Talk:Ohio State Route 822

Ohio State Route 822 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 5, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

United States: Ohio Low‑importance

	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: State highways / Ohio Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal 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.
Topics	U.S. state highways
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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 822/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 04:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this now. T C N7JM 04:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider switching the order of the two paragraphs in the route description. The more minor info like traffic counts is normally only put in the beginning of the section when it's being used as a mini-lead for a larger section that has many subsections. This section is much to short to warrant the info being put before the actual description of the route.
Done.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also consider removing the sentence about the Veterans Memorial Bridge, as I fail to see how that is important to the route.
Removed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When using multiple references to cite a sentence, it usually looks more professional when they're cited in numerical order. I see out-of-order citations once in the RD, and once in the history.
Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try to mention how the intersection with SR 7 has access to US 22 westbound in the RD.
Done.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the RJL, instead of saying stuff like "Former eastern terminus in 2010" (which sounds a bit redundant, I might add), if possible try to list the dates it was the eastern terminus of the highway. For example, for this one, I think it'd be "Eastern terminus from 2010-2013".
Fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly were the "plans" mentioned in the history? Try to expand on this a little bit by adding something, even if only an addition to the sentence that's already there, about these plans.
Added a bit.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first intersection with US 22 is limited access, isn't it? There's only access to one direction of the road.
True, fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all. T C N7JM 04:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TCN7JM: All problems solved.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll pass the article. Good job. T C N7JM 21:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I stopped by to review the article for the DYK nomination. Where is the reliable independent coverage about the SR 822? I can't see it meeting notability requirements at the moment, so am a bit perplexed that it has passed a GA review. I can't make head or tail of the state document which is used to verify the length of the road, either. Help! Sionk (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: This might help you read the file. I'm sorry, but that's the only way I could verify the length.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did this article pass GA? It's not much more than a stub. -Zanhe (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using summary style, and it happens to be that short.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a state highway and therefore is notable enough for its own article. It just happens to be short because of its short length. However it has become common practice for very short state routes to be covered in list articles such as List of state highways in Maryland shorter than one mile (2–699). It appears that Ohio has a large number of short roads and some of these have been brought to GA. I would suggest creating List of state highways in Ohio shorter than one mile to cover those state routes in Ohio that are less than one mile long. Dough 48 72 03:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Being a state highway is not a guarantee of notability. With that being said, it's unlikely the article would be deleted if it were taken to AfD. –Fredddie ™ 03:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list could be made later, but not now.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have considered merging this into the bridge, honestly. But GA does not care about notability; that is a question for other venues. All GA cares about is if the criteria are met. --Rs chen 7754 09:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the GA assessment, the bridge section (curiously entitled 'History') can easily be considered off-topic because SR822 has never crossed Fort Steuben Bridge! Sionk (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this. Clearly says the bridge carried SR 822. But, I am fine with the article being merged.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 12:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against merging it at this point, but why to the bridge article instead of a <1 mi list? The bridge article doesn't seem like it'd be the best target seeing as the designation covered more than just the bridge. T C N7JM 13:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]