Talk:Ohio State Route 732

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

U.S. Roads: Ohio Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Locations

Ohio

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in April 1, 2013.

Moved from assessment comments page[edit]

This article is no longer a stub but describes the highway in some detailMarqqq (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq It now contains at least 5 links to pertinent wikipedia articles.[reply]

It is a stub; read WP:USRD/A. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly not a stub but a fairly complete description of the road with links to maps and other relevant images.Marqqq (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq[reply]

It is a stub. There's no history, no junction list, and what is there is poorly written (hence why the article is both flagged for attention and tagged for a rewrite). The infobox is also lacking. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I don't see how the image currently in the article has to do with the road. To me, it looks like a random tree in random woods alongside the road. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the picture you are quite wrong. It is part of the original beech maple forest which was once widespread, so now this area is a significant area for naturalists wishing to study such ecosystems. I noticed that you have edited the 9N page in N.Y. The "coast" of Lake George? This 9N article gives the reader little sense of the topography. You might write a bit of this in for the traveler. 143.49 miles? I think that does mathematics a bit of disservice. Was that from the point of view of the northbound lane or the southbound lane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqqq (talk • contribs) 03:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Marqqq (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq[reply]

It's from south to north, since that's how the New York State Department of Transportation inventories the route. Not sure what your point is there, though. If you don't believe the road is that long, I invite you to check the referenced document for yourself. Also, I didn't write the 9N description. In any event, NY 9N is not the best in terms of road articles - if you want a rock-solid example, read Interstate 355 - a featured article. Also read WP:OHSH for standards that this article should adhere to. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TwinsMetsFan is correct, this is a stub. see Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads as we're developing a standard for what's what. Stub in terms of assessment is looked at differently that what WP:WSS looks at. — master son^{T - C} 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I have included an entirely appropriate citation Marqqq (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Marq I checked the definition of a Stub: this no longer fits the definition since it has a junction list and a description.Marqqq (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq[reply]

No, there's currently no distinction between the article's lead and its route description. The junction list is also sub-standard. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the junction list? As usual you give nothing constructive-quite sub-standard commentsMarqqq (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq[reply]

If you would like to see some good examples of how a page should look, look at Interstate 355 which is the most recent article from WP:USRD to be passed as a feature article. For other examples, see M-209 (Michigan highway) or M-554 (Michigan highway), both of which are former MI state trunkline highways under a mile in length that are rated at B-Class. I can offer you other examples if you like.

As said above, there isn't a clear WP:LEAD and other sections established. For starters, the first line should be something like "State Route 732 is a 30-mile (48 km) highway in the U.S. state of Ohio." The rest of the lead should briefly summarize the rest of the article. Give a couple lines of summary on the routing, some more on the history. What's unique about SR 732?
Yes, there's a route description, but it needs to be in a section under that name. It should start at the south or west end and run to the north or east end.
There isn't a history section. How did this roadway come to be called SR 732? Was it part of another highway? When did it get formed?
The junction list should be in a table format. Take a look at the table on M-35 (Michigan highway) which is listed as a good article for an idea on how they look.
The infobox isn't formatted correctly as well. There should be links to the articles on the other highways listed. The counties should be wikilinked as well. The highway articles might not exist, so your infobox might have redlinks for now, and that's ok too.
Do you have a source for the length? Any map will do if needed, but maybe an official source from ODOT? Most good sources will give you a length to at least two decimal places, if not three.
You don't need to include the ZIP codes of the communities along the highway, but you should wikilink to the articles on them.
The prose used could be cleaned up to be easier to read as well.

We are open to questions and suggestions to help. Please take my list above as constructive criticism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow-up to that, for the Ohio Roads Project, Junction Lists need to be formatted and referenced like that shown in Ohio State Route 430 and Ohio State Route 590. DanTheMan474 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally common practice across USRD to place the mileage reference in the "Mile" table header, as shown here. Any state using the {{jctint}} family of templates (which Ohio is) can add the "|length_ref=" parameter to the table top (here {{OHinttop}}) to put the mileage reference in the proper location. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a few of us USRD editor blitzed through, it is a Start class article. It has defined sections, proper citations (except where tagged needing them), a correct infobox and junction list. Now, to be a proper B-Class article, it needs a History section written and referenced. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions[edit]

I removed the recent historical addition made to the article. Here is my rationale for doing so. First, no source is given to verify it. Yes, it was written that the Eight District of ODOT gives this info, but where do they give it? Secondly, it was a giant quotation of a bridge plaque. The information could have been summarized and rewritten. Thirdly, a photo of the bridge plaque would have been a sufficient source for that text and summary (Photos are an exception to the original research policy.. Fourth, this bridge plaque is being used to establish the history of a modern highway back to 1868. You would need to add another source to say that this bridge carried OH 732. Otherwise, it is just another bridge in the area that may or may not be related to the modern highway.

Now, in the M-28 (Michigan highway) article, I did write a section featuring historic bridges along the highway, with sources stating they once carried or still carry the highway. This would be appropriate to include in this article in that fashion, but as summaries. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem[edit]

The references for the recently-added content to the History section regarding the bridge seem to indicate the text was taken directly from a county engineer's correspondence and from the bridge plaque. Chances are this means that both are copyrighted (while the U.S. federal government releases all its works to the public domain, most state- and county-level agencies do not). Copyrighted content is for the most part unacceptable in Wikipedia so this passage must be rewritten from scratch, using the source as a reference rather than copying it into the article verbatim. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, these routine removals are simply vandalism. The wording is my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.78.234 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi1979 is not a vandal. He has naught but the best intentions for this encyclopedia—calling him a vandal is doing him a disservice, and furthermore fails to assume good faith. He removed the text because the references seem to indicate a copyright violations; as you assert that you did write the text yourself, then we'll assume good faith in turn and I'll clarify the references for you. (There still exists the problem of a county engineer's say-so not being a reliable source, but we can let that slide for the time being.) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section needs[edit]

The only remaining section of this article that needs to be written before it reaches B-Class is the History section. Here's what needs to be included before the article is appreciably complete:

The paragraph on the Black Covered Bridge is nice but it doesn't establish that the bridge has ever been used by OH 732. Had a replacement been in place by the time the OH 732 designation was assigned? If not this should be split off into its own article. When was the replacement built, and OH 732 shifted off the covered bridge?
When was the OH 732 designation assigned?
Did OH 732 follow the same route when it was commissioned as it does today? Did it have the same termini (endpoints)?
If OH 732 has had other endpoints besides the present-day ones, what were they? When was the highway extended or truncated? When were the present-day routing and termini established?
Does the highway bypass any towns it once went through? When was the routing changed?
Was any part of OH 732 once assigned some other route number?
What was OH 732's original surface? Graded earth? Gravel? When was it first paved?

(Obviously, if the answer to anything above is no, you shouldn't include that in the article. If OH 732 wasn't assigned some other route number at one point, don't say "no other route number has ever been assigned to any part of OH 732", just leave that out, and its omission will make it implicit to the reader.)

Hopefully, this will give better direction to the expansion of the article. For a 'best-practices' example detailing what a good history section should look like, see M-28 (Michigan highway). —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the history is only focusing on Butler County, with nothing I can see on Preble County. Both counties should be represented in the final history. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]