Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 78/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Rschen7754 (T C)
This fully meets the criteria for a featured article; in fact, I would dare say that this is the best article on CA SR 78 that can be found on the Internet. The last FAC nomination grew stale. Regarding renominating so quickly Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review File:California State Route 78.svg - We never did resolve the question of whether the sources added to this map were sufficient to create it. Could someone with an expertise in road sources please confirm this? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are still red links around in the article. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlinks aren't discouraged, so long as they have potential to eventually receive articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it also acceptable that most of the sources are coming from historic maps? What about books or internet sources? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This has already come up before - Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_39#Regarding_maps_being_.22primary_sources.22_according_to_this_policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask what that has to do with redlinks? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't; that was just another unrelated concern. I don't want to start a new section. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry then. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't; that was just another unrelated concern. I don't want to start a new section. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it also acceptable that most of the sources are coming from historic maps? What about books or internet sources? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources here are much better than those for 382 in NY. Not even close! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point? They're two different articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... cool? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why thanks for pointing that out Julian, I was confused that they were the same! And one article has sources that fit and one doesn't. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources here are much better than those for 382 in NY. Not even close! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query I've never reviewed a road/highway article before (the route description sections usually bore me to tears), so forgive me if I sound ignorant in this query. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the History section reads "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78...". This is sourced to a 1919 map. However, I'm wondering whether we can be so certain in that statement. Would it be more accurate to say that as late as 1919 no road appeared on a map (don't know if there's a more efficient term for this) connecting...? Are we confident in the comprehensibility of the 1919 map (that there isn't some small road that the cartographers didn't choose to include)? BuddingJournalist 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This would have been the only road in the area, so it likely would have been included. For statements like this, I typically check several maps from different publishers (just going through every map in the file from around then) to get the year. I would be willing to reword it however if people agree. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no road in 1955 (USGS topos can be counted on to show all roads). You probably need to do some more research into the history to avoid large holes like that. --NE2 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How was I able to cite the 1919 map having it then? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1919 map doesn't have it, I thought? --NE2 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reread the section... It appears that that was a stray sentence (I must have found more information about the construction of that part and put it in Construction... and never removed the sentence about 1919.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1919 map doesn't have it, I thought? --NE2 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How was I able to cite the 1919 map having it then? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no road in 1955 (USGS topos can be counted on to show all roads). You probably need to do some more research into the history to avoid large holes like that. --NE2 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This would have been the only road in the area, so it likely would have been included. For statements like this, I typically check several maps from different publishers (just going through every map in the file from around then) to get the year. I would be willing to reword it however if people agree. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.