Talk:U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 420Traveler (talk · contribs) 01:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Review

• Will be reviewing soon. -420Traveler (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @420Traveler: it's been almost two months since you started this. Any idea when you'll finish? Imzadi 1979 → 08:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Imzadi1979: HI sorry for delay, I will get to it soon. Just been really busy working. -420Traveler (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  @420Traveler: it's been over three weeks, just checking in again. If you won't be getting to this in a timely fashion, we should close this review and return it to the queue for another reviewer to tackle in fairness to the nominator, Ncchild who has been waiting months for a review. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Imzadi1979: just reviewed it, wanted to let you know. Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

First Review

• Change 9.0-mile (14.5 km) to "9.0-mile-long (14.5 km)".
• US 1A begins change word "begins" because technically it begins at both ends. In lede and route description.
• US 1A meets NC 98 at an at-grade intersection Add link to NC98 and add link to at-grade intersection.
• Wake Forest, North Carolina is the "North Carolina" needed in link?
• highways run concurrently along South Avenue Add link to "concurrently".
• The 0.6 miles (0.97 km) concurrency change to miles-long.
• NC 96 runs in concurrency with... this sentence doesn't sound right.
• In 2016, average daily traffic volumes along many of the roadways it maintains. I don't think this sentence is needed?
• The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) measures average daily traffic volumes along many of the roadways it maintains Add link to average daily traffic.

@Ncchild: hi sorry about the very long delay. Here is a first pass at the review. -420Traveler (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@420Traveler: I think I fixed everything, let me know about anything else!--Ncchild (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Final fixes

• US 1A first appeared in 1916 Add comma after "1916".
• Not required, but are any pictures available on Flickr, or are you close enough to get a picture?

@Ncchild: just one more thing in history section then it will pass. Thank you for your patience. -420Traveler (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

420Traveler, I have added the comma you requested after "1916". If that was all that was holding up approval, this should be ready. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

GA reassessment

U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist – There are two reasons given to delist the article: whether an article based almost solely on maps can be a GA and whether there is any OR remaining. There is disagreement about whether the first reason is sufficient to warrant delisting (GAR is not for notability discussions). The arguments about OR are stronger, and there seems to be a rough policy-weighted consensus for a delist. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I find that template to be curious and wonder if it was placed in error. These "self-published sources" are from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and its predecessor agencies. Such sources have been generally accepted as appropriate on highway articles, even at the FA level. Imzadi 1979 → 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The tag appears to have been corrected now. --Rschen7754 03:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Imzadi1979: All SounderBruce did was that they replaced the "Third-party" tag with the "Primary sources" tag, but the article still could not meet the GA criteria regardless of which maintenance tags the article contains. Do you now agree with the updated tag? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:WIAGA criterion 2b says: "all inline citations are from reliable sources". Are you saying that primary sources can't be reliable? Are you saying that these specific sources are not reliable?

  I disagree with the tag. Maps are not primary sources. They are secondary sources distilled from GIS data, aerial or satellite surveys, on-the-ground surveyor's notes, and the like. The only source there that I'd call truly primary is #18, the route change resolution, and yet I would find it odd for someone to challenge the reliability of that source. We may prefer some different types of sources in a highway article, but this one meets our sourcing needs, and that tag should be removed and this GAR closed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with and can't explain it any better than Imzadi1979. -420Traveler (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

From a little research today I think that the book Pelosi, Carol W. (2008). Connections-- 100 years of Wake Forest history. Virginia Beach, VA: Donning Co. Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57864-525-1. OCLC 244177148. would be a very use source of information here and really what is needed.

I would also consider reaching out to the Wake Forest Museum as they actually have some old photos of Main Street which became 1A (see [1]). The Wake Forest Gazette has a bunch of mundane information including repaving ([2]) and SC98 work would affect a section of 1A ([3]). The information about the historic district mentioned above which is on the edge of it is also relevant. There are also minor works mentioned at the NCDOT page ([4]). NCDOT also has [5] which is the YOUNGSVILLE, NC BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN which mentions how it interacts with 1A. These reference should help with some of the intersection information and other little bits along the way.Gusfriend (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to mention the current ANI discussion at [6] which has some interesting perspectives on WP:OR and WP:V when it comes to maps and WP:MAPCITE which is an essay but does include the statement The author should remember that a good article will describe an object above and beyond what is visible in a map. I think that the tag is there in part because every source is a map and descriptions like North Main Street is a two-lane divided highway with a tree-lined median and runs through a historical residential area. appear to be sourced from Google Maps.

By way of improving the article I noticed that the Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District PDF reeference includes the statement Along the high ground on the west boundary runs Wake Forest's North Main Street (U.S. Highway lA), a historic ridge road connecting the town to communities to the north and in the early twentieth century North Carolina's principal "national highway" connection to the North. which would be a useful addition to the page. Also have there been articles in local news about roadworks or other changes? Even information about where it meets US 1? Gusfriend (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• The general routing of US 1A first appeared in 1916, as part of North Carolina's state highway system plan. At the time, the highway was detailed as part of an improved roadway which stretched from Raleigh to an undefined area east of Warrenton. This is cited to an old map. The map does not say "The general routing of US 1A first appeared in 1916", that's WP:OR. Not mention, what is "an undefined area east of Warrenton" and why is it important? Also, saying At Forestville, the highway approaches the CSX S-Line and citing that to a CSX map is textbook WP:SYNTH. There is not a single secondary source in this article. No, maps produced by the organization which built and maintained these roads is not secondary. Delist. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that this GAR will be used as some sort of precedent-setting political weapon to say that all road GAs are deficient in some way - that is not the case. There is nothing wrong with citing a map just because it is a map. That being said, I do agree with Gusfriend and the first part of Indy beetle's comments and think that this article falls below even the standards set by WP:MAPCITE. (As far as the routing issue, the proper use is to either say by 1916 or point to a map the same edition from a year earlier.) The use of maps in this article is sloppy. --Rschen7754 15:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think the roads articles would be better off if maps were only used where absolutely necessary and to say the most basic facts. Their widespread use encourages OR violations of this sort. It's not always the case, but local media sometimes has articles or news listings on highway construction projects. It might be worth it for roads editors with newspaper.com accounts to comb through old newspapers to look for bulletins on highway construction. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem is - if we disallowed all maps as sources, all we would have would be a travel guide instead of the Route section (since that would be all that we could source, and probably through SPS sites saying where they are located) and a history section. Even then, there are some cases where entire years of newspaper archives are missing and we would basically have to just delete the information, no matter how important it was. I am sure that with the recent change in attitude this site has had, they would be happy with slashing up our articles to be POV and borderline incoherent like that, but I am not. --Rschen7754 19:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    • POV? Huh? Using newspapers to describe roadway expansion projects and eliminating original research with subjective observations like "then the highway passes X building and Y street [important to the editor who added it]" would increase POV? I have no idea where you're coming from. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm talking about the typical Route description section. The so-called "subjective observations" are what ties the whole thing together and brings cohesion. Without it, we basically have a long list of trivia - what we can cobble together from "reliable" (non-map) sources:

        This road is named after X, a police officer who died on the road.

        The road goes by Disneyland. (sourced to disney.com)

        This road was designated a scenic byway. (sourced to a government document which I'm sure you don't like either).

      • Thus it is basically a travel guide, violating WP:NOT and essentially becoming POV since said points are more likely to be positive than negative. And of the "big three" sections a road article has, I suspect you won't like the junction list (usually sourced to maps and/or government documents) either, so basically the only sections left are "Travel guide" and "History". --Rschen7754 03:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
        • What I hear you saying is that the topic isn't notable and we should be having this discussion at AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
          • This is a disingenuous misrepresentation of what I am saying. I am just saying that 90% of all newspaper/book sources will be used in the history and not anywhere else. --Rschen7754 00:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
            • The alternative of what Horse Eye suggests you're saying is "There isn't enough reliable secondary source material for me to write the article I want to write, therefore the rules should not apply to me because I'm special and I should be able to write entire articles using WP:OR." Can't wait to write the article on the street I live on, since I can find it on google maps... For the record, I'm not opposed to government textual sources (used several myself in other articles), but I don't think they confer notability. Textual highway reports of some nature do exist (this is mostly in the planning stage, but I don't see why you could look for similar sources for description of existing routes) -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
              • Since my comments are being willfully misinterpreted, this is what I am talking about. How does this benefit the reader? (And don't say the article is not notable, I hope 20 newspaper articles are enough to pass your interpretation of GNG. --Rschen7754 00:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Original analysis of sources is already disallowed no matter the source. Maps are no exception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Is "map reading" original analysis? If so then there's a whole lot of troubles coming for Wikipedia, not just roads but other articles (I think half of our TV articles would have to go). --Rschen7754 03:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

        If basic map reading skills fall into "original research", as Wikipedia uses that term of art, then just why are so many highway articles written using such skills listed as Featured Articles. Surely the FAC corps of reviewers over the past decade and a half would have said something about that by now and none of the several dozen of FAs on highways would have been promoted. Since WP:WIAFA is more stringent than WP:WIAGA, if the content can pass FAC, it must be able to pass GAN. If this is so problematic, then I suggest you have about 90 FARs to initiate first before worrying about a GAN. Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

        • • Any Wikipedia article written entirely from maps without any secondary source should never be an article, let alone a GA or FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
          • "why are so many highway articles written using such skills listed as Featured Articles" FA reviewers can't override basic policy like WP:OR, if thats what they've been doing then they need to have those privileges stripped. If FA or GA reviews are in conflict with our core policies the core policies win every single time, their aberration can't be used as evidence that the policy is wrong it can only be used as evidence that the reviewers were wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
            • I also suspect this more a function of roads editors reviewing others' articles at FAC and GAn than it is evidence of a sitewide consensus that the use of maps in this fashion is totally ok. There have been some complaints in recent years from some FA and FAR regulars that the FA process has essentially been gamed by likeminded editors who—in good faith—are promoting their friends' articles without using as much scrutiny as should be desired. I don't see why roads topics should be any different, considering the insular nature of the topic. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

              Again, there are FAs using these sorts of sources in this manner. Again, if this is an issue, open the appropriate FAR and start sending FA reviewers (who on roads articles are typically not roads editors) the appropriate amounts of fish; I hear trout would be the species of choice. Until then, I stand by the position that if this sort of sourcing has been acceptable for FA, by definition, it must be acceptable for GA as WIAFA is intentionally mush stricter than WIAGA. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

              • Okay, I'll bite, @Indy beetle: since you have some FAs. Care to find any particular road FACs that you want to call into question? And I see you're a MILHIST coordinator - couldn't we use the same logic to call some of the MILHIST FAs into question? --Rschen7754 00:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

                • Any that use Google Maps as a source for a route description I'd have some questions about. The Interstate 68 (which is admittedly an older one) uses a Google Maps topographic map to discuss an elevation drop in the roadway, which seems UNDUE coming from a primary source. The more recent Washington State Route 520 solely uses Gmaps to support the sentence: SR 520 travels east across the south end of Portage Bay and its wetlands on the Portage Bay Viaduct, entering the Montlake neighborhood. In Montlake, the highway intersects Montlake Boulevard (SR 513) and Lake Washington Boulevard just south of the University of Washington campus and Husky Stadium. "Wetlands" don't appear anywhere on Google Maps, so original interpretation. At Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington), Gmaps cite for I-205 then intersects Stark, Burnside, and Gilsan streets via a series of weaved ramps near Mall 205 and the Adventist Health Portland hospital. What is a "weaved ramp", and how is one to know that from looking at this map aside from original interpretation? The statement North of Division Street, the freeway marks the boundary between the neighborhoods of Montavilla and Hazelwood, sourced to a government map (reliable but also primary), also seems UNDUE. If you want to claim wide consensus, call an RfC on the use of maps. This article has zero nonmap secondary sources, and curiously no roads editors including yourself seem to have bothered trying to find any (here's a little, but it's not enough for GNG). Why are you all so resistant to this? Oh, and we over at MilHist are doing just fine. There's been shift away from cruft and the shoddy sourcing that supports it since 2018. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

                  • I also suspect this more a function of roads editors reviewing others' articles at FAC and GAn than it is evidence of a sitewide consensus that the use of maps in this fashion is totally ok. Please provide links to the actual FACs in question where you believe this behavior occurred, or retract your statement. Why are you all so resistant to this? Because you are pushing a novel interpretation of sourcing policies that is higher than what FAC has required in the past and what we believe the policies to say, and because this would basically turn our articles into an incoherent collection of trivia, along with a slashed up history section. --Rschen7754 00:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

                    • I don't think I, or anyone, can prove a lack of scrutiny by means of showing conversations which one thinks should have existed but do not exist (I've provided my views of flaws in using map sourcing above, which you have elected not to address). If you have problem with that, take me to ANI. If you think several FA passes are tantamount to sitewide consensus, call an RfC. I'm still amused that you think an article wholly sourced to maps (aside from the route change notice) is worthy of GA status. From another perspective, this article is a collection of trivia. Well written, yes, but not well sourced. At any rate, I don't think there's much more to be said here. I stand by my delist vote, and hope to see this article at AfD unless someone can provide secondary coverage in additional to the blurb I've identified above. I don't think it speaks well of you that so far I'm the only one who's at least bothered to look for any secondary coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• • • • • • @Horse Eye's Back: FAs have to be reviewed by several editors, including a source review for reliable sources and source–text integrity. Those reviews are all then digested by one of the FA delegates to both assess consensus for promotion and the appropriateness of the reviews. FA promotion is not a vote-counting exercise, and if a delegate feels that the reviews are not sufficient to warrant promotion, he or she won't promote the article regardless of the number of reviews.

            So in short, if you feel that " they need to have those privileges stripped", I suggest you start an RfC at WP:FAC to assert your claims and recall the full slate of FAC delegates. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

    I was just looking for an example and for the article George Street, Sydney and saw articles like [7], [8], [9], and others which talk about changes introduced to the George Street and the history of it and are the sort of references that really add to a page (and I will add them to the page shortly). I also just looked at a couple of random road FA articles, California State Route 67 and Capital Loop which only have a handful of uses of maps as references. My view is that an article should be supported by more than just maps for it to be a GA. Gusfriend (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

    • I think reasonable people can differ on that point, just because the "why" of the road is not explained. Personally I think it can be GA but not FA - because of the difference between "broad" and "comprehensive". --Rschen7754 00:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

      @Gusfriend: Capitol Loop still relies on maps for its route description section. Were we to remove the maps as sources, as it would seem suggested here, two whole sections would need to be removed from the article, thus negating the completeness, a higher standard than the broadness expected of a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I have trimmed the most problematic statements from the article. As far as the debate on maps, the status quo has long been that they are acceptable sources. I do think it is fair to counsel @420Traveler: to take better care when reviewing articles. --Rschen7754 00:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Rschen7754: good job -420Traveler (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep—and proceed to close this review. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - I am okay with using maps as references in both standard and GA articles but having all of the references being maps is not sufficient sourcing for something that is called a Good Article. Gusfriend (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Respectfully - under what criteria of WP:WIAGA is this under? I would agree that it would not meet comprehensive of WP:WIAFA, FWIW. --Rschen7754 01:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

    A Good Article must be Verifiable with no original research which covers both OR and use of primary sources. There have been multiple discussions about maps being OR, primary sources, etc. but there does not appear to be a firm consensus thus far (I think that someone should take it to Village Pump to help firm things up). With the uncertainty around those discussions I do not feel that an article sourced exclusively to maps meets the esteemed level of a Good Article.

    I am happy for the article to remain a GA if consensus is against me but that is how I view things. Gusfriend (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

    • Do what you want, but this argument about any map reading being OR is very new. In fact, WP:NOTOR has had a statement about map reading not being OR for 11 years, and just a few days ago U.S. Route 34 in Iowa passed FAC citing maps. --Rschen7754 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

      The FA mentioned has 9 references to maps but also references things like Transportation in Iowa: A Historical Summary and I have precisely zero concerns with it. This article however only has a single reference that is not a map (but it is a primary source). Have there been any newspaper articles or news reports about 1A? Perhaps plans for traffic studies or upgrades? Historical books about the area? Gusfriend (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

      I think we need to distinguish between this argument about "all map reading being OR" and "maps not telling the whole story about the road and that is not sufficient for GA". The former is really problematic and is a novel interpretation of policy, with far-ranging consequences (see Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Roads). The latter is an opinion that some road editors (though not myself) do hold. --Rschen7754 01:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, OR (eg. "Upon the creation of the North Carolina State Highway System in 1921, the highway running through Wake Forest and Youngsville was assigned as part of NC 50.") remains despite two months at GAR. Article seems torn between using "by" phrasing and asserting contiunous states based on the snapshot maps. CMD (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delist It's not appropriate for the article to be sourced solely to maps. These may be used as sources, but it does not establish notability or true verifiability for the topic. It certainly reads as original research that the history says "by 1929" and "by 1940", etc. This is just interpretation of changes between maps with given dates rather than verifiable coverage in written sources. A good article should have more specific facts with more descriptive sources rather than just analysis of primary sources. Reywas92^Talk 04:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that there are some misuse of maps in this article, but they are easily fixable and certainly don't rise to the level of a WP:BLP or similar policy. The most obvious that I saw first is the claim in the history section that the road was paved between 1924 and 1926, cited to a 1924 and 1926 map. As explained in essay WP:MAPCITE that is problematic as the 1924 map was likely drafted few months in advance of January 1924. It's possible the road was paved in 1923. Reliable source, but not properly used. I made a quick fix to mitigate the problem. However my preferred option, and advice and to those involved with this article, is to search old newspaper articles and improve the history section of this article with what is found. Sometimes it is a bit tricky to find the articles in newspapers, as most road construction projects are known and reported with a name first, and not identified by the route numbers involved until later. But while that complicates research, one learns the right key words to search over time. Why not do that, and render this debate moot? Some of the comments imply this GAR is being used as a test case or stepping stone for a bigger plan (or at least desire) to nominate roads articles for AFD/GAR/FAR/whatever. I don't approve of such a plan, so I'll just leave the above as a friendly suggestion, and recuse myself from !voting. Dave (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  I totally support the approach of searching for old (or recent) newspaper articles. Gusfriend (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - The article meets the GA criteria. Yes, it does rely excessively on maps, but maps are not primary sources (they are secondary sources, the raw GIS data used to make the map is the primary source) and are acceptable for verifying information in the route description and history. However, as mentioned by others, great care needs to be made when using maps to verify information in the history. In addition, it would help if other non-map sources can be used to verify information in the history such as newspaper articles, as they can give more exact dates than maps and can also provide more details about changes to the road. However, the sources that are in the article now should be sufficient for GA, whereas more non-map sources should be found if this article were to become a FA. Dough4872 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  How does an article that has original research (failing criteria 2c) meet the GA criteria? CMD (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  Reading a map is not considered original research. Dough4872 15:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how that relates to original research for text not supported by the maps. CMD (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  Would you support keeping it as GA if some of the more problematic statements were adjusted? --Rschen7754 16:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  That'd depend on what it looks like then, but it's been 3 months and no-one seems interested. (Which is fine! This is a volunteer project.) I don't think any of the text is "problematic" enough that I'd ask for it to be removed, it's just not GA level. CMD (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed we are all volunteers and unfortunately the main author is inactive. I am just trying to gauge whether it is worth putting the time in to try and fix the article. Frankly, I don't think it is if some consider any use of a map to be OR. --Rschen7754 03:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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.