Talk:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)/GA2

GA Reassessment

MOOT

Discussion mooted by AfD. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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
Not enough coverage (only 6 refs), nor is it very long (~4,000 bytes). At this point, it's even below B-Class. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eternal Shadow: let's take a look at the actual GA criteria.

Well written. Do you contend that the article is not well written, that the prose is not clear and the grammar is not correct? (1a) Do you contend that the article does not follow the specific MOS provisions in the GA criteria: lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? (1b)
Verifiable with no original research. Do you contend that the article content is not verifiable to the sources used? (2a) Do you contend that the article does not use reliable sources? (2b) Do you contend that the article contains original research? (2c) Do you contend that the article has a copyright violation or plagiarism? (2d)
Broad in its coverage. Do you content that the main aspects of the topic are not covered? (3a) Do you contend that the article is not focused? (3b)
Neutral. Do you contend that the article is not neutral?
Stable. Do you contend that the article is not stable, that it is the subject of edit wars?
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio. Do you contend that the media used are not properly tagged? (6a) Do you contend that the media in use are not relevant? (6b)

You should note that there is no minimum length nor a minimum number of sources required by the GA criteria. So unless your objection is based on the actual criteria, this process need not go any further. Imzadi 1979 → 23:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi1979, I’m well aware of the criteria, and I am certain that any article this short is not broad enough in it’s coverage and would certainly need some expansion. I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Too short to pass?. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eternal Shadow: we're talking about a short highway from 80 years ago that also existed for a short period of time. What specific topics are missing that keep it from being broad in coverage? Highway articles have a route description, a history and a junction list. This article has that coverage. The highway designation was physically short, and it lacked directional changes, so the RD is also short, but comprehensive. It only existed for two years, so again, the history is comprehensive. (It can be padded with the detail on where the number was next reused, which is good for two more reliable sources in the reference list, not that there is a minimum.) The highway lacked intermediate highway junctions, so the junction list table is again, comprehensive. Imzadi 1979 → 00:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi1979, I guess that makes sense, although I would consider withdrawing this because highway articles work strangely. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi1979, I plan on withdrawing this soon considering the nature of the article. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eternal Shadow and Imzadi1979: - I support removing the GA classification. However, not for length issues. I'm seeing more citation issues. "The entire highway was in East Lansing, Ingham County." is never directly cited. The biggest issue is that this is source entirely to maps. I do personally contend that this article contains original research. "The first incarnation of M-144 was designated by 1937 to serve as the connector to the state police headquarters.[1][2] The highway was decommissioned in 1939" - It is extremely unlikely that this is explicitly stated in highway maps. What appears to be happening is that the author looked at the maps, saw a highway on one and not others, and assumed creation/decommission. This is original research. Also, since all of the sources but the Google Maps source are official Michigan highway department sources, and the Michigan highway system department created/maintained this road, that's a too heavy of reliance on primary sources. This is not a GA. I'd personally give this one a C-class assessment, although it's not terribly far from GA-status, with better referencing. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, I would generally support GA removal for both length and citation issues, although I do think some secondary sources are needed as well. This hasn't been maintained to quality standards over the years, and the only reason for a pass was the lagging quality standards of the time which could turn a start or c class article into a GA easily. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that it is original research to determine that a route was decommissioned in 1939 if the two maps used to prove it are April and December 1939. --Rs chen 7754 00:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is that you can't prove that the reason the highway was off the map was a decomission. It could have been a printer's error, for one, or a decision to leave it off the map. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it's the exact same map and the only difference is the time it was printed, it's not likely. And all sources can have errors. --Rs chen 7754 07:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of note, U.S. Route 141, which is appearing as the TFA at this time uses the same citation technique. If this research and citation method is so problematic, Hog Farm and Eternal Shadow, just how is that article Featured? That article relies on official WisDOT and MDOT maps for most of its history section. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eternal Shadow, Hog Farm, and Imzadi1979: What's the status on this? It has been over one month since there was any discussion? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike this citation style technique as much as anyone and shake my head when I see the number of short road articles we have listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology#Transport. I feel there are major systemic bias concerns and notability issues here. The project would be better served finding a better way to present these sort of articles. But there is no consensus to not have articles written like this. Good articles can use primary sources, length is not a GA criteria and neither is notability. Anyway like Nova says, we can't keep this open for ever, so it is probably time for Eternal Shadow to close it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eternal Shadow: almost another month without discussion, almost three months since it was opened. What's the status? Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think the heavy reliance on maps is an issue. For instance, "The first incarnation of M-144 was designated by 1937 to serve as the connector to the state police headquarters" is backed up to citations to maps, one from 1936 and one from 1937. Guess what: neither of these states that this was the first incarnation of M-144. Presumably all this says is "M-144 was not on the map in 1936, but it was in 1937." Hypothetically, if there was a M-144 active in say the 1920s or something, the sources wouldn't pick it up if it were gone by 1936. The claim that it was the first incarnation of M-144 does not appear to be backed up by the provided sources. I think this is problematic. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you like a citation to every official state highway map from 1919 through 1936 then as well? That's something that hasn't been done in several dozen other articles, GA or FA level. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would expect a source that includes some sort of prose description of the highway. If none exist, then this probably needs merged to a list, regardless of what WP:GEOROAD says. For instance, this probably fails WP:SPS, but it gives different years for when this M-144 was around (1936-1940). Is that correct, or is this article correct? I don't know, because one isn't necessarily reliable, while this is just guesstimated from maps. If this highway can only be sourced to maps, then it's probably not notable. Also, extrapolating things from maps they don't really say is WP:OR. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If we now have to start adding citations to disprove every other possible reasonable or even unreasonable theory - Wikipedia writing just got a lot harder. --Rs chen 7754 02:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I'm just being harsh, but I feel like the statement in WP:V of Sources must support the material clearly and directly is not met here: Nowhere do the maps explicitly say that the highway was first opened in 1937, only that it was on the maps in 1936 but not in 1937. I'm familiar enough with topographic maps to know that sometimes, features just aren't included for whatever reason despite existing (although I get highway maps may be a slightly different animal). Likewise, the maps don't explicitly state that it was closed in 1939. This doesn't seem clearly and directly to me. Also, if the maps are the only thing that discusses this, what makes this notable? WP:GEOROAD says that state-level roads are only "typically" notable. If maps are the only thing that discusses this, then I'm wondering if this highway is one of the exceptions to typically ... Hog Farm _Bacon 02:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        But the maps are all in the same series, from the same publisher. The only difference is the year. --Rs chen 7754 04:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        If we now have to start adding citations to disprove every other possible reasonable or even unreasonable theory - Wikipedia writing just got a lot harder. Sorry, but have to call that out. This is a problem unique to these sort of articles (ones that are entirely based on primary sources and need to combine these sources together to reach a conclusion). Requiring us to correctly summarise sources does not make editing wikipedia harder, it is in fact the very crux of editing wikipedia. AIRcorn (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        And you have failed to show how the citations mentioned are improper according to policy. You have clearly stated your opinion above. --Rs chen 7754 19:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a problem because conclusions are drawn from sources that don't explicitly state that. It's implied, but not explicitly stated. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The first incarnation of M-144 was designated by 1937 Well, the 1937 map shows the road, so it was truly designated by 1937 (note: the text does not say in 1937 - if it did, your argument would have more significance). This would hold true even if the road was truly constructed in 1932, for example. And your concerns about it being the "first" would have implications on many similarly written sentences on Wikipedia. --Rs chen 7754 19:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm okay with the use of by here, as that is supported by the source. The claim of first is not. How about "This incarnation ..." instead of "The first incarnation ..."? That resolves the source issue, and still keeps it clear that you're talking about one of two M-144s. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the AfD, this article has problems with original research, specificially synthesis of multiple published sources to reach a conclusion not found in either:

"The first incarnation of M-144 was designated by 1937 to serve as the connector to the state police headquarters" - this is sourced to a 1936 map and a 1937 map. I assume the road is present in the 1936 map but not the 1937 map, and the conclusion has been drawn that the road was added in between those dates. In which case this is original research because it's a conclusion we have drawn from two different sources. I also don't see how a map can possibly support a statement of why the road was designated.
"The highway was decommissioned in 1939" is sourced to two other maps, one from early 1939 and one from late 1939. I assume the road is present in one but not in the other, in which case this is again drawing together two sources to reach a conclusion not found in either. I also don't see how a map can support the use of the word "decommissioned" - is that the best word to use to describe what happened to it?

We could address this by removing the "History" section and the prose in the lead which relates to it, but that is about half the article's prose and it would leave the article just stating where the road used to be, which is all a map can really tell you explicitly. The fact that the article is almost entirely sourced to Michigan State Highway Department maps should also be a concern because those are primary sources and they are published by the same organisation. A GA should not only be reliant on sources created by one author. If the Michigan State Highway Department was responsible for constructing or maintaining the highway then they aren't even an independent source, which is also concerning as articles should be based on independent sources. Hut 8.5 09:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.