map in the year 1936 or 1937 (even the edition year has problems in that map), we do not know. So it is not clear why someone erased the template {{citation needed}} that I added to the article. Alpertron (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agree. Those kind of conclusions I think are OR. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think you mean "built" not "designated". There's a difference. Secondly, if the people making the map are the state DOT, do you think that sort of mistake would be made very easily? Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We report what the reliable sources say; we do not do original research. --Rschen7754 23:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "designated as state road 17". Later the article says that the road was built in 1924, using the maps again. Alpertron (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, what is meant exactly by "created by 1938" in the lede? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, built and designated. (It could be worded a bit better). Many roads are built several years before they are designated as state highways. And yet, sometimes the designation comes years before the road is actually built. The distinction is much more clear in California, where we have the text of the assembly bills that officially designate routes. --Rschen7754 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's why "created" is so unclear. Don't many roads evolve i.e. they started out as wagon trails or horse routes and only later were formally "designated" or whatever word applies. "Created" implies there was nothing there before, and the road was "created" out of whole cloth. I doubt that very many roads were carved out of the wilderness in 1938. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not necessarily; 1) it depends on what region of the U.S. you are in, and 2) today's DOTs face modern challenges and are by no means bound to use pre-existing roads. --Rschen7754 23:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan): we've got a brand new road being "carved out of the wilderness" in 2012 if approved. M-6 was carved through the south side of the Grand Rapids metro area in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Not all highways replace existing roads. Also, see M-35's northern segment. That road was being carved through the wilderness in the Huron Mountains of Michigan in the 1920s until Henry Ford got construction stopped. The northern extension wasn't abandoned until the late 1930s. Imzadi 1979 → 23:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't say "necessarily". I said "most". And I suggest that until this modern era where roads are pork barreled by state or federal legislatures, you didn't see massive roads carved out of the wilderness. They've been trying to carve one out in my state for the last decade or so, and it will ruin what wilderness is left if they do—and they probably will get their way eventually. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that sources be broadened from what DOT says. There are books written about the development of transportation systmes in the US, per D. W. Meing and others. Especially in a place like Delaware, one of the 13 colonies! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, if those sources apply to this road. However, not all state highways in the United States have old Indian trails, wagon roads or auto trails as predecessors though. Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources coming from... where? Of course, this would be the ideal, but many state highways are never mentioned in the media, or in books such as those on transportation development; especially those that existed exclusively in the modern era. The burden of proof is on you to show that this route has a history before the 1930s. --Rschen7754 00:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That "inference" has been validated in many other cases though. The bypass of downtown Marquette, Michigan, was opened on November 21, 1963, and does not appear on the 1963 state road map but does appear on the 1964 map. (I have a newspaper article that states the exact date.) When the gap between maps consulted is larger than a year, we can state that it was opened "by 1938", but we can't state it was opened "in 1938". Where there are consecutive annual or semi-annual editions, you can narrow the timeframes down. Some maps specify the date for which they're accurate (some MI maps state they include all changes through July 1 that year) or have a specified publication date, not just a publication year. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using this method you can write "ca. 1938" at most, until you can find a more reliable method than comparing two maps that indicates that the road was designated "DE-17" in 1938, or some day of some month of that year. Alpertron (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... what? How is this any different from MDOT giving a list of what changes have been made to the state highway system during 2011? --Rschen7754 23:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is what I do. Again, let me be absolutely crystal clear: there are avenues for improvement in this article however many of the criticisms various people are trying to apply to this article do not generalize to all road GAs, nor are some of the criticisms particularly accurate. The reliability of this method has been borne out time and time again, but if the text choices are implying a level of certainty that's not possible, the text should be updated to reflect the proper level of "fuzziness" based on the research techniques used. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

edit
  • The unsourced statement "The route originally continued further west to U.S. Route 113 (US 113) in Selbyville." in the introduction is not backed by the 1938 map [2]. There is no route marker between US 113 and Selbyville. Alpertron (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar statement is found in the History section: "DE 17 was designated by 1938 to run from US 113 in Selbyville to DE 26 near Millville, following Church Street and Main Street in Selbyville before picking up its current alignment." The maps used as references do not show any street because they do not show urban areas. It appears that the text in the article is original research. Alpertron (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

edit

Is there anyone who has been reading this page who thinks this Good Article is a good article? (note the difference) –Fredddie™ 02:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a regular article that needs improvement to reach a legitimate good article status. Alpertron (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the criteria do you think the article still fails? --Rschen7754 02:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will check the criteria after all comments in this GAR are addressed. I do not have experience in GA evaluations in this Wikipedia. I evaluated many articles in the Wikipedia in Spanish but here the criteria are completely different. A Spanish translation of this article would have never been a GA in that Wikipedia. I commented in this GAR because I'm interested in articles about roads. Alpertron (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably check it beforehand; on this site, reviews are considered improper if they are not done according to the criteria. WP:WIAGA. --Rschen7754 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears that some of my comments were addressing point 2c of that guideline. So the approver acted very fast without checking WP:WIAGA. Alpertron (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it's difficult to prove that the reviewer did more than skimming the article. :( --Rschen7754 18:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment. I think a good article on a road should cover the engineering as well as the geography--and if possible, social factors, though such references are harder to find. It's time we deepened the content of our articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your opinion on the current sourcing of the article? The issue that I am having is that there are many requirements being imposed on this article that are not required at WP:FAC. --Rschen7754 02:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Engineering is standard, and more appropriately covered by articles under the scope of the civil engineering wikiproject. We would only deepen the duplication by including this rather mundane statistical information in thousands of articles that are geared more towards the evolution of the designations and possibly the historical/social/cultural importance of the road, rather than the physical foundation of it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the discussion so far

edit

Thank you all for the highly valuable and extensive feedback so far. I will try to summarise the key points above to help access to the review for new editors and refocus the discussion on the most important points. Please feel free to add to or amend my summary.

  • There seems to be consensus or at least broad agreement that when the article was passed as GA it had many issues, often relating to criteria #1a-clarity and #2-accuracy. Many of the issues raised during this GAR have been addressed since or are being addressed. The amount of these problems highlighted through this GAR, demonstrates that the GA review was not adequate at the time. It will be the task of the closer of this community review to determine if after all the corrections made, the article meets GA criteria.
  • There are similar GA articles, which share many characteristics such as having been quickly promoted without requesting any improvements, and might need to be reassessed.
  • The question of notability is not in the scope of this review, but in the scope of AfD. The assumption for this review therefore, unless an AfD is opened, shall be that the article passes minimal notability.
  • There is not much more content that can be added to the article which would broaden it, either for lack of reliable sources, or non-notability of any further aspect of DR17. Thus is likely that the article will remain a short one, along the current lines of providing a geographic description of DR17. Aspects relating to the questions I raised at the beginning of this GAR (civil engineering, traffic, etc) will thus unlikely to be included in the article, unless new sources are found (archival research, new publications, etc).
  • The main question which remains, given that WP:Reviewing good articles states that "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." is whether the content of this article is broad enough to consider it satisfies criteria #3 Broad coverage: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". I note that also stubs, and lists are per definition excluded from GA.

--ELEKHHT 03:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add, there is a general consensus on this page that this is a wikipedia wide problem. By "this" I mean rushing through GAC reviews of short articles as "low hanging fruit" for whatever initiative or contest is going on. Adding my own opinion on that statement, there are lessons learned from this, but the fact that certain reviewers, projects, and articles sets are being crucified is unfortunate. I don't think there is a saint in this. It's just a fact of life that "metrics drive behavior". When there are contests where points are awarded for certain tasks, "low hanging fruit" will be rushed and implemented in haste. Dave (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P says that " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Looking at the relevant article it says that "a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory... It typically contains information concerning ... roads." It later goes on to state, "gazetteer editors gather facts and other information from official government reports ... together with numerous other sources, and organise these in digest form." (emphasis mine in all quotations.) Let me summarize that: we include information on roads, because we are also a gazetteer, and as such, we use official government reports.

You can argue that this article isn't broad enough, and I will happily engage in that debate, but you must do so on the specific merits of this road, with its specific history and in its specific geographic location. Unless someone can demonstrate what is missing from this article, that is appropriate to cover based on this specific road in Delaware, it's broad enough, albeit short. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad coverage

edit
Some of the suggested additions are not considered appropriate to this type of article; they are not included in Featured Articles on highways unless there's something special to note. For a GAN/GAR to require something not required at FAC is folly. "Reviewing good articles" is not the GA criteria, which requires the "main aspects" and not "comprehensive. The main aspects, based on the 5 Ws and H are:
  • Who uses it? This is answered with a traffic count and if there are any notable deviations or restrictions (no cars, like M-185, etc)
  • What is it? What, if anything, is it known for? It's a state highway in Delaware. If the roadway is notable for popular culture, scenic byway designations, historic status or other specific items, then they need to be included as well.
  • When was it built? When was the designation created? Answered through the history section.
  • Where it is? The geographic locations along the way are noted including the region of the state in the Route description.
  • Why was it built/designated? For state highways, this is implicitly to connect Point A with Point B.
  • How was it built/designated? The history section answers this as well, by relating the stages of development to the highway. Physical engineering details, unless notably specific to this road, are generically covered by articles on civil engineering. Ten thousand highway articles in the United States do not need to repeat technical data on road construction techniques when there are articles on road surfaces, road surface markings and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices used to regulate signage. (That's summary style.)
So long as those basic questions are answered, the "main aspects" of the road are covered. Imzadi 1979 → 04:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the above I understand that you are arguing that if the article states that it is a (1) state highway (2) linking A and B and passing through C and D, (3) built in xxxx, and (4) used by Y cars in zzzz year, than it represents a broad coverage of the topic. To me it appears more like a stub. I am not suggesting that it should contain more information if nothing else is notable, the question is whether it should be marked as a Good Article in the category "Engineering and technology good articles", considering also that the consensus seems to be that no engineering information about the road is notable. --ELEKHHT 05:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that if the Five Ws are satisfied, then "main aspects" requirement of criterion 3 of the GA criteria is satisfied. The seven questions (plus the "who maintains the road and/or designates the number?" and "how and where was it changed over the years?") elicit multiple paragraphs in a good article.
I'm seeing a potential source of confusion here. The various "transport" subtopics have been lumped into "Engineering and technology", and road articles have evolved to be a combination of geography and technology, leaving specifics of the engineering of roads to specific articles on those topics. Portal:United States lists road articles as "Selected Places" for instance. Maybe the road articles need to be moved over to "Geography" and leave articles on construction details, bridges, and tunnels behind in "engineering and technology"? Imzadi 1979 → 06:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, I think we need to take a step back and determine what criterion 3 is. WP:WIAGA says under 3a: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and footnoted, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."
I think the two questions we need to ask are... 1) If an article does not have a complete history and there is no more information, can it be a GA? and 2) If an article has a complete history, but the history information comes from only one source, which is the state DOT and is the most likely to be factually correct since they made the highway, yet is still one source, can it be GA? --Rschen7754 06:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If an article does not have a complete history and there is no more information, can it be a GA?" How do you know there is no more information? A Google search returns nothing? It is incredible the amount of information you can find in a local library. The editors should go to a library in Sussex County, and surely they will be able to make a much more comprehensive article. In the meantime my opinion is that the coverage of the article is very narrow and it cannot be a GA because of #3. Alpertron (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, by "no more information", I mean that we have checked Google (obviously), checked the state DOT, and checked research databases (some of us have access to them through universities or libraries - Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/Periodical database.) However, that is for an article with known deficiencies. Can you tell if there is anything missing from the history in this article to make it incomplete? --Rschen7754 18:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the GA criteria should be considered within the broader quality assessment framework, that is GA is better than B-class and less good than FA. I am concerned by repeated attempts during this discussion to push the meaning of GA ever lower. Further above several editors considered that criteria #6 can be dismissed as somewhere it is stated that "images are encouraged but not required". But that would make the whole point meaningless. Similarly if #3a would only mean "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" in the most narrow form, than again the whole point can be dismissed. I think when reading criteria #6 actually the emphasis should be on the first part, which I understand as if illustrations are possible than they are required. In this case I would expect a map based on OpenStreetMap. Similarly criteria #3a initially states broad in its coverage, which to me means more than a short description of the route of a road. If there is not much more notable about the road other than its existence, than it cannot be a broad article, at least not at this point in time. Otherwise, many start class articles, particularly those which passed the DYK process which reviews referencing and neutrality, can actually be broader and higher quality than GA articles. A GA of such low standard would make little sense to me. --ELEKHHT 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

edit
Awaiting further comments, but I'm going to say that we generally make our own maps for our articles - see WP:USRD/MTF. Unfortunately, it takes knowledge of GIS, and the editors who know how to do that cycle in and out. --Rschen7754 07:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not concerned how a map is made, I simply linked to OpenStreetMap to demonstrate that is possible to have a map, as the base map is free, and can be easily modified with graphic software, without GIS knowledge, to highlight the subject. Such work can be requested at the map workshop. --ELEKHHT 07:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm loathe to use OSM for maps any more, as I've found errors in their cartography. They are another wiki, and technically, wikis can't be used as the source for our content. It's one thing to copy a CC-BY(-SA) photo hosted on Flickr, or upload a map created with GIS data from the state government under a proper license, but OSM users can actually move features on their wiki, meaning the content is not all sourced directly to the original GIS files anymore. We'd be importing their original research. To me, anyway, it would be like sourcing prose to an article on Wookiepedia for a Star Wars article on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 08:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting point, and that interpretation would have major implications as many OSM maps are in use on Wikipedia. I see however that others consider them ok. I would say that as long for the given region it shows the same as other RS maps, it should be acceptable, and a map would certainly be an improvement. --ELEKHHT 08:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors discussing something like that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the practice. As for how often maps might be used, I'm reminded of a class motto from back in high school: "What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular." Imzadi 1979 → 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't followed all the links. The discussed article is FA and the discussed signpost says "The plan is to get the maps ready for implementation on English and other language Wikipedia versions as quickly as possible; [...] The initial implementation will be kept simple, just focused on OpenStreetMap.". As for how often maps are used, that was not to say is right, but to illustrate the extent of affected articles, should OSM maps not be accepted. -ELEKHHT 08:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue with OSM is that their cartography is inconsistent from place to place; their map legend gives only vague guidance as to which streets should be tagged in which way. As a result it's usually up to whatever OSM editor is working in a particular area which streets are tagged major, minor, residential, etc. At one point Oklahoma City and its largest suburb were tagged entirely differently (major streets in one were orange and in the other light yellow). (Also the default OSM rendering does not follow the widely-followed convention of marking U.S. highways graphically with their shields that all commercial US maps follow. There is an alternate rendering that does, but it will not work correctly if the highways are not tagged as a "relation", which I've found hasn't yet been done in my area.)—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OSM maps do not have to be simply used as they are, can be imported and altered with graphic software, so that the end product corresponds with the required conventions. They can be used as a base, rather than drawing a map from scratch. --ELEKHHT 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At which point, I'll fire up qgis, download the necessary GIS files and make a map from scratch using accurate base data... OSM base data isn't verified anymore. Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So can you do that? --ELEKHHT 00:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just starting out, but there are several other USRD members with the capability, some of whom will work "on demand" to satisfy a GAN reviewer request. Given the issues with OSM base data that Scott and I have pointed out, I would rather a prospective GA nominee have its KML file in place (which generates a pop-up WikiMiniAtlas). Imzadi 1979 → 00:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A map has now been added to the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further steps

edit

Suggest inadequate reviews by the same reviewer on Delaware road articles, such as

  1. Talk:Delaware Route 14/GA1
  2. Talk:Delaware Route 16/GA1
  3. Talk:Delaware Route 18/GA1
  4. Talk:Delaware Route 20/GA1
  5. Talk:Delaware Route 26/GA1
  6. Talk:U.S. Route 40 in Delaware/GA1
  7. Talk:Delaware Route 72/GA1
  8. Talk:U.S. Route 202 in Delaware/GA1
  9. Talk:Delaware Route 20/GA1 be reviewed also. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I really hope all you folks coming from WT:GAN take a lesson from this shite-storm. Your hurrily-crafted backlog elimination drive caused dozens and dozens of reviews to be nothing more than a "Uh, yep, looks good. pass." It really pisses me off that we are being bludgeoned with a caveman's bat as if we chose to try and sneak through some subpar articles (I encourage, nay, challenge! anyone here to find a faulty Ontario road GA). All of these short articles are worthy of GA with some expansion and overhaul, but that simply didn't happen because fly-by reviewers were more interested in racking up their review counts. These editors should be held accountable as well... The reviewer in this case, User:Status, has played ignorant/nonchalant while this goes down. So, here's whats going to happen from my end at least: You do this drive next year, I will pick out reviewers (inbred reviewers!) using our IRC chat. Clean up your act before telling us that we have a mess. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IN fairness, I tend to agree that the review drive was terrible in general, between Status and Dom497 mainly. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 15:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would still be transparent. I'd subst the GAN template, having picked a reviewer in IRC, and they will take up the article instantly and prevent crappy reviewers from providing useless feedback because A) They're rushing to complete a drive or raise some statistic; or B) they don't understand the topic and can't provide the in-depth critical commentary that we can as fellow road editors. Benefit to the community in both ways, two birds get stoned at once. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's drop the IRC thing. In my experiences, I have found USRD reviewers to generally be better at reviewing articles because they know what to look for. Take a look at Talk:Texas Park Road 3/GA1 for an example. Now, there are exceptions on both sides; there are a few bad USRD reviewers (and I usually try and keep an eye on those) and there are a few veteran GA reviewers who I have confidence in. But unfortunately, I've found that to be the exception rather than the norm; short articles tend to attract reviewers who want barnstars. --Rschen7754 19:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do need to check the above articles for prose and accuracy, but I do not support demoting them simply because there is not a lot to say about the route. --Rschen7754 18:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask yourself if these articles are in the top 0.4% of the entire Wikipedia in English according to their quality. If the answer is not, they should be demoted. By supporting this article as a GA you are saying that the remaining 99.6% of the English Wikipedia is worse than this Delaware Route 17 article. Alpertron (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing the purpose of Good Articles and Featured Articles. See Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured for a comparison. Featured articles are supposed to be "our best work"; Good articles are "satisfactory". All that matters is that they meet the criteria, and someone bothered to fill out the paperwork. --Rschen7754 19:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article satisfactory? I've just read the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. The General notability guideline section starts with the following text:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.}}
But it appears that the only source that can be used in this article is the DelDOT Website, which is not independent of the subject. Alpertron (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that crosses the line into notability. GAR does not decide notability, as explained above; AFD does. --Rschen7754 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that an article that could be a candidate for deletion (as you wrote above), cannot be a GA. Alpertron (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is possible to have an article at AFD and at GAR at the same time (if they can do it at FAC, they can do it here too). If you are so inclined, you are welcome to start one. --Rschen7754 19:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer this article to stay in Wikipedia but not with the Good Article status, so I will not open any AFD. Alpertron (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant pages: WP:USRD/NT (our notability guideline), WP:ROADOUTCOMES (a history of past AFDs), and especially WP:GACN (what the Good Article criteria are not; see the part relating to criterion 3). --Rschen7754 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course WP:USRD/NT is not an notability policy but an essay from a Wikiproject, so it shouldn't be taken as an official policy of what is and what isn't notable. Albacore (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked through the second or third link? The second shows that consensus has proven that such roads are notable. --Rschen7754 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relevant notability policy you can point me to which specifically describes the notability of roads like these? Albacore (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the Notability guideline be used, just as for any article? Local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't do notability here; that is for WP:AFD. If you do not believe this notable, please send this to AFD. I'll also point you to Talk:M-147 (Michigan highway)#Notability, a similar debate. Furthermore, the vast majority of state highways that are sent to AFD are kept: WP:USRD/P --Rschen7754 22:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the reviewer

edit
  • This, in my opinion, has been blown way out of proportion. I read through the article several times and found no issues with what-so-ever. Of course, others could read the article and find many, but the prose seemed perfectly fine on my side. I have never edited a road article in my life, so excuse me in my ignorance if there is apparently information that is missing from it. I also do not live in the United States, so I'm not familiar with how their roads works. During the GA drive, I decided that I would branch out and review different types of articles that I'm not used to; a change of scenery. I wasn't going to comment on this because, as I said, I have no experience myself in road articles, so it would be best to leave it up to others. I stand by my reviews, but if somebody disagrees with a review I did, I have no problem with that and accept it with open arms. I'm not somebody whose gonna go into a GAR and disagree with everything everybody said just because. Seeing as how I wasn't specifically told about what the nominator here was planning on doing before-hand (which I feel is the good thing to do, so the reviewer can prepare his or herself), I also didn't feel the need to comment. But it appears that my input is highly asked upon, so here's my response. Statυs (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but I do not understand what you mean above with "Seeing as how I wasn't specifically told about what the nominator here was planning on doing before-hand (which I feel is the good thing to do, so the reviewer can prepare his or herself)". This is a regular GAR of an article you reviewed, and you were notified as appropriate right from the start. I wasn't planning anything else than initiating a community review of this article, the lengthy conversation which resulted is a result of apparently systemic problems with Good Article reviews and review drives, which surfaced as being interlinked. While I understand this might be disturbing for some editors involved, I think the depth this review has been taking at least has the potential to fix some problems. I also think that no personal attacks should be made, but rather everyone should focus on how the issues can be solved. I would suggest one can learn about reviewing road articles from the many issues raised in this conversation (accuracy, clarity, etc) and how some of these have been addressed. You might wish to have a second look to the articles reviewed in the past, and where deemed necessary help improve them or ask the article creators to improve them. That could spare the need of going through a similar lengthy process in many cases. --ELEKHHT 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stated that being one the reasons I decided not to comment on this discussion. I know it isn't a requirement, why I said "I feel is the good thing to do". A lot of this conversation appears to be reviewer trashing. Statυs (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the scope of the review. The scope is to review the article, and if you read through it, apart from some not so helpful slippages, that is what is about, and certainly what it should stay focused on. --ELEKHHT 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

edit
  • Keep now that the article has been checked for factual accuracy and proper sourcing, and all KML/maps/images are present, I believe that this fully meets the GA criteria. --Rschen7754 02:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep commenters have failed to specify what specific details this article lacks for "broad" coverage of this topic, Delaware Route 17. The suggested additions based on engineering principles are not appropriate, even if "Transport" is a subcategory of "Engineering and technology". (Unless there's something specific about a subject roadway's engineering that warrants specific coverage, the topic sticks more to the "technology" side of things with a heavy dose of "geography".) Imzadi 1979 → 03:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is broad in its coverage about the road, adding technical details violates WP:WHIM. It is sourced well too and has a KML, map, and image of the road. Dough4872 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep concur with Rschen7754. Alpertron (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the article still has multiple issues.
  • In the lead we say "The route was built as a state highway in the 1920s" but from reference 5 we know that some of the route was completed by August 1920, inferring that some of it was built before 1920
  • In fact, as far as history is concerned, all we know is what we infer from a partial series of maps. We don't really know the road history at all. We don't know what happened pre-1920. We don't know if there have been notable upgrades since its completion in 1924. (Are the citizens really still driving on a 1924 stylee road?) A couple of people apart from me have asked for a better history. I don't think we're in a position to give one.
  • Other historical stuff we don't know: when was it designated as DE 17? We don't know. We know it was by 1938, because we have a 1938 map. That's all we know.
    The map of the previous year does not have that designation. According to some people here, they infer that the designation is from 1938 (but actually it could have been designated at the end of 1937). Alpertron (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no idea why the road was built. There's no context for the road whatsoever, beyond that it joins place A to place B. Presumably there was a reason for the State of Delaware to decide to build the road? What was it?
  • I do not think what we have in the article constitutes broad coverage. Rather, I think it is exactly the sort of narrow coverage one would expect from an article built from what can be gleaned from a series of five or so maps. For me, it's not good enough to say, "well, we don't know when construction started, we don't know if there was a route there before DE 17, we don't know when it was designated as DE 17, but hell, it's a good article."
  • The infobox map is not good. It is barely passable. It just might convey some information to someone already familiar with the road network in that part of Delaware. Beyond the SW-NE orientation, those unfamiliar learn nothing from it. There is no scale, nor are settlements or subdivisions of Delaware labelled such that one might relate the map to a larger map or be able to locate the settlements mentioned in the article. Even what is on the map is barely discernible at the size displayed.
  • There continues to be poor phrasing and/or irrelevant content, and the article would benefit from a copyedit. Some examples, but there are more:
  • The redundant Along the way,
  • The orphaned The road passes several homes before leaving Selbyville.
  • The how many clauses can we get into a sentence: By 1920, what is now DE 17 was under construction as an unnumbered paved state highway between Selbyville and Roxana, with a small section of paved state highway complete near Roxana, and was designated a state aid road, a road that was to receive funding from the state to be built as a state highway, from there north to Millville.
  • We're told it is a state highway, but there's no clue about what that actually means. The link is not helpful "generally a mixture of primary and secondary roads, although some are freeways". So. one of them, then. (It's not the fault of the DE 17 article that the state highway article is a bit useless, but it is the fault of the DE 17 article that it depends upon the useless article rather than explaining what a state highway is.)
  • I don't for a minute buy the dubious "violates" WP:WHIM argument. I want:
  • Any word whatsoever on any aspect of the civil engineering of the road. It is rather the elephant in the room. At the very very least, I want to know if it is an asphalt or concrete surfaced road. At least one other person has asked for the same sort of information.
  • I want to know the speed limit.
  • YMMV, of course, but neither of these appear to me to be indiscriminate. I don't come to this article with a great deal of a priori knowledge about Delaware roads, and I expect the article to tell me basic stuff about the road. Surface type and speed limit would be two clear bits of interest to me, and is the basic sort of stuff that would allow me to compare this road with one in South America or in an African state.
-- Tagishsimon (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is the sort of stuff required at FAC, not here, with some personal preferences thrown in. --Rschen7754 21:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. When the road was built. When it was designated. Poor map. Poor sentence construction. As Alpertron says below, that would make it a very low bar. And a novel use of the word good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the bar for Good Articles is very low compared with other Wikipedias. Since this article complies with current GA standards, I cannot vote against the article for being GA, which does not mean that it is a good article as someone wrote above. Alpertron (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple of fixes to the article based on your comments. However, some of the information you are requesting is either technical information that is not supposed to be in the article or extra information that is not necessarily required for GA. Dough4872 00:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
God forbid what we call "good articles" should actually be of good quality. Demote per Tagishsimon above. Albacore (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This GAR shall be closed by an uninvolved and neutral editor, considering the range of opinions expressed. I think most what can be said has been said, and is clear at this stage how much information can be included into the article based on readily available reliable sources. But the fact we don't have better sources is no proof that those sources do not exist, and we know that building, designating, upgrading public roads cannot be done without certain public documents. I disagree that the "very low bar" of the status quo of GAs is what the closing decision shall be based on. I rather think that it is the GA criteria, within the larger framework of article quality assessments, that shall be the basis for the decision. Also WP:IAR is of some relevance, and we should all ask the question: does it improve Wikipedia if we highlight this article as a Good Article?, particularly when many editors agree that is not a "good article" (lower case). Finally, I think there was wide-ranging agreement during this discussion that when promoted this article did not meet the GA criteria, hence the starting point is not that this article is a GA which can be kept, but that we have a non-GA article which throughout this lengthy process has been considerably improved, while criticism remains (see Tagishsimon's remarks above). So the question are: Shall it be promoted? Will promoting this article set an example which will help improve Wikipedia? --ELEKHHT 00:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - same reasoning and opinion as Alperton. No need for duplicated engineering specifications and measurements that are better covered in articles on road construction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since many members of Roads WikiProjects keep bringing this up again and again and again... road construction is a redirect to road which presents a wide-range of techniques and materials and nothing about widths and would certainly not specify which ones were used at DR17. It might not be notable, but that does not make the article broader. --ELEKHHT 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, mentioning the width of the route is too technical, saying it is two lanes wide is sufficient. Dough4872 01:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is why I didn't mention any specific article. There are plenty on road construction, and I'm sure many of them could use an upgrade. However, this is under the scope of the civil engineering wikiproject and not this review. Lane widths in the developed world are standardized, as has been mentioned several times. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should point out that lane width and construction can vary wildly from one section of route to another, and can change multiple times over time. (I can even think of periods of time where Oklahoma would pave over one lane of a concrete road in asphalt, leaving a small stretch of half-asphalt half-concrete.) To completely note this sort of information would be extremely tedious and a snoozefest to read ("In 1949, the road between Stamshire and Grableborn was repaved in asphalt... in 1952 the half mile section of road between Grableborn and Old Smelly Shoe Pike was also repaved in asphalt to remedy pothole problems... in 1963 the entire route between Stamshire and Old Smelly Shoe Pike was redone in concrete, but further south in Cattaglass County the road was redone in asphalt", etc.). Such things would require access to DOT maintenance logs, which depending on the state laws applicable would incur considerable monetary expense to the editor without adding all that much to the reader. I have personally received MoDOT maintenance logs before, and they are extremely hard to interpret because repavings and such happen so frequently and their extents often overlap, and we still couldn't say for certain why certain things were done, as it would be editor conjecture, since that sort of thing isn't noted on the log. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What doesn't make sense to me is that even if we were to include this sort of information, it would be from the DOT. ...I thought that some of the complaints were related to articles sourced primarily with DOT information? --Rschen7754 18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't normally comment on these things, so I apologize if I'm putting this in the wrong place (to clarify, I stumbled upon this discussion through Rschen's userpage when I was just Wiki-exploring). I'm not sure if the article would meet 3a or not; it would seem to meet the basic requirements of the language as currently written, but it might be wise for the GA criteria to mention something similar to Wikipedia:Content forking to avoid these sorts of issues. However, I have much larger concerns about the article (and some others like it). I looked over WP:USROADS's notability essay and found the following passage in the "secondary state highway" section:
"Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) are better suited to a list."
Looking through this article... what possible claim to historical notability could there be? No historical significance is present, and it would seem to be extremely short by the standards that everyone is setting for it. Every source is from the Delaware Department of Transportation or the Delaware State Highway Department, and despite arguments to the above that this is a second party, not a first party source, I don't think anyone could say that a Delaware state highway is fully independent from two departments that manage it. Why does this highway in particular need to be split out from List of numbered routes in Delaware? I think this article really needs to have some verifiable third party sources in it, or else it should be merged back into the list. Also, to clarify, I think many members of WP:USROADS fear that this could be the beginning of some sort of end for articles like this in their project. This discussion is not (in my opinion) some sort of !vote against all road articles, only this one; the vast majority of WP:GA quality road articles that I've seen easily meet the GA criteria with the exception of some other Delaware articles. Nomader (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USRD/P, WP:USRD/NT and WP:ROADOUTCOMES, state highways in the United States are notable enough for their own articles. Dough4872 20:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Talk:M-147 (Michigan highway). The issue is that putting all of them in a list will result in a very long list and needs to be split per WP:SIZE. Indiana was the last state to have all its highways in one long list. It was very difficult to navigate, and I eventually split it out. --Rschen7754 20:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks to the both of you. The discussion from M-147 is helpful and so are the links to the precedents. Nomader (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there is a limit to what gets their own article - for example, we do have List of primary state highways in Virginia shorter than one mile. However, those cases are pretty rare. --Rschen7754 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Delaware_Route_17/1&oldid=1144178028"