Jump to content

Talk:High Desert Discovery Scenic Byway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment

[edit]

This article only has two of the "big three" sections; it is missing a junction list section. As such, it cannot be rated higher than Start-Class for USRD. It is also written north-to-south, when it should be written in the opposite direction. The RD is written in the imperative mood, which makes it read like a tour guide. That needs to be totally rewritten to follow the standards of encyclopedic writing expected. There are issues with the distances where some are being used a adjectives but are misformatted. "It is a 59 miles (95 km) loop" should be "It is a 59-mile (95 km) loop", for example. (Add |adj=on to {{convert}} to fix that.) For that reason, I have blanked the assessment for the Oregon project and flagged it for reassessment and attention. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • So requirements of WikiProject Roads trumps WikiProject Oregon assessment? Perhaps the two wiki-projects have different things they're looking for in an article. I think the Oregon assessment should stand unless Aboutmovies or someone else from Wiki-Oregon changes it.--Orygun (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pretty sure the mile posts along High Desert Discovery Byway/Oregon Route 205 went north-to-south. Here’s video of the section of Discovery byway between Burns (in the north) and Frenchglen (in the south). If you check road side mile markers you will see they begin at Burns and get larger as you head south. Too make your review easier, you can find clear picture of miler marker 15 at video time 4:46 and mile maker 17 at video time marker 5:02. Wiki-Roads route description rule says “Regardless of the route's length, progression should follow the mileposts as they are maintained by the state, typically from south to north, west to east.” However, the state of Oregon posts mile marker north-to-south along the Discovery byway/OR 205. That means my north-to-south route description is appropriate. Request you remove the flag you posted on the High Desert Discovery Byway]] article.--Orygun (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Assessment: "The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards." The article is not "mostly complete". The article fails to answer the 5 Ws for roads. Of the Who, What, Where, When, Why, we are missing part of the Who in the form of "Who uses it?". Some idea of the traffic counts for the byway should be present. Part of the "Where is it?" is missing because it is lacking a junction list. There's extraneous unconnected "When" information related to National Scenic Byways present; either this is a NSB and that "What is it?" information is missing, or we have content that's not on-topic that should be removed. When there are this many questions of content, the B-Class criterion of "mostly complete" is not satisfied.

Additionally, we have language in the article that is in use that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. The RD section is written in the imperative mood, just like a tour guide. "There are a number of interesting sights and places along the High Desert Discovery Scenic Byway route" is using Wikipedia to further an opinion; per our policies we should be citing another source for the opinion that these sights are "interesting". The article should state: "According to X, there are a number of interesting sights..." or something similar.

Putting these deficiencies together, the article seems to fit C-Class: "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. " Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the B rating for WikiProject Oregon twice now, as it was applied by the person who is the main author of the criteria cited above and who is the one who does most of our project ratings above "start". If there is an issue with 2 members of our project rating an article using our project's criteria, please feel free to bring it up on our the talk page where other members can weigh in. If you feel there is bias, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council might be a place to get a third opinion. The roads project is of course free to apply their own criteria to their own rating. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Imzadi1979 - Unless you want to join WPORE, leave the WPORE template alone. WikiProject template ratings are one of the few items WikiProjects do basically own (see the last paragraph), just as editors basically own their own talk pages. Thus, WikiProjects tend to take offense when non-members edit their templates. Roads may view the criteria differently, but to WPORE a junction list and the other items you cover are not major issues. They will keep it from GA, but not B status. And that "wrong direction" template has no place in mainspace on ANY article. WikiProject style guides mean nothing to other projects. Hell, as the link it contains says, "it contains the recommendations and/or opinions" and "is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style". Which also means it has no bearing on the B rating: "and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines." To which the Roads guide is neither. This is a perfect example of why many people detest your project. You think your project trumps all else and is extremely insular, but WikiProjects do not own articles per an actual guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WPORE can own this one without USRD interference. –Fredddie™ 01:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, can you do that for all of them in Oregon? It would be much appreciated. I'd remove the templates myself, but since this whole issue is about touching other project's templates, and not owning the article, I'd be remiss if I touched your project's templates. It's also about one project asserting their will over others too, but the real problem here was one project re-rating for another project, which I'm sure your project would have a problem with if other projects did the same. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you did it and gave a reasoned explanation of why you did it on the talk page, I or anybody else at USRD wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Funny how that works. –Fredddie™ 11:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Desert Discovery Scenic Byway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High_Desert_Discovery_Scenic_Byway&oldid=1217775367"