Talk:Pennsylvania Route 737/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Amadscientist is planning to review the article Pennsylvania Route 737

GA Review

Wait symbol Support symbol

The Good article Good article criteria is as follows;

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; The lede is somewhat confusing. What is actually being said in the last paragraph is not quite clear as written. Far too much redundant use of names (numbered or otherwise) and words throughout. Encyclopedic. Confusing to read and understand.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. I feel OK, with a pass on this, while history should be at the top, no consensus against it exists. No list, acceptable table.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; There is a reference section, though a gfood article might also have a bibliography or notes section as well, but can pass as is.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for 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; Perhaps the biggest problem with this article. It should never have been nominated with these references. There are 7 references in total, only two are secondary sources (Third party reliable ~~source~~ reference). The rest, including the first reference, which is used six times, are maps. A map is an illustration which may contain data but can oly be used for illustrative purposes. Also several references claim to be maps, but simply redirect to another Wikipedia page. Article is missing adequate citations.

(c) it contains no original research. I wont't fail this section....but it is a hold until article is properly referenced.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). ~~Red links should be removed before moving to GA. Looks like attempt to be ahead of ones self. Unnecessary.~~

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The result of this review was Hold.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm? Red links are not GA criteria. Also, there is no problem with references except for #1, as their are not an entire amount of adequate sources. No offense to you, but this review is not helpful. My grammar stinks, I can fix.Mitch/HC32 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, red links show that the editor is attempting a good faith show of intention to build further articles. With no current articles, the links are dead. That could also be under the criteria of layout. If no adequate sources can be found article may fail notablility. I will pass the section you are concerned with as a fixable problem dealing with red links, but even if there were enough sources and references the nomination would still be a hold.

Small amount of work to finish this article, but I cannot see passing the references as they stand. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last note.....I simply cannot pass the article while Wikipedia articles are being used as references. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to lose the map references to pass by the way. They can remain. They should probably be listd as "works" and not "references", but article needs more third party references. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail. Third party sources are AGAINST Wikipedia policy. And those aren't wikipedia article sources. Read it carefully - the link is linking the publisher and those are map references.Mitch/HC32 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is also refered to as secondary sources, however you as the editor represent on party, wikipedia represents a second party and the reliable reference or source represents the third party.

Incivil accusations will not move review faster. Please assume good faith. You are achieving the goals needed. Please do not belittle the good faith attempt I am making to assist moving this article forward. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are just some problems I am noticing in the review. The article passed notability as per WP:USRD/N a long time ago. Sources are slim because apparently the newspapers don't care about the bypass, and that the highway is a backwoods road in the middle of nowhere in Berks County. I've rewritten the second paragraph of the lead, changed some term usage, fixed some references, but that's about all I can do.Mitch/HC32 16:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is really not in question. Meets standards set by consensus. References are to few in relationship to past similar articles listed by GA. This editor discourages the use of wikipedia as a reference on Wikipdia articles and does not accept it for GA listing. This is not unusual.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are acceptable as sources, with the limitations suggested at User:Davemeistermoab/maps. The entire RD is one source, which seems a bit odd. Wikilinks are fine in citations if they link to the publisher or some other wikifiable element. The Wikipedia articles are not being referred to; read the citations carefully. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments from an uninvolved editor here... but maps are acceptable as sources. They are secondary sources in most instances. (Aerial photographs and raw GIS data would be the primary sources.) The entire route description is sourced to a map. Which map or set of maps is used is essentially trivial as it is uncontroversial information which really doesn't need any referencing under WP:CITE. The remaining maps document the changes made in their respective years. At most, I'd suggest adding in the map of the previous year for each change cited. The text being referenced is essentially a prose description of the changes shown as differences between the two maps involved. Newspapers and other media don't always reference the changes made to highways in the US at the level of detail shown here. Only the biggest and most expensive, or most visible changes will get media coverage normally.

What references in the article "claim to be maps, but simply redirect to another Wikipedia page"? None of them that I see link to another article as a source. Of the seven references used, 4 are paper maps (with one of the references linking to an article about the map publisher), two are online-hosted maps and one is a webpage.

As for the comment now stricken about redlinks, I will say that redlinks are acceptable no matter what kind of article being reviewed. Even Featured Articles will have a redlink if the subject is likely to get an article and the article doesn't currently exist. I would oppose removing redlinks for the sake of making the article look better. They're a necessary party of building the 'pedia. As for the order of sections, typical practice has been to put the route description first to describe the highway and give context for later discussions of the highway's history.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are diagrams and I didn't say they couldn't be used as sources, I said they are illustrative. The maps do not have to go, but could be listed as "works".

Please sign with tiddles. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References 5 and 6 were using the wikipedia page Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. It now shows only reference 5 using it....but I still won't pass an article on to GA with references from Wikipedia. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is *not* referring to the Wikipedia article. Please read the citation carefully. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 5 is, and I quote: "Pennsylvania (Map). Cartography by Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 1974." This reference is to a map published by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The wikilink in the citation template is a courtesy to readers wishing to find more information on the publisher, PennDOT. If you were to click the link, I believe you will find that there is NO information in the PennDOT article that would support the information being referenced. That's because the WP article is NOT the source, the map published by PennDOT in 1974 is the source. The only difference between Reference 5 (1974 PennDOT map) and Reference 6 (1978 PennDOT map) is that Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is wikilinked on the first reference.

In the article on U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, a featured article, its reference #1 has Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) wikilinked. All subsequent references published or produced by MDOT do not have the text wikilinked per WP:OVERLINK. The first reference published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also has a wikilink to the article on FHWA. Subsequent references published by FHWA are not wikilinked. Other publishers are handled the same way. Obviously if this practice of wikilinking in the references/works cited sections is not contrary to Feature Article criteria, then it's not contrary to Good Article criteria. Imzadi1979 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that article you pointed to has HUGE amounst of references to also include those "Courtesy" citations. Second the refence you refer me to ALso has an off site link to the Actual Department website to find the actual map being discussed.

Article has too few references to be listed as GA at this time. "Courtesy reference" should also be linked to supporting secondary source. I doesn't matter if the formating does not link more than once. I mentioned it because the aother refernces on this article started out all linked.

Also if you look at that samepage you directed me to and look at all the references, their use of Wikipedia articles are enhanced with an external link to either the actual map or the State department website document searches.

Thank you for the input.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing, reference 2 through 7 are all in the last and smallest paragraph of the article leaving the bulk of the page unreferenced. Overuse of reference, especialy when 6 out of the 7 references are bunched together in this manner and 3 of those 6 are that single citation repeated.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MDOT website will not have any Michigan maps displayed online except the current edition. The remaining MDOT map references in my article are older, and only exist on paper. Trust me, I paid for digital scans from the Library of Michigan to get copies of the various maps from the 1920s, 30s, 40s 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. They are simply not hosted online in any fashion anywhere at this time. As for the reference in the US 41 article, the Wikipedia article on the Michigan Department of Transportation does not include any information on the highway that's the subject of the article. That's fine, SINCE IT'S NOT THE SOURCE BEING CITED IN THE FOOTNOTE. The map published on paper by MDOT is the source. The wikilinked text is simply a courtesy to the reader, not a link to the source. It would be no different if the author of a book being cited had his name wikilinked in the footnotes. The article on John Q. Public isn't the source, but rather a book that he wrote is the source.

The fact that the article on MDOT has an external link to the MDOT website doesn't matter. That link could be removed tomorrow. Would you then claim that any article with a reference to a source produced or published by MDOT that has a wikilink to the article has defective referencing? You shouldn't make that claim because once again, the MDOT article IS NOT THE SOURCE BEING CITED. A map, press release, a committee report published by MDOT is the source, not the Wikipedia article on MDOT.

Three of the six references used in the article being reviewed here are not a single citation repeated. They are different editions of the Pennsylvania map in different years. They are not repetitions of a single citation, but rather different published maps by the same source. It would be no different if John Q. Public wrote three books on a subject, and all three were used in the article.

I would say that this article has an appropriate number of sources to be listed as a GA. The editor who wrote this article could substitute several different maps to source the sections of the route description. Actually, most of the route description could be void of footnotes as it is non-controversial information being presented. Common sense says that any atlas of topographical maps, any online mapping service could serve to reference the section in question. The first paragraph could be referenced to Yahoo's maps as it is now, while the second is referenced to Google's maps. Just for kicks, I could change the last paragraph to have a reference to yet another map. None of that matters though, because he used a single source that contains all of the information. The entire route description for the US 41 article essentially comes from 2 maps: the then current MDOT map and the Rand McNally atlas. Other details on specific cities and attractions come from other sources, but the basic routing and terrain information came from those two maps. This entire article is referenced. The three paragraphs of the RD section are referenced to a map. The paragraph of history is referenced to a selection of sources as the various changes are documented over time. The intersection table is once again referenced to the same current map as the RD section.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an insult, this isn't a fight. This is a review. It's an opinion. It is not meant as a slight to any editor. If I fail this article and I likely will, it can be relisted and another editor can list it. Right now, I do not see my concerns being addressed anymore on the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article is not being cited. The map is being cited. What do you not understand about this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Rschen and Imzadi, the maps are definitely being cited. Dough4872 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the documentation for {{cite map}} and note where the author goes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you, I am your slave. There are now 10 sources, and I refuse to add anymore. End of story.Mitch/HC32 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Also, since when was this a WP:RS? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Central PA/MD Roads and Pennsylvania Highways sites are indeed SPS and may not nessecarily be reliable. Better sources should be found. Dough4872 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dough, I've been in every newspaper, nothing can replace the PA Highways reference at this point.Mitch/HC32 15:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both SPS are removed, did find another source for the bypass. The other one served no purpose.Mitch/HC32 15:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the SPS refernces was a good call, but removing a reliable reference a reviewer is adding as part of simply fixing concerns in good faith is incivil. I am failing this article. Relist it, or request reassessment.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, outside view of the situation (not the review). This is going nowhere, its turning into petty bickering. Amadscientist, would you be willing to recruit a new uninvolved user to review the article in your place, call it a second opinion. I'm not 100% sure I agree with your points but you have equal right to make them. USRD members, perhaps its time to take a step back for a few days, spend some time working on the article, even if you don't agree with everything Amadscientist says, surely its worth taking some of the issues in good faith, and further improving the article? That can only be good for the encyclopaedia as a whole? I guess relisting the article on GAN would be a good idea to get a new reviewer, but I still urge you to take on board any points raised! Jeni ^(talk) 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]