Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 55

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 56)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 54) →

Tina Turner

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep Improvements have been made and no more objections have been forthcoming AIRcorn (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2012‎

I was shocked to see the green circle at the top of the page, because this page is far from a "good article". A vast chunk of it lacks any kind of verification, and though it does follow a chronological pattern, is plagued with numerous POV issues. A variety of editors have agreed that the article does not meet the GA criteria. A reassessment was even initiated a long time ago, but it did not reach a consensus as there was no commentary. —DAP388 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• It seems well written and at least decently sourced. There are a few paragraphs, or end of paragraphs that do not have references, which is a problem. I'd say it's close to GA quality, but it probably would fail a GAN in its current condition. Perhaps you could communicate your specific concerns on the article talk page and add some notices to appropriate WikiProjects? Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Please notify intersted parties and projects if you are going to nominate an article for reassessment (have done it for you). Also it is easier if you give examples or detail how an article fails the criteria. However saying that, the article does seem to be missing a lot of sources. Will see if anyone is willing to fix it up. AIRcorn (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, this is interesting. But I can see the argument as to why it doesn't really meet the "good article" assessment looking at other "good article" pages. Maybe sources and a better way of writing the story in the respective paragraphs. Does the lead section still look off to y'all? It does seem fleshed out but yeah more sources are needed. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead seemed fine to me. The biggest concerns are the unverified statements. In particular potentially controversial ones like Ike & Tina Turner reached the pinnacle of their success following the release of "River Deep - Mountain High",, and By the mid-1970s, Tina's personal life and marriage had fallen apart. Ike's growing cocaine use led to increasingly erratic and physically abusive behavior. I would suggest reading through and identifying potentially controversial statements and then looking for a source to back them up (or changing the statement so it is supported by a similar source). I don't think it would be too hard to do. The recent years section could probably use a bit of a copy edit too, which is usually the case when new information is added to existing Good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah those statements can be damaging as far as its assessment goes. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A friendly reminder: there is no GA requirement requiring citations in each paragraph. Instead, focus on Aircorn's point: controversial statements that are likely to be challenged and contentious material relating to living persons should cite reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot of work has been done on this since it was nominated. Are there any outstanding issues remaining? AIRcorn (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Paulo Francis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not listed Still waiting for a copy edit. Once that is done you will have more luck nominating it at WP:GAN again. AIRcorn (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article, written mostly by editors who use English as a foreign language, should be submitted to copy editing by native English speaking editors. However, I strongly disagree with its quotes being regarded as "too long". In my view, the biographee being primarily a writer known by its stylistic idiosincrasies, the verbatim quotes included are the means I have found to convey some of his stilistic traits, if only by "englishening" them. This should be taken into account in any GA discussion. RegardsCerme (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to wait for the copy edit and then submit it again for GA status. We rarely conduct full reviews here and you will have more success at WP:GAN. I personally think less is more when it comes to quotes, but the GA criteria does not set a limit. However they can impact criteria 1a (prose/copyright), 3b (focus) and even 4 (neutrality) so in the end it comes down to how your reviewer views these issues. The two reviewers you have had so far are experienced in the process and I would expect them to be reasonable with there interpretations. AIRcorn (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I will follow your suggestion and wait for the copy edit. I have nothing against suppressing quotes as such, but I would only ask for taking into account the question of trying to convey stylish traits when dealing with a writer's biographyCerme (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears that activity at the article over the last several months may have dropped a number of crieria. Main concerns are focus, scope, nuetrality, references (which need checking after months of additions), a pamphlet like formating, undue weight issues, some possible image use problems. Unstable. Reverts and possible edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder if it might be possible to put this GAR request on hold, as there is already a pending peer review. Thanks.198.228.201.153 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that peer review is for FA, if it doesn't pass GA it cannot pass FA. The two are seperate and GA is required to even be nominated for FA. I feel this review is needed before the peer review. Perhaps you should ask that to be held off until after GA reassement.

There is no set ladder of progression. Sometimes people ask for peer reviews before going for GA, sometimes before going for FA. Sometimes articles go straight to FA without ever being GA first. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the GAR, as primary author of the article I believe that it still meets the GA criteria. I believe its focus and scope and weighting are appropriate for the topic and mirror how the main biographical sources on Romney treat his life and career. I believe the article is neutral – it covers the full Romney, good bad or indifferent. The "pamphlet-like formatting" is an allusion to the article's use of box quotes, which I have now removed. I do not believe it has any image use problems in terms of licensing. The images could be better quality, of course, and it would be nice to have one of the subject before age 55, and it would be nice to have a formal portrait as top photo, but this is Wikipedia and you take what you can get. I believe the references are all correctly placed and formatted - I keep a close eye on them. I run 'checklinks' periodically and I see just now there are four deadlinks that come up; I'll address those.

As for stability, have there been reverts and edit warring? Yes, how could there not be with a topic like this? Since the article became GA, a lot of editors have arrived who care only about content, often a particular piece of content. They don't care about MoS conformance or cite formatting or consistent levels of detail or recentism. But I've been dealing with that and I believe I have been successful at keeping the article at a GA/FA level. If you look at the article in the middle of the day when I'm at work, will you see a bare url cite? Yes, it's possible, but if the content stays in, I'll fix up the cite. And so forth. Again, an article like this at a time like this is never going to be the perfect model of stability - but the Obama and McCain articles were both FA during the 2008 campaign, despite undergoing similar levels of editor activity, and I certainly believe this one can be GA/FA during this campaign.

Anyway, I always welcome feedback, and especially from the GAR community. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a few concerns with images, but I am fixing them. I could have done this as an individual reassesment but the last time I did that it was made into a community reassesment. Maybe this one should be turned into an individual reassesment? At any rate i will mark off all the concerns above as fixed to move this along as quickly as possible. You show a great desire to keep the criteria at GA and you could use a little help. As soon as everything is marked off again it should be able to be closed. The only major image issue is the licensing on the 1968 Romney campaign poster that I have doubts is public domain.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Image removal

Yes, upon a re-look I agree, the public domain claim on that image is somewhat dubious. Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden added several under the 'published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice' rationale, but that's a hard negative to prove and some of the others have already been thrown out. In this case, who's to know what the copyright status is on that photograph? This image is also used in George Romney presidential campaign, 1968 article, but there it would qualify as legitimate fair use, but not here.

As for the type of GAR, that's entirely your choice. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if no one else chimes in...it pretty much is just you and me anyway. I'll finish up quickly. My main concerns have been addressed and only a few things to check. The writing itself doesn't seem to have been effected in quality from what I am reading.

I went and looked at the image page at Wikimedia Commons, and I see nothing suspect there. No one has tagged this image, or raised any questions about it. Mad Scientist started a discussion about it at the Wikipedia Village Pump here, but the response indicates that the image is perfectly okay for us to use. Please restore it. I also would like to mention that the predecessor image at the Mitt Romney article, was, in my opinion, not NPOV. Of all the images of his father, one was selected that very prominently featured Richard Nixon in the same picture; Mitt Romney has very little connection with Nixon, who is one of the most disliked and disgraced persons in American history (and a person whom George Romney attempted to defeat). The removed poster image does not have that problem, and it goes very well with the image of a button from Mitt Romney's mother's campaign.71.88.58.198 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That Village Pump discussion was about whether this public domain consideration applies to the U.S. But more fundamental is whether the photograph had a copyright. Another of Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden's additions from that time, File:George and Lenore Romney in 1962.gif, recently got deleted from Commons on the grounds of "No clear evidence that the pamphlet didn't bear a copyright notice", see Commons:Deletion requests/File:George and Lenore Romney in 1962.gif. Anyway, I never liked the Nixon cabinet photo being here either. For now I have replaced the one in question with a George Romney for President bumper sticker which is more clearly PD under the 'only simple shapes and text' clause. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If the poster had no copyright notice, it should be fine. Even if the photo previously had a copyright, lack of notice on the poster would have ended it. Notice had to be on *all* copies, not just the first ones. The only way it would be preserved is if the photo itself was used on the poster without permission, as copies without notice which were copyright violations themselves wouldn't have counted as a true publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been resolved. A call to the Library of congress was not enough to state no notice, however this link shows clearly that there was no copyright notice on the poster. The 1968 "Romney great in 68" poster is public domain.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment at the article talk page, to resolve the matter. Thanks. 64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)(also IP 71.88)

The discussion there is content based. The image has been cleared for use. I went out of my way to rescue that image with clear proof it could be used. Now it is just a matter of whether editors want it returned. It isn't going to effect GA either way.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The image in the poster may be the copyright of Alan Band and is located here.[1]. Not clear if this effects the copyright use of the poster.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job tracking this down. Seems to me that copyright is still active, and makes the poster not public domain. So the poster image can still be used in George Romney presidential campaign, 1968 based on fair use (just like any photograph-based album cover image can be used in the article about that album), but not here under either fair use or public domain. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The poster is very clearly in the public domain. See this discussion at the Wikimedia Commons Village Pump. The official un-cropped portrait by Alan Band is not public domain, but the cropped image was released in 1968 when the poster was published without a copyright notice. There is no ambiguity about it.24.181.178.157 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)(Also 64.134.98.120)

Yeah, there is nothing clear about copyright in this situation becuase of one small detail. And that is whether the original image was published BEFORE the poster. So this is still not cleared up as we do know who the photographer was and the image appears to be a portrait while in office, but not a work of the US government.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your characterization of copyright law is very clearly incorrect. Whether it was BEFORE or AFTER makes no difference whatsoever. If the original image was published BEFORE the poster was published, then the owner of copyright in the original image had every right to subsequently release part of that work into the public domain. Conversely, if the original image was published with a copyright notice AFTER the poster, then that established copyright in the original image with the exception of the cropped portion used for the poster.63.119.36.186 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134.98.120 and 24.181.178.157)

Dog note

I don't think that "Note 10" in the article is at all necessary, and it seems contrary to WP:Summary style. The note details the dog incident in 1983, but the main text already wlinks to the pertinent sub-article, Mitt Romney dog incident.71.88.58.198 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're as obsessed about this Note as Gail Collins is about the story itself. Alright, I've removed it. But I do not accept your reasoning that this kind of Note is necessarily a violation of summary style. I have Notes on the governorship and the 2008 campaign that I intend to keep in the article, even though there are subarticles on those periods. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as GA This article still appears to meet all the GA criteria to me and is currently undergoing a refining PR on its way to another FAC. Kudos to WTR for his tireless efforts in helping the article continue to meet the criteria despite a highly visible and evolving subject. —Eustress ^talk 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eutress, but this isn't about removing the article from a GA listing or I would have just delisted it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Then what is this reassessment for? WP:GAR explains that a community reassessment is for determining whether an article still meets the good article criteria. —Eustress ^talk 23:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A GA reassesment is no more about delisting then the peer review. It is about improving the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Recommend speedy close as "keep"

• Per the discussion above, it appears the nominator's motive here is general improvement to the article, which is more appropriately addressed on the article's talk page and via the peer review that is currently open. This article clearly still meets the GA criteria, so I recommend this GAR be closed immediately as keep. —Eustress ^talk 14:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and restore public domain poster of George Romney in 1968. I support speedy closure.63.119.36.186 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134.98.120 and 24.181.178.157)

Recommend continued evaluation as GA

This article, by omission, presents a strong subjective impression: For example, regarding Romney's education, "...at first did not excel academically... During his final year at Cranbook, he improved academically, but was still not a star pupil." would be significantly improved if the negative "did not excel" was specifically a quotation of a report card, or his ranking among his class, and the second sentence in my quotation is really meaningless, but implies achievement. Again, a negative "still not a star pupil" which could mean he graduated (like me) 498th out of 503. My next issue is with this: "In February 2010, Romney had a minor altercation with LMFAO member Skyler Gordy, known as Sky Blu, on an airplane flight." Here, the adjective, minor, is the problem. I would contend that no altercation on an airplane is "minor" and compounding that, one of the antagonists is a candidate for President of the United States. This event, if it is to be reported in the article at all, should be detailed. The same is true of "many pranks." Since the article also says that Mr. Romney lately appologized for the pranks it seems that specifics are in order. IMO this is not GA and certainly not FA. Anewcharliega (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

These objections are not persuasive. Regarding Romney's academic performance in high school, this Wikipedia article accurately conveys what the sources say. The cited article by Neil Swidey says: "His report cards tell the story of a bright boy who had yet to feel the urge to apply himself fully. ('He can do a lot better.... He wastes much time in class')....In his final years at Cranbrook, Mitt emerged a more serious student." Likewise, the cited article by Scott Greenberger says, "The future governor did well academically at Cranbrook, but he wasn't a star." One has to work with what one has, and in this instance the thrust of the cited sources is honestly summarized by the BLP. Moreover, a reader does not need to know Romney's precise class rank or precise grades in order to understand this stuff.

Likewise, the objection about Sky Blu is not persuasive either. For readers who want details about the incident, it is detailed in a note: "After having attended the 2010 Winter Olympics, Romney and wife were on board an Air Canada plane waiting to take off on a flight from Vancouver to Los Angeles when he got into a physical altercation with Sky Blu, sitting in front of him, over Sky Blu's seat not being in the upright position. Romney said that Sky Blu became physically violent and that he did not retaliate, while Sky Blu said that Romney gave him a "Vulcan grip" first and that he responded physically to that. Sky Blu was escorted off the aircraft by Canadian police but Romney did not press charges and Sky Blu was released.[275][276][277]" If that doesn't qualify as a minor altercation, it's hard to imagine what might.

Like the mistaken copyright objection about the poster, these objections too are not persuasive, and certainly not grounds for delisting as a good article.63.119.36.186 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134.98.120 and 24.181.178.157)

Now you are just making stuff up. I encourage you to register an account so that further communication is done in a consistant manner...and brush up on copyright. You know very little about it or at least don't seem keen on making accurate statements about such. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing as kept

I am responding to the request from Eustress on the GAR talk page, that an uninvolved user take a look at this. I am closing this as kept. I think everyone involved here has shown constructive interest in improving the article, and there has been some useful discussion and action. I remind editors of a principle behind GAR: "GAR can sometimes provide more feedback for delisted articles or failed GA nominations. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not." It appears to me that the article meets GA criteria. It is certainly not perfect, and i am sure it will benefit from review, such as at PR. Howev=er, it meets GA criteria. I also note from the edit history that it is being actively improved by experienced editors (esp. Wasted Time R), in which case it would be best simply to raise suggestions or concerns on the article talk page. Thank you to everyone involved for taking an interest in the article and a constructive approach to the discussion. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Copying further explanation, initially provided in response to a query at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment:

It appears to me to be well-written, its lead appears consistent with MOS. It is abundantly referenced. Some may think it over-referenced, but given the potentially contentious nature of the subject, particularly at the moment, I think it's fine. I haven't been through it line by line, but I'm not seeing evidence on the talk page or the edit history to suggest any WP:OR problems. It is broad in its coverage, addressing personal life and education, business career, state political career, and presidential candidacies, as well as some separate discussion of key aspects of his views. If this were a candidate at FAC, I would be considering any possible duplication between the penultimate section and the body text, but I don't see it as an issue at GA since, even if there duplication, it is limited in scope. Individuals will seldom agree on the neutrality of articles about living partisan political players (IMO), but the careful referencing, the neutral language, and the watchful eyes of experienced editors all suggest to me that it is sound. Likewise, articles such as this are not always very stable in terms of vandalism, but I don't see edit wars or disputes on a scale that should prevent it being GA. Finally, images are generally OK; I am aware there is a live debate about one image that relates to one of the GA criteria ("images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions"), but there is a sensible discussion going on, and I don't think editors are trying to keep an image in the article that is clearly against the criteria.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Some further explanation: I reviewed comments on the talk. I noted the arguments of experienced editor (and previous GA nominator) Wasted Time R as to why the article was still at GA, and also that Wasted Time responded to suggestions with improvements; the view of Eustress and of an IP that it remained at GA; and also the IP's rebuttal of the (previously uninvolved, and mostly inactive) editor Anewcharliega. I reviewed the article against the criteria (see above) and reached the same conclusion as Wasted Time R and others. It appeared clear to me that the article simply doesn't need to be at GAR in order to deal with any issues. I regret not leaving a message to that effect on the talk page of the editor who established the review page; that was a mistake on my part. I appreciate (as I indicated elsewhere) Amadscientist's work on improving the piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Radical Party

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted The article has not been updated since being brought here. Wouldn't need much to update, just a few sentences describing the most recent election. The last section is still unreferenced. I think this could easily be brought up to GA standard, but unfortunately no one has shown any interest for nearly two months despite the appropriate projects and editors being notified AIRcorn (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is outdated. Someone should write a few new sections about 2012 election and loss of support among voters, since SRP lost all of MPs in the National Assembly, while they had more then 70 members, also they lost a lot of MPs in the Vojvodina Assembly.

Also, the article has one unreferenced section (Electoral performance). --Wustenfuchs 23:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please notify the reviewer, nominator and primary contributors. You could update the article yourself. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert about the subject and I don't know really what happen and what to search to expand the article myself. I need an user who know what's involved. --Wustenfuchs 22:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You didn't notify the Serbian Wikiproject or Filippusson (talk · contribs) about this review. The aim here is to improve the article not to summarily delist it. I have now done so for you. AIRcorn (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. You did notify Filippusson, but they removed it from their talk page [2]. I guess that answers the question of whether or not they are interested in keeping this article at GA. AIRcorn (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't knew he erased my message. Well, I'll inform members of the WP Serbia at the WP's talk page. I'm sure some users will join the discussion. --Wustenfuchs 01:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This article also has one dead link. --Wustenfuchs 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nickel Creek

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist None of the issues addressed. Concerns raised include the lead not summarising the article, broadness concerns and prose. AIRcorn (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Intro is too short.
• Not all viewpoints are given. Only one review is cited for This Side, and no critical reception is given for Why Should The Fire Die?
• The prose is very short and choppy, with nearly all one-sentence paragraphs.
• Very little is stated on their musical style besides vague things like "this album was more indie rock than bluegrass".

Overall, the article is extremely short and feels incomplete. Compare it to, say, McBride & the Ride or Rodney Atkins, both of which are fairly short GAs on artists with similar-length careers, but still contain much more info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everything above. Broadness is probable the biggest issue. AIRcorn (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is nicely sourced and organized but.... the lead does not summarize the article. that is the biggest problem that I see. At the same time, the text could be tuned up and rounded out a bit with a few more sources and viewpoints (maybe from Google books?). I'd be happy to help with the upgrade process, since I've worked on this article before. PS the link to the Chris Thile interview should be removed as it occurred after the band broke up and is about CT and there is almost no content about NC. That EL belongs in CT's Wiki article IMO. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ayrton Senna

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: no action: This article is currently asssesed as B Class so this a procedural close as it cannot be subject to a GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• This article has improvements from it's last good article reassessment such as eliminating bias and cleaning up the article. I suggest at least three users have a look at the article and determine if the article has reached Good Article criteria. Z105space (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please take to peer review or nominate at WP:GAN. This page is for re-assessing current GAs. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delaware Route 17

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 22:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. -ELEKHH^T 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Half of the stuff that you request can't even be reliably sourced. --Rschen7754 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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. --ELEKHH^T 23:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 00:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the record, photos are not required for GA. --Rschen7754 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, so your interpretation of #6 "Illustrated, if possible, by images:" is that "photos are not required". --ELEKHH^T 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"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)

The shield does count as an image. --Rschen7754 00:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

An OpenStreetMap illustration would massively increase the quality of the article and is available. --ELEKHH^T 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• And no links to GeoHack or WikiAtlas, either by {{coord}} or KML. So no easy possibility of locating the road on google maps or bing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Before this blows up into another pissing match, KML is on the way. –Fredddie™ 00:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

KML added. Dough4872 00:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE was crafted specifically for this reason. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The review this article should have had

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)

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)

• • What is "enterins"?
  • Here, the name of road becomes Roxana Road. - name of the road? --Rschen7754 05:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A comment from an outsider

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)

• • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Please don't put personal attacks on project pages. Thankyou. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

My first road article review

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some comments

• It appears that the initial paragraph does not put the article subject in context. After reading it, I do not know where the road is located inside the state (North, South, East, West) and I do not even know what country this road is located. Alpertron (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Presumably the same one Delaware is in, and it's in the part of Delaware that Sussex County is in. Links are given for both of those; if you don't know where Sussex County or Delaware are, those links are provided for you. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So why the state name appears in the first paragraph if the article for the county names it? Alpertron (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • This is why, in my road articles, I prefer "California State Route x is a state highway in the U.S. state of California." --Rschen7754 20:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There are multiple counties named "Sussex County" in the world. Including Delaware lets us know which one, as opposed to, say, Sussex County, Western Australia.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• There is no source for "The route was created by 1938". Alpertron (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As I suspected, this assertion is false. According to the page 31 of [3], the Chief Engineer recommended in 1938 to widen the route 17. So it was already built. Alpertron (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The wording is probably poor choice here. The road was most likely assumed by a government agency in 1938 and promptly improved from what was likely a pair of wheel ruts into a gravel or paved road with ditches. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • No, the article says "By 1924, all of the route had been completed as a paved state highway" (the source is a map). That's why sources are always needed. Alpertron (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
        • See my comments above; there are some improvements that could be made to the history. --Rschen7754 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
          • It is clear that this "C" level article cannot be a good article at this moment. The editors should add maps, and also read http://www.deldot.gov in order to complete the missing information, including what was requested by Tagishsimon and others. Alpertron (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

another comment

• "By 1996, DE 17 was cut back to its current western terminus at DE 54." - should say what "current" is. The source document is dated 1996. So nothing has happened in the last 16 years? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

References and "broad in coverage"

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)

Can you clarify what you mean by "narrowness"? --Rschen7754 00:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Specifically, what part of the GA criteria do you think this fails? Number 2 or 3? --Rschen7754 19:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on sources, expectations, and such

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

agree. Those kind of conclusions I think are OR. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

well, what is meant exactly by "created by 1938" in the lede? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Again, where are you getting this information from? This is your opinion. --Rschen7754 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Books on the history of America, like the four volume series by D. W. Meing. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this just simply is not true. However, I don't have the advantage of having the source, so I can't respond directly to what you are referring to. --Rschen7754 00:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

(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)

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)

... 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)

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)

Other comments

• 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 [4]. There is no route marker between US 113 and Selbyville. Alpertron (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Both statements have been removed. --Rschen7754 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is a "state aid road"? This requires a brief explanation or a link (the article does not yet). Alpertron (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A state aid road is a road that receives funding to be built as a state highway. I added a description as there is no relevant article to link to. Dough4872 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• In the small "route description" section, DE 17 appears six times, which is too much. Some of them could be replaced by "the route" or another similar expression. Alpertron (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed some instances. Dough4872 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• "The road passes several homes before leaving Selbyville. At this point, DE 17 enterins (???) rural areas of farms with some woods and homes." The first sentence is fairly obvious. Everybody knows that there are homes in a town. I could not understand the second one but I think it can be erased without losing information. Alpertron (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've mentioned this one above; personally, I don't like to include sentences like that. --Rschen7754 02:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You are right, but nobody erased them. Alpertron (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It does help to indicate the road passes homes within Selbyville. The reader cannot assume that the road passes homes within the town, as some parts of towns can be made up of industrial or business areas. The second sentence was a typo that I fixed. Dough4872 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• "By 1920, what is now DE 17 was proposed as an unnumbered paved state highway between Selbyville and Roxana," The 1920 map shows that the route was not proposed but under construction. Alpertron (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, if it was under construction, then it had to be proposed... --Rschen7754 08:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes it was proposed, but before 1920. Alpertron (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Hence "By 1920" (emphasis mine), not "In 1920", "Since 1920", nor "After 1920". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
        • There are several highways proposed in the 1960's and 1970's in Argentina but their construction started in the 1990's (examples: es:Ruta Nacional 1 (Argentina), es:Ruta Nacional A019 (Argentina), Rosario-Córdoba Highway, etc.). The Southwest access to Buenos Aires city was proposed in 1951, the land was reserved for that, but that highway was never built. The land was finally occuppied by villas miseria. The Avenida General Paz was proposed in 1887 but the construction started in 1937. So we can only infer from the map is that the road DE-17 was being built in 1920, nothing about the proposal year. Alpertron (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Fixed to indicate it was under construction by 1920. Dough4872 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• The cited reference at the Major intersections section does not say that Zion Church Rd. is the state road 20. You need another reference for that. Alpertron (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fixed. I had to combine ref 1 and ref 2, and boy did that take a lot less time than searching through ref 1 for the DE 17 entry. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the fast fix. Some comments above were not addressed yet. Alpertron (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

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)

This is just a regular article that needs improvement to reach a legitimate good article status. Alpertron (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Which of the criteria do you think the article still fails? --Rschen7754 02:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

To be honest, it's difficult to prove that the reviewer did more than skimming the article. :( --Rschen7754 18:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • (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)

Summary of the discussion so far

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.

--ELEKHH^T 03:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Broad coverage

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 05:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Map

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 07:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 08:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. -ELEKHH^T 08:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. --ELEKHH^T 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

So can you do that? --ELEKHH^T 00:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

Further steps

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)

• 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)

• well, are the reviews by Status significantly different from 9 carbon copy passes of Delaware road article by another editor, Rp0211 of which Talk:Delaware Route 9/GA1 is one? And why must things be decided on IRC chat which isn't the whole thing transparent? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• So because I don't use IRC I could never be a reviewer? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And that crosses the line into notability. GAR does not decide notability, as explained above; AFD does. --Rschen7754 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments from the reviewer

• 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)
  • 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. --ELEKHH^T 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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. --ELEKHH^T 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep concur with Rschen7754. Alpertron (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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? --ELEKHH^T 00:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • My vote to "keep" is based on the GA criteria, not on the status quo. The GA criteria is quite clear on situations like this. --Rschen7754 00:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You already made that opinion clear, above. The different opinions and arguments shall be clear to the closer from the lengthy discussion above. --ELEKHH^T 00:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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. --ELEKHH^T 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • I have to agree. If the road were substandard in lane width, I would require a mention of that. If it were like M-119 (Michigan highway) that lacks a centerline through the "tunnel of trees", I'd require such an inclusion as well. Exact lane widths aren't a necessary detail, and are not included in Featured Articles. If lane counts, no lane widths, have been sufficient for our "finest work", that's what should be sufficient for "satisfactory" work. Imzadi 1979 → 01:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • In fact, take a peek at Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles - most of them do not have this information. --Rschen7754 04:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Serpentine (lake)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept Nominators concerns have been addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My primary concern with this article is a lack of referencing; there are seven unreferenced paragraphs and a few other spots where more could be used. When it was passed in 2007, the level of referencing was not much different than it is currently. Also, the lead, in my opinion, doesn't summarize the whole article and, while not a GA criterion, the gallery is a bit excessive. I left a note about the referencing on the article talk page about five days ago, and there has been no response. Chris857 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(Top 2 editors, plus three relevant WikiProjects have been notified) Chris857 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to spend any time cleaning this up—this is a dull article with five years of accreted spam—but out of interest, which GA criteria are you claiming it doesn't meet, even in this decayed state? There isn't an never has been a requirement that everything be referenced at GA level, only "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons", none of which apply here; the statements you've slapped {{citation needed}} tags on (which probably took you longer than it would have taken to look them up) are such things as "There are two lakeside restaurants and various recreational facilities on the shore of the Serpentine" and "a memorial on the northern shore of the lake commemorates the Norwegian Defence Forces' role in World War II". The only thing I'd consider even possibly covered by "likely to be challenged" is the waffle about the police station, which shouldn't really be there at all since the police station is in the park, not on the banks of the lake. – iridescent 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• On looking carefully, Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines seems to be the only place were "1 per paragraph" is codified, though only as a rule of thumb. However, it seems to be bandied about a fair bit, from as far back as 2007. I would like a third person/party to weigh in. However, the referencing has improved. Chris857 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• In a blow for all the "dull" little articles, I've done some work on the referencing, which I think is more or less OK now. Perhaps the only thing you (Iridescent) might take issue with is my removal of the 1906 Diana fountain (which I guess to avoid confusion with the later crappy Diana memorial "fountain" is now called Artemis); looking at a map, it seemed too far from the Serpentine to be included. The image gallery, whether excessive or not, isn't a part of the GA criteria, and neither is the nonsensical "one citation per paragraph". GAR ought not to be used to impose personal preferences. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've also now expanded the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I feel that my concerns have now been addressed. Chris857 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• On the wider point, note that DYK has insisted on 1 ref per para for a couple of years now, & it is rather odd if the GA criteria are lower than that. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  That's an odd idea of "lower". So far as I'm aware DYK has (quite mistakenly) fairly recently insisted that the the sentence containing the hook fact is immediately cited, wherever it appears, but DYK is a wild and lawless place anyway, best avoided. What they do there is their business. There is absolutely no reason why every paragraph should be cited, but so far as this article is concerned, there are no paragraphs without at least one citation. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Why is "lower" odd. See D2 at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. In practice this is normally enforced. At least you know where you are at DYK; GA has no consistent standard or approach, which is why I avoid it. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Then why are you here? Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mila Kunis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept RFC has closed and a version has been agreed upon. It appears relatively stable despite some minor edit warring [5]. Not seeing any failings of the GA criteria in the consensus version and none have been brought up below. As a side note it is not usually helpful to open a RFC and a GAR at the same time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Mila Kunis article now contains a lengthy section called "Media publicity" that is simply a fannish and overindulgent laundry list of non-notable, WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. For example, it talks about she had the the "honor" of being on the cover of this of that magazine. That fact that an actress, especially one with a movie to promote, appears on the cover of a magazine is a completely normal, everyday occurrence. We don't list every magazine cover Marilyn Monroe appeared on, yet we're gong to list every one Mila Kunis appears on?

Additionally, it is filled the fannish, hagiographic prose about how she "graced" this cover or was "praised" by this magazine. And we certainly don't ahve to include every cable network or magazine's "award": Some have achieved a level of institutional awareness, such as People magazine's or Playmate of the Year, but the majority are nothing but self-promotional vehicles not awarded under any official auspices: vanity awards.

Attempts at trimming this section — not even removing, simply trimming — has been met with an SPA's automatic revert to this fannish version.

An article with such excesses of WP:PUFFERY and in such violation of WP:FANSITE does not fit the criteria of a Good Article.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was the GA reviewer. Personally, I think that Kunis is one of the world's formost sex symbols. WP should document this as objectively as possible by presenting her sex symbol credentials, which includes naming her rankings in notable fora. Although a title such as "Hottest Mila" should be removed, the rest of the first paragraph is entirely encyclopedic in this regard. The Funny or Die paragraph would be borderline puffery if it did not explain her casting in a major role. The 3rd paragraph includes a lot of borderline stuff that needs to be trimmed down. The ad campaign is good. It would be nice to have an accounting of major ad campaigns for most stars. I always ask that they be included in any GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Basically, the section in question has one bad paragraph. A Nylon cover is trivial in this context and should be removed. The women we love segment needs context or removal. I forgot whether this is an annual list or a monthly feature. If the latter it should go. A 25th anniversary cover is a notable cover. I might mention the co-cover girls. Local MC duties are trivial in this context and worth removing. I am on the fence on the Bryan Adams stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated, your taking the time to thoughtfully comment.

I think she's quite beautiful myself, but "one of the world's foremost sex symbols"? That seems a mite subjective. I could think of 20 or 25 other women immediately that would go ahead of her.

That said, I concur with your reasoning; if fact, virtually the same changes you discuss are ones I made in my version that's under discussion at the RfC. You've been generous with your time so far, and if you could look at the RfC and weigh in there as well, that might lend impetus to ending all this quickly and, hopefully, amicably. Thank you again for coming here and quickly. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I deleted much of that over-hyping from fan mags to help retain her GA status. I left those two reports when she did something for charitable causes, since that shows her commitment to help others less fortunate, and makes her appear more human instead of only as a typical sex symbol or ordinary tv/movie star. --Katydidit (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Shows you how enjoyable the debate is on which women are the world's best. (lol) Too bad we can't list more of them as she earns it, because she is definitely one of the Top 10 in raw sexiness and in appearing to be a real, down-to-Earth person with a likeable personality which is rare in Hollywood, IMHO. --Katydidit (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You and I don't decide. The stuff in paragraph 1 of this section makes her one of the foremost. WP is a tertiary resource and these list determine who the foremost are.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Who gets to make the final decision on this GA status, and when? Thanks! --Katydidit (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the arbitrary and unilateral removal of the following content:

1. AskMen.com has also lauded Kunis ranking her the second most desirable woman in 2011 and following that up with a number thirteen ranking in 2012.
2. FHM magazine ranked her number 9 on their 2012 Hot 100 list
3. For the October 2010 Elle magazine 25th anniversary special edition, Kunis was one of the women chosen to be featured for their success at a young age. The honor included a photo and video presentation on the magazine's website.
4. GQ magazine named Kunis the Knockout of the Year for 2011
5. Men's Health naming her one of the "100 Hottest Women of All-Time".
6. The Spike Guys' Choice Awards presented her with the 2011 Holy Grail of Hot award.

Although I agree with the rest of the content removal the above need to be discussed. 1-3 I believe are clearly encyclopedic as the first two are fairly standard sex symbol documentation and the third is pretty notable. 4-6 is all debatable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good and detailed points all. I think the phrase "The honor included a photo and video presentation on the magazine's website" violates WP:TONE, and that it's non-notable that if someone appears on the cover that she also appears inside and on the website — that's just normal. However, the initial Elle sentence I certainly think is appropriate, and I believe I left it intact in my version, so we do agree there. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I could support just the first part.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe AskMen.com's list is any widely recognized media touchstone like GQ Man of the Year or People's Sexiest Woman of the Year. The FHM thing, because she's only #9, I'm not wild about, but we're all compromising so, certainly, I'll go along. The GQ "Knockout of the Year" ... is that the same as its Woman of the Year, or just a cute one-time tagline? And yes, given that it's a #1 either way, I'm certainly good with it, though we should clarify that context. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically, there are a bunch of mags and websites that create annual top 100 sexiest lists. I think Maxim, Stuff, FHM and AskMen are all about the same here and we should give as complete an accounting as we can for these lists, not just top placements.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following. You mean you think that for every one of a given year's hundred women in the Maxim list and the however many in '"Stuff, AskMen.etc, that every one of those 100+ women's articles should say they were number 94 in 2010 or number 78 in 2009, etc.? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are 100 chosen by each of those sources and I think biographies should summarize the public record for these lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I can see creating a list article for "Maxim Hot 100" the same way we have articles listing Playboy Playmates and Penthouse Pets. I'm just not sure it's necessary to include in 100 articles a year (minus overlap) that "Susie Smith was #99 on the Maxim 2012 list, #47 on the FHM list, #64 on the AskMen list and did not appear on the Stuff list or the Gear list. In 2011... " Where do we draw the line of notability and undue weight, let alone WP:INDISCRIMINATE? --20:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at my reviews, you will see I have reviewed a bunch of sex symbols. Oddly, it is very rare that any woman makes more than 2 or 3 of these list. You might think many women would be in the top 100 of all 5 that you mentioned. So in terms of too many lists, it is not a problem. I think a result like Kate Beckinsale#Modelling_career, encyclopedically documents the extent to which she is known as a sex symbol. I don't think it includes too much or too little. That is about what Kunis should be shooting for in terms of amount of content regarding sex symbol stature. Each woman's case will be different. In terms of Kunis, I think several of the six things noted above should be returned to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything's been removed. But can we not at the very least agree that "Hottest Mila" and "Holy Grail of Hot" aren't real awards?

Also, with all due respect for all the work you as an admin do and all the responsibility you and other admins take on, can you see where it might not sound objective when you say, "I have reviewed [the article of] a bunch of sex symbols?" I don't mean any disrespect when I say perhaps we could consult with a colleague who doesn't regularly address "sex symbols" articles in order to get a disinterested second eye. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at this version from August 24th after Katydidit (talk · contribs) did this removal. I am in agreement that "Hottest Mila" should not be in the article and am not so excited about including "Holy Grail of Hot". If we are talking about the restored version, I would remove the Nylon Cover, and local benefit MC from paragraph 3 and consider some content removal from the first paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

New section

I am sorry, Tenebrae, but this not the way to go. See this paragraph: "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.". Nymf _hideliho! 06:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nymf, and I'm glad to see your voice join all the rest. No one was edit-warring; there's some disagreement over content, but we've all been gentlemanly about it and using proper protocol like an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I am glad you are working it out like gentlemen. It is so much nicer around here when it is done that way. I have no opinion one way or another regarding the section (though I am not a fan of overzealous — in my opinion, undue/fancruft — listings, such as awards in general). This do seem like a content dispute though, and perhaps the RfC should have run its course first. Nymf _hideliho! 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As a casual observer, I think Tony was right to pass this as a GA. It meets requirements and I can't see any OTT puffery in its current state anyway although I agree in parts its a bit too magazine like; certain quotes and "humanitarian" things often don't really need mentioning but the problems are minor in my opinion and not enough to delist it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to come to any agreement on what content should be included in the Media Publicity section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Who knows how long this process is going to take? It just drags on, and on, and on. No timetable, nobody saying who is going to do the ruling or when. It's a complete mess, the same as finally accepting she is in a serious relationship with her former co-star and numerous reports she has moved into his house; neither fact has been allowed to stand with those inconsistent, picky editors who make one lame excuse after the other in reversions. --Katydidit (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Crush 40

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist As noted below the prose needs tidying up, there are poor or unsourced content, ambiguous statements and the lead does not accurately cover the article. Issues have also been raised about external links (although not a GA criteria). No substantial work has been conducted to date to address these issues. AIRcorn (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• The prose is terrible. A lot of sentences begin with "The" or "In [date]…"
• "Recent releases and appearances" is a messy list with no criteria for what should be on it.
• Intro is too short.
• Twitter and Facebook are being used as sources, which is not a good idea.

Overall, the prose is the biggest issue, but there are also large chunks of unsourced content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I could note the "Gameography" section says "many". How much exactly would be considered as "many"? The "External links" section also has a MySpace link, as well as fansites, which WP:ELNO applies, and like you said, the lead is very short, being only 3 sentences. ZappaOMati 23:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with TPH's points. I'm especially bothered by the random listing of performances and what song's they played. Not GA material at all, looks like the sort of junk IP's add to unknown band articles when no one's looking... Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Withdrawn by nominator AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this passed in the first place as the "Plot section" does not have one reference.Moxy (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I quote WP:FILMPLOT: "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Chris857 (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WOW very interesting - never noticed that others had no refs. This would explain all the OR you see in movies here on Wiki. Ok I guess i will withdraw this and fix the article myself.Moxy (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entirety of WP:FILMPLOT to understand why we do this. I disagree with you that this approach "explains" original research in film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically you can describe what happens, but not interpret what happens. If there are interpretations in a plot then they should be moved to another section and attributed to someone (or removed completely). I have not watched the movie so have no desire to read the plot, but if there are no other concerns I will close this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Netball and the Olympic Movement

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept as a GA, improvements were made to the article, no further issues are current with the article and currently meets the GA criteria. Bidgee (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I considered doing an individual reassessment, but given the background to the netball articles and my involvement in the parent one thought it would be better going through the community. For those that might not be aware this article was originally reviewed (and failed) by Racepacket (talk · contribs), before being passed by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) (reviews here and here). A similar thing happened at the main Netball article (see the article history) and these articles were arguably a catalyst for an arb case involving racepacket and his eventually year then indefinite block. There is some good evidence to suggest that Racepacket is still commenting on these articles as an IP. However despite this I think the good article status of this article needs to be reassessed.

My main concern is that this comes across more as an essay than an encyclopaedic article. Some of the information is misleading. It fails the neutrality criteria and the no original research criteria.

• Title - Not necessarily part of the criteria, but it sounds more like a title to an essay than an encyclopaedic article. The title is not very descriptive, it is just connecting two entities (the Olympic movement and netball) to each other, which although expanded on in the text is not going t be obvious to most casual readers. Encylcopaedia titles should simply describe what the article is about. I would suggest something like "Olympic recognition of Netball".
  • The title represents a broad consensus of the Olympic Task Force. A number of suggestions were made, considered and debated. This was chosen as being descriptive and neutral. Change will require a similar broad consensus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean this? AIRcorn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere around there. The point is that "Olympic recognition of Netball" has a rather specific technical meaning, and it was felt that it did not adequately describe the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports. I really feel a statement like this should be attributed. It doesn't help that the source is 30 years old either.
  • I don't understand the edit summary for this revert [6] AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Neither do I (sorry, I didn't look at this page and didn't realize it was a concern here, so I started a discussion on the talkpage, put did not get input there), nor do I think that source could be sufficient for such a general statement. L.tak (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The statement is sourced. The source supports the statement. Since you have read it too, what concern could you have? Moreover, several of the other sources also support the statement too. Anyhow, I have added a 2012 source to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I meant this statement: "Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports", which so broad and general that a single and very old source simply doesn't do... Where did you add a source from 2012 there? L.tak (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• The first paragraph in the body reads like it is trying to make a point. It shouldn't really do that, present the facts and let the reader decide for themselves. The trouble with the examples as presented is that they seem a bit cherry picked. The section is titled "Womens sport at the Olympics" so it should give background about that. It would be better saying when the first women competed, what they competed in and then maybe some comparisons instead of launching straight into the exclusions.
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the note at the end of the paragraph contradicts the last sentence (equestrian is a team sport [7] not to mention that mixed doubles in tennis are included now). The mixed teams seems a bit irrelevant in any case. I seriously doubt that mixed netball is going to make it to the Olympics, which is what this seems to be implying.

• • No, that is not what it is saying. The requirement is for a sport to be played by both men and women. The issue was whether mixed sport counted. Equestrian is not a team sport; see below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • How does that sentence tie in with the rest of the paragraph? Also it highlights the problem of using an old source without mentioning the date as that sentence is now incorrect. AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The team sports are football, water polo, hockey, basketball, volleyball and handball. The subtle difference is between team sports and team events. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• The tone of the next paragraph is wrong for an encyclopaedia too. What does the issues facing netball are part of a larger problem involving female participation in the Olympics. mean? Starting sentences with Even at the 2000 Summer Olympics suggests we are arguing a point rather than objectively presenting information. Boxing will have to be updated now too. The inclusion of rugby and golf as presented here makes it seem like it they were chosen because the were primarily played by men, which would need a source. Similarly with the last sentence, it reads like the IOC is saying the quote, when in fact it is Andrew Wu.
  • Y Updated to add boxing, and re-worded to address concerns. I did discover that "Even at" was to avoid multiple consecutive sentences starting with the same words. Re-worded to avoid this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• paragraph 3 - Uses "for example" and "is illustrated by" again suggestive of making a point.
  • Y Removed the former. The latter seems okay. I cannot see the importance of being on the Olympic programme as being controversial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• [8] is not a reliable source for the last sentence.
  • Y Replaced. See below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Will stop there for now. AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Per the GAR rules, the objective of a GAR is purely to address any problems an article may have. All criticism must be in the form of actionable points, and I will making the required corrections as we go. Be polite. Be concise. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I will simply raise one point: "no original research criteria" since this is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy, this is a most serious allegation to make. It should be promptly backed up with clearly-defined cites from the article which are not backed by any of the cited sources, or the allegation should be withdrawn and an apology issued. FYI I know exactly what Original Research is, I've done plenty of it – just not for Wikipedia.

Using this "card" brings into question whether or not the demand for a review has been raised in good faith. --Brian McNeil /^talk 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Right back at ya. If it was a bad faith nom I would not have put it through the community review process and gone for an individual one instead. Wikipedia has it's own definiftion of original research and it includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." I detailed instances above where the article makes assumptions that are not supported by the references. For an example see the sentence That netball is played mostly by women is also seen as problematic as the IOC is looking for greater gender balance "netball being a female-dominated sport could be a hindrance." where the quote is written (possibly unintentionally) like it is coming from the IOC when it is not. For what its worth I thought that claiming it wasn't neutral was a more serious allegation, but each to their own. AIRcorn (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

YI think we can conclude that there is no evidence of OR. I am checking all the references. All seem fine so far... I know I often write things where people pick up an unintended meaning. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the reference for rugby and golf being predominately played by male (and the implication that this is why they were chosen for the Olympics)?

How does this source support the "Olympic recognition plays an important part in getting sponsorship for local competitions around the world and providing new opportunities for females" sentence?

It is a site from a company that supports local competitions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that cite adequately supports that statement. Just to make sure I've understood it properly: the source cited is the website of a bank that is a sponsor of netball in South Africa that happens to mention that the sport has olympic recognition, right? Unless I'm being totally daft and missed something, trying to use that source to support the sentence it's being used to support is in fact original research. It's examining a primary source (the website of a sponsor,) and using the fact that the website mentions olympic recognition to try to make a general statement that olympic recognition is important to sponsors. That looks to me to be advancing a position not advanced by the sources.Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Removed. Replaced with a direct citation from a book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the source saying Gordon Brown, Kelly Holmes and Denise Lewis are English supporters? AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Y The cite "But netball has gained support from a number of high-profile backers including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, double Olympic gold medallist Dame Kelly Holmes and former Olympic heptathlon champion Denise Lewis." seems to cover it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think we can conclude that the way in which the above allegation of original research is worded is a grammatical and syntactical train-wreck; one which I cannot parse, and doubt anyone but the author stands any chance of understanding.

Incidentally, I'm well-aware of what Original Research is; it would be far simpler to define how Wikipedia interprets it as: inference of conclusions not mentioned in the cited sources. By definition, all contributions to Wikipedia are synthesis, unless you propose an encyclopedia full of plagiarism. --Brian McNeil /^talk 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You can conclude whatever you want. Others will come along and draw conclusions too and hopefully we can get a consensus. Since this is a community reassessment do you have an opinion on whether this article meets the WP:GACR? Also do you have any evidence that this is a bad faith nomination? AIRcorn (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Netball in Australia: A Social History", which is cited in the article several times, is a working paper. This is not ideal. Working papers haven't undergone peer review, and in many cases (including this one) the level of editorial control exercised over them is unclear. My reading of previous WP:RSN postings about working papers makes it look like they are generally not considered to be WP:RS unless exceptional evidence is presented that they should be considered RS, similar to how we treat masters' theses. If possible, information cited to this paper should be replaced with a better cite. (I don't think it's the biggest deal since most of the information is fairly basic, but thought it was worth mentioning.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  Y I don't that is really the case in Australia, certainly not in MILHIST, but it wasn't much effort to remove it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: after looking through the article, I believe that it meets all the Good Article criteria. Thine Antique Pen 22:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpongeBob SquarePants (character)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Still outstanding issues that have not been addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has problems, the "Other Appearances" section has a lack of references, and seems to be trivia. Also, I am seeing some of the dead links including refs 6 and 7 which redirects to the Nickelodeon (Nick.com) website, and refs 13 and 33 is a bare URL. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Section removed. Will see if it stays out. Dead links are not a reason to delist in itself, it depends what information they support. You could try the wayback machine to try and save them. Are all the projects and editors who might be interested in this article notified of this reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've fixed some of the four links using with Wayback Machine and one from HighBeam Research. Notified Bill (talk · contribs), the only active editor along with four listed WikiProjects and three work groups of WikiProject Animation. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I've glanced through the article and have concerns. The lead section goes isn't a good encapsulation of the article; it includes too much detail on the derivation of his name and includes facts not found in the body of the article (see the material on "Bob the Sponge".) The Critical Reception section is stubby and incomplete, with a scant three sentences. While the article is generally well-written the prose is occassionally off-target; for example, the sentence "He iconically lives in a pineapple with his pet snail Gary" would be better rendered as ''He lives in an iconic pineapple with his pet snail Gary". With a little work this article can be brought up to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've fix some of it a bit, I'll try to work on it myself, plus File:Spongebob-squarepants.png does appear to meet WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10a, one image being used on main article and this link to the image is not a source. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed the photo from the infobox as the source attributed to it is clearly another image. There are still a few good points made by Majoreditor above that need to be addressed. Will leave it open a bit longer, but it is getting close to two months now. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: A significant amount of work went into this over the last two months. That has resulted in the issues brought up at the start of the review being addressed. There is still room for improvement, which at this time is still ongoing, but in its current state I am confident that it meets our criteria and should be kept AIRcorn (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is significant disagreement on the recent GA review of this article on the article talkpage at Talk:Roman Empire#GA review. The review was vary rapid, without opportunities for more experienced editors to contribute.

This is formalising a process that has already begun on the article talkpage, so editors may have to repeat or repaste some of the points already made there. Please ensure you are familiar with the Wikipedia:Good article criteria (Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not may also be useful). Major issues that have been highlighted so far are in the areas of "counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", and that the article has gaps in coverage does not "address the main aspects of the topic". The best result of this process would be that the article retains GA status because the view of the community is that it either does so already, or that it is improved sufficiently to meet those criteria, so any help towards improving the article by editors is much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Response from the Reviewer

I followed the Criteria faithfully. I could not undertake a full review of the article because the article was very large and I did not have the luxury of time. The review that I wrote was based on what I saw. As I also stated in the Review, I expressed concern with the "in theory" section as I thought it could be classified under a "word to watch", yet I was unsure - I was not willing to impose my own criteria, as this would have broken the rules about reviewing GA nominees.

I still stand by my findings in the article, and, on a literal reading of the rules, I still believe that the article deserves its GA status.

--The Historian 13:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact that you approved it so fast, while having no prior interest in the article, is strong evidence that the article easily met the GA criteria. It certainly does met all of the GA criteria easily. The problems that other editors are bringing up have nothing to do with GA status, but rather their view that the article can be improved, which has nothing to do with whether an article is a GA or even an FA. Though there are only a handful of editors raising complaints about the status, rather than seek to improve the article, they make suggestions that would make the article worse, like covering the development of plebeians when all of their development was under the republic and they were nearly extinct as a distinct class by the early empire. Another editor wanted it to talk about feudilism in the empire, even though it didn't exist until long after the fall of the western empire. In short, most of the suggestions would make the article worse, showing a basic lack of understanding of Roman history, and even if they were factually true are irrelevant for a reassessment because they would constitute improvements to the article, not improvements that would address GA criteria.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Quarkgluonsoup represents my talk-page comments somewhat inaccurately, so I quote them here: "The article shows considerable imbalance in its sub-topic coverage. For example, the political and military stuff seems reasonably well covered but the treatment of economy, trade and agriculture is extremely sketchy. And while there's a lot about government bigwigs, there's virtually nothing on the plebs; nor on how the development of citizenship segued into early feudalism." I'll expand on this and other problems in article content and coverage in a separate section below, over the next few days. Haploidavey (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A contrary view

From the comments above: Yes, and the fact that you approved it so fast, while having no prior interest in the article, is strong evidence that the article easily met the GA criteria.

That strikes me as backwards logic, especially when the reviewer even says he couldn't undertake a full review. I thought the article was OK (at a B level) on skimming it, except for the abysmal section on Culture, until I took time to read it carefully. I might also read an article on physics, and be highly impressed with it and all the pretty graphics without realizing whether it was inaccurate or missing important pieces of information. Even an FA can have room for improvement, but Roman Empire fails the criterion of GA-level coverage, because it covers some aspects of the topic in idiosyncratic detail, while covering others inadequately or with astounding errors and omissions. These are not minor points: they are fundamental gaps in encyclopedic coverage and misrepresentations, to the extent that I wouldn't let my 15-year-old daughter, who's currently taking World History as a sophomore in high school, read this article for fear of confusing her.

A major omission is a section describing Roman society, what constitutes Roman citizenship and its expansion, the rise of wealthy freedmen in business, Roman family structure, trade guilds or social fraternities, or even a section on slavery—an aspect of Roman society that readers often express interest in, and one that's important to get right because it differs so dramatically from the form of race-based slavery practiced in the 19th-century American South. And one might assume from reading the article that women in ancient Rome were fairly rare creatures.

The Government section is missing most of what constituted government in the Imperial era: there's no description of the bureaucracy, of the neighborhood administration of the vici based on Augustus's reorganization of the city of Rome (which facilitated the shifting of power from local patrons to the emperor), no description of the local offices throughout the provinces that are so well documented by inscriptions. This bureaucracy and civil service is how the empire survived crazy emperors and imperial assassinations and rapid successions—keeping the water running despite the power gaming at the top.

There's no description of how the topography of the city changed during the building program of Augustus and throughout the Empire, no description of the ethnic neighborhoods, and no larger geographical description of the Provinces, only two of which are even named in the "Provinces" section. That section is a very thin and confused account of government, without anything about taxation (given the smallest of mentions in other sections), nor indications of the range of ethnicities or who these subject peoples were.

To repeat my comment from Talk:Roman Empire, the "Culture" section is a mere hodgepodge: for instance, we move from slavery in one paragraph to a paragraph on the Campus Martius for no apparent reason. In the paragraph on Latin literature, no historian is named (no Tacitus or Suetonius), and the emphasis is on Vergil, who just barely qualifies as an Imperial writer (he was born under the Republic and died less than a decade after Octavian assumed the title Augustus). No description of Greek literature of the Roman Empire (Plutarch, for one). Also, the section misses a fundamental distinction between the way the Romans thought of "the arts" and the way we do: people at even the highest ranks of society might practice literature (this was an aspect of elite education), whereas the performing arts and visual arts were mainly created by either free people of below-equestrian rank or by slaves. "Oratory" (characteristic of the Republic, as in Cicero) is confused with "rhetoric" (as in Quintilian); this should reflect the change from a republic in which citizens participated in politics through free speech and persuasion (oratory), to the subordination of the citizen to the emperor and the need to parse carefully what you say (rhetoric). No mention of imperial panegyric as a characteristic literary form distinguishing Imperial literature from Republican. There is one passing mention of "calendar with a leap year," but nothing about holidays and ludi (games) as they were celebrated in the Empire. The "Culture" section seems to deal with "ancient Rome" in general, not the specific culture of the Empire, as if nothing changed from 500 BC to 200 AD.

There's no paragraph on Roman law, even though this is one of the major "Legacy" contributions of ancient Rome. Roman roads are mentioned only in "Legacy." Aqueducts in Rome only are mentioned in one sentence, where one learns (or at least this was strange to me) that they had something to do with importing wine and oil; aqueducts in the provinces go unmentioned, even though the most famous examples are not in Italy, and we should certainly have a photo of the Pont du Gard or Aqueduct of Segovia in the article.

In the current version, the sections on Religion and Languages seem disproportionately long, without being sufficiently informative. The Languages section wanders into "Literature" and "Education," and makes claims in the last two paragraphs that require citations.

Ten times we are told that something is "important," often enough to indicate that the word is a non-informative stopgap for actually saying something.

A more conventional encyclopedic structure would go something like (the order might vary):

• Geography, provinces, topography of Imperial Rome, demography, and languages: What is the Roman Empire?
• Government: How was the Roman Empire governed?
• Society: How was Roman society structured, and in what sense were provincials "Roman"?; also, questions of citizenship and rights, and the gradual extension thereof; the status of free women and of slaves, etc.
• Military: a description of the armed forces and their role in acquiring and maintaining the Empire (highly deficient in its present state: we're told nothing about the legions after Augustus; we're not told what kind of combat units the auxilia were; the military hierarchy is not described, or who the enlisted men were as distinguished from the officers; the immense importance of the military in Imperial history isn't summarized at all; there's no summary section of the history of structural changes to the military in contrast to the Republican army).
• History: I just merged the two sections "History" and "Military History," which repeated the entire chronology from beginning to end with slightly different emphases and a great deal of overlap. ("Military History" had been lifted from a somewhat earlier version of Campaign history of the Roman military, so even if it hadn't replicated content within the article, at best it should've been a summary section.) Most important, this is mostly just a chronology of events (who killed who next) that could more readably be reduced to a timeline; there's not really much history as such.
• Culture: This needs to be organized in subtopics: Daily life, Education, Literature, Religion, Performing arts and games, Art and Architecture, and whatever. Strangely, the word "gladiator" appears only once in the entire article, under the Imperial cult section. There's no link to Ancient Roman pottery anywhere, even though the manufacture of pottery was of major economic importance as well as a representative item in experiencing daily life. No annona, no mention of "bread and circuses".
• Economy: Imports/exports, trade routes, banking, and slavery are major omissions here, as are occupations for working people (such as textiles and pottery).
• Legacy: perversely, this section mentions some of the most important topics (taxation, roads, bureaucracy, law) that aren’t even addressed in the article.

There are a number of capable editors who have contributed to Roman Empire, and pointing out that it doesn't meet GA standards at present in no way disparages their efforts. There are books and books written on the subject, and boiling it down to a readable, well-organized encyclopedia article that's useful for its most likely readers is an extremely difficult task. But the coverage gaps are significant. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest that at this point, the instability of the article should disqualify it from GA status. There's been a flurry of contentious editing, and massive additions of content merely copied from other articles—and not digested as summary sections. I would urge an uninvolved party to remove the GA status for now. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Cynwolfe's thoughful comments point out several key deficiencies in the article. I agree with most of his points; for example, the Economy section only addressed coinage and mining/metallurgy, omitting key subjects like agriculture and trade.

Overall the article is quite impressive, yet it doesn't meet GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with Majoreditor on the Economy section in particular. Without reviewing in detail, I'm also inclined to agree with Cynwolfe, though not all that editor's points would need to be addressed at GA level - some however would be, eg, roman law as legacy. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a lot has changed about the article over the last month, though since I've done most of it I can't speak to its quality. I've mostly engaged in a frantic effort to address the gaps. There's a Roman law section now, for instance. Trade and labor remain a major deficiency under "Economy"; the "Education" section needs to expand to two or three paragraphs and include something about literacy and numeracy ('m working on that); and the section on "The arts" is tragically still almost non-existent. When I've sketched in all the sections I plan to contribute, I'll go back and try to reduce the overall size by doing some spinoff articles. One of the feedback comments I've been seeing on a lot of articles dealing with classical antiquity is a desire for more images, so I've been trying to include a range of images (Roman sculpture, Roman painting, and photographs of Roman structures) that support the text closely. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you've been busy and it is certainly much better. I didn't read the article right through, so may have missed some improvements. To me, the issue that jumped out was the poor "economy" section. But if an editor sorts that out then, together with your other changes, it may deserve to stay at GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly a much improved article and much closer to a GA than when I opened this review, with better coverage and just some specific sections needing improvement. I think taking a look at what can be spun off into new articles and briefly summarised is a good idea. Congratulations on all the very hard work so far.--SabreBD (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Update

A lot of work still going on. Do we have a rough timeframe for when it will be at GA standard? I think important articles like this deserve a bit longer to get fixed, but it has been a while. AIRcorn (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to take another look at the article sometime in the next couple of weeks. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I will indeed savor the characteristic Wikipedia irony if, after spending six weeks of my life doing little but working on this article, I will have caused it to be demoted from GA status. I wonder whether someone would actually care to help with this task? I can't even get anyone to spend a little time looking for the source for the currency denominations listed at Roman Empire#Currency and banking, which evidently were considered sound enough that they originally appeared in the hideous infobox. Complicating matters is that supposed "main" articles are either grossly insufficient as a resource to point readers toward, or they fail to distinguish between culture in, say, the 3rd century BC and the 3rd century AD. In trying to produce sections, I have managed to generate content that's too much for the Roman Empire article, and yet not structured as an independent article. For instance, I have now whittled my section on "Literacy, books and education", intended to replace the feeble Roman Empire#Education, down to this monstrosity: User:Cynwolfe/literacy and education in the Roman Empire, while "Food and drink" sprawls in rough draft at User:Cynwolfe/food and drink in the Roman Empire. Because we are trying to address omissions that aren't covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, I still think the GDP table need not appear in main Roman Empire article, because it's provided at Roman economy, but it was put back after I deleted it. So I don't really know how to proceed. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this area at all, but the issues brought up originally were coverage and sourcing. The coverage looks pretty good (we only really require the main topics to be addressed, not necessarily have in-depth dissection). The sourcing is still an issue, Political legacy in particular. I am thinking that if you can sort out that section and their are no other disagreements from other editors then we can close this as keep. That should allow you to make further improvements without the GAR hanging over the article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Added some sources myself. Would there be any objection to closing this as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to closing as keep. I think the two major issues raised above have been resolved and it now easily meets the GA criteria. Many thanks to those who took the initiative over this and put in all the hard work: it really has been a massive improvement and Wikipedia editing at its best.--SabreBD (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)