Talk:U.S. Route 441 in Georgia

Important question

How long is the highway? Could that be mentioned anywhere in the article, please? –Fredddie™ 22:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

And then based the answer to that, I'd suggest reducing the length of the RD by a third or a half to cull the overly intricate detail. As it is, any mention of specific businesses, unless that specific property is notable in its own right (complete with an article), should be removed. Beyond that, mentions of utility rights-of-way should be removed as useless information, again, unless a specific power line is independently notable. That's just for starters. The RD section is full of such useless filler that bulks the section up too much, creating a huge wall of text. Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

When the roadgeeks get bored reading the article, it's too long. –Fredddie™ 22:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable or not, I tend to put these things in to give the roads some definition. Sometimes it's a fine line between giving an adequate description and stepping into WP:NOTTRAVEL territory. If I add some random power line right of way it's usually as a landmark for something else nearby.As for the length, I wish I could find an accurate answer to that one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The "Mile-By-Mile website claims it's 378.6 miles, but that is an SPS, so we should take it with a grain of salt. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I can go into detail but the short explanation is that you have to learn to scale the level of detail you include in an RD. For a short highway, you can include more intricate details, but for a longer one, one that runs the north–south length of a tall state like Georgia, you need to drop more intricate details. In any case, there are better landmarks than power line rights-of-way. Major landmarks that would be included on typical highway maps, like airports and downtown districts are fine, but power lines are omitted from the types of sources you should be using to cite an RD. A college campus would be a major landmark, but a high school would not, not for something of this sort of highway length.Minor bridges, even if named in a memorial capacity can be omitted as well, especially if the waterway they cross lacks its own Wikipedia article and the bridge does as well. However, a major bridge with its own article, that merits inclusion.

Exact street and road names are probably overkill on a longer highway. Also, the RD does not need to list every junction with another state highway; that's the purpose of the RJL table. You can cull all of the special ("bannered") routes unless they're numbered as children of US 441, or concurrent with such children. There's other details included that also looks questionable from a potential sourcing angle. The fact that you omitted any citations for that section, with that much text, raises red flags.

This entire sentence: "After Frank Vaughn Road, the route crosses an underground petroleum line right-of-way and an abandoned railroad line right-of-way next to it" is useless to the general reader of our articles. There's more like that in there, and they all need to come out. Seriously, at least a third, if not a half, of the RD needs to go. As Fredddie said, when "roadgeeks get bored reading [a highway] article, it's too long." Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is where the street name changes, as well as the characteristics of the road itself. Maybe something like that would be better for expanding Georgia State Route 31. A little tip here, User:Mjrmtg actually introduced me to the one roadside park in Telfair County. I wanted to get a GDOT source for that, but I couldn't find one, and I couldn't make the commons gallery show up as a reference. And I did have references for some of the parks and other sites the road passes by. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons is an open wiki, and we don't cite open wikis. You might cite a specific road sign, and include a link to a photo of that sign hosted on Commons as a convenience, but you don't cite Commons. Period.

For a highway this long, street names are excessive detail. Maybe at a coarser level of precision, noting that "through the downtown district of Foo, US 441 follows Ash, Beech and Elm streets, becoming Foo–Bar Highway outside of town", or "through Bar, the highway uses the one-way paring of 1st and 2nd streets to cross downtown", but noting where the names change is unneeded. You can similarly condense lane counts or divided vs. undivided status by glossing over the exact locations of the transition points. Again, it's a matter of scaling the level of detail to avoid overly intricate, and frankly boring, writing.

An RD section realistically only needs two sources: the official state highway map, and the aerial/satellite view of the Google Maps driving directions for the entire route. The first source confirms the actual route against any errors in Google's cartography, and the second source confirms the landscapes along the way plus some of the major landmarks. If you cite anything that can't be seen in those two sources, you need additional sources. MDOT doesn't mark the National Forests on its map, so I use the Michigan map out of the Rand McNally atlas, and if I'm listing the names of the owners of the major rail lines in the state, then I use MDOT's railroad map. Major parks, thinking state parks, should be marked on the state highway map, and Google should note other landmarks in its cartography. Some interesting details about landmarks along the route would be cited to separate non-map sources, but again, keep in mind the concept of scaling the level of detail to the length of the highway and avoiding original commentary. "Many of the buildings begin to reflect the design features of the Blue Ridge Mountains" fails the original commentary test because you can't see those buildings from a satellite photo, not a the detail necessary to make that sort of claim.

Remember: The longer the road, the less specific you get. Imzadi 1979 → 05:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as a comparison, DanTD, look at Interstate 75 in Michigan. That article has 5596 words for 396 miles (637 km). This article currently has 4319 words, and it lacks a history of the highway, or anything comparable to section on the monumental bridges, memorial highway names or the related highways. If you added the missing content without purging the unneeded detail, just how long would this be, and who would actually take the time to read it? Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I did use Google Maps and Bing Maps to find out what was what along the road. I even looked at Historic Aerials Online for info on former sections of the road and old owners of the railroad lines that it crosses or runs near. But do you remember when I mentioned that Google Maps doesn't always allow you to get the length of a road? Do you remember that I mentioned trying to get the length of U.S. Route 129 Alternate (Hawkinsville-Macon, Georgia) with google maps when I was making the Bannered US 129 list, and it kept going to mainline US 129, and refused to let me drag it to the alternate route? And with Historic Aerials, I can't always save the links I want. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should refresh your memory on this subject, assuming you read this. I don't know if you did or not. Anyway, I tried to find replacements for the dead links that were originally from GDOT. So far, nothing. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You did not cite Google Maps or Bing Maps though. Google should honestly not be your go-to source for lengths; you should have GDOT sources for that.

As for Historic Aerials, why are you consulting that for the RD? That's historic information that would fall into the History section, and even then, it sounds like you were trying to add unnecessary filler. Previous owners of railroad lines would apply to articles about those lines, not highway articles. Again, you seem to be trying to cram everything into an article, including the proverbial kitchen sink, when you should be selective and scale the level of detail to the overall length of the roadway. I-75 in MI is longer, yet it has a shorter RD and that saves plenty of room for everything else an article should have. Imzadi 1979 → 19:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say I cited them, but I did use them. Also, my use of Historic Aerials was for the features of the road in general, not specifically the railroad crossings or the previous owners of those lines. My only reason for "cramming everything into an article, including the proverbial kitchen sink" was to describe what happens along the road. And if everything that happens along the road really happened only at a college, or a historic district, rather than a less notable site, I would've said so, but they don't.

I have two other US Routes in Georgia that I'm also working on now; U.S. Route 221 in Georgia and U.S. Route 278 in Georgia. I don't want to make them as long as this one, or U.S. Route 23 in Georgia, but I still think there are certain details that shouldn't be overlooked. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If you used them as sources, you should have cited them. As it is, the RD is largely uncited, which is red flag for that amount of text. Cite from the beginning in creating an article, and no one will have to find sources later to back up your writing. Or, no one else will delete your work for lack of citations. What you think is obvious might not be to someone else.

As I've been trying to impress upon you, apparently without any success, you've described way too much along the road. In the process, you've created a huge wall of text no one will want to read. If even the roadgeeks are telling you it's too much, it's too much! Imzadi 1979 → 05:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)