Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhode Island Route 4/archive1

Add links
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 14:27, 24 November 2009 [1].

Rhode Island Route 4

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]
Toolbox

We am nominating this for featured article because after months of work, this dual research project of a Rhode Island freeway is probably ready for Featured Article status. The route went under a partially-excruiating A-class review, solving the AltText in the process. And for once the prose isn't mine, but theco-nominator, User:Raime's. We are open to all comments Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]

  • Support 2c. Decline: 2c. resolved and checked at Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Inconsistent Author ordering (Some corporate authors before title, some corporate authors after title, individuals before). Inconsistent date formatting YYYY-MM-DD; Month D, YYYY. Inconsistent date positioning: Author (Year), Author ... Year. Lack of Provenance information. Italics indicates published material, if the reports are published, they were published by an Authority, unclear if Institution is Author and Publisher, or just Author. Any consistent resolution is fine for these problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ones published by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (or its predecessor, the Rhode Island Department of Public Works) are in correct form, as no author is cited. Also, a lot of these depend on the citation template used, which I have little control on.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The date order within citation issue comes from the fact that the works aren't authored, this is controlled by if you've entered an author field. The date style (YYYY-MM-DD, Month D, YYYY) is entirely controlled by the editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite report, which is in the same style / formatting system package as Template:Cite book correctly formats your reports with the data you currently have. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got the date consistency solved. Also, I changed the books to reports per that. Help me fix them, because I actually have never used the template.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No dabs or dead links (per the link checker tool), and the given alt text has no obvious problems, which is good. I'm a stickler for consistent date formats, so I thank Fifelfoo for checking those. Featured articles have consistent citation formats (see criterion 2c) and I think date formats are integral to that. --an odd name 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I have reviewed this article twice and at this point only have a few concerns before I can support the article:
  1. As discussed above, the references should use consistent date formats.
  2. In References 5-9 and 13, "report" should not be wikilinked.
  3. It may help if some non-map sources can be added to the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 2 the template does that. #3, RIDOT produces nothing.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably other non-map sources that are not RIDOT. Dough4872 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent hours looking, I've been unable to find anything, especially because we're talking an expressway here.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to wait and see if Raime can find more sources. Dough4872 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is that Raime only edits un so often, so I may end up doing the work in this co-nom, but its fine.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm back now. I can try and find other sources, but I doubt I will find anything. Why is it that adding non-map sources would be more helpful? Everything stated in the RD is supported by the cited maps. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the map sources are good to have in the route description, it is also good to back them up with non-map sources as well. There have been discussions about this, such as in the AFD for New Jersey Route 64, where it was argued more secondary sources were needed in addition to Bing Maps. ---Dough4872 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments from that AfD seem to be that an entire article needs more secondary sources than just maps to be notable; it didn't seem to be specifically related to citations in the RD. If the map sources from reliable sources back all statements adequately, I'm still not sure why other sources are needed. However, I cited this article from RIDOT in The RD's mentioning of the new exit 7. Cheers, Rai•me 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. ---Dough4872 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I will support the article the way it is now, but it would still help if more non-map sources can be added. ---Dough4872 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a comments—as a lifelong Rhode Islander, I just have to offer my two cents. At quick glance, it looks like a great article. I'm getting ready for class, so I'll make this quick for now:
    • In the second para of the lead, shouldn't "long-range" be "long-term"?
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you could change "slightly more than" to "approximately"? Pretty much means the same thing in this context, and it flows a bit better.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Makes a curve" can be shortened to "curves".
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You use the phrase "a partial cloverleaf interchange" twice in the same paragraph and in the same manner. I know it's hard to spice up such sections, but you could change "a partial" to "another partial" to give the reader a bit of fresh air.
Fixed, but it was in 2 paragraphs, not one.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to the proceeding paragraph, but I see what you did now. — Deckiller 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After exit 7, Route 4 continues due north as a six-lane expressway" Considering your use of accurate directionals (I.E. northeast, northwest), "due" is somewhat redundant.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Route 4 has an overpass at Middle Road..." "Has" seems bland.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the Rhode Island Department of Public Works (RIDPW) proposed a relocation of Route 2 which," Comma before "which".
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During the time of the study," can be shortened to "during the study".
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in 1972. In 1972," I recommend restructuring one of these sentences to avoid such repetition.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) has laid out long-term plans for changes to both the southern and northern termini of Route 4." Sentence can be tightened. Perhaps something like "The.....RIDOT has long-term plans to change both the southern and northern termini of Route 4."
Changed to something else. Your suggestion would suggest a different occurrance.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last one is not correct, as then you could mean 9 miles high as well. All done otherwise.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.— Deckiller 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

Wouldn't happen. Not one contribution since June.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the image will have to be removed from the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - removed image in question and added another one of the freeway section. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to it here, so I can check it out. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:RI 4 south North Kingstown.jpg. Cheers, Rai•me 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checks out. Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RI-4 map.svg - Please add a source for the information contained in this map to the image description page.
Fixed.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs on prose and comprehensiveness grounds.

  • Prose - Although the prose is not awful, it still needs work, as it is often quite repetitive and does not necessarily flow well. For example, the first three sentences in the section Route description all begin "Route 4 ...".
  • Comprehensiveness - I am highly suspicious of road articles that rely almost entirely on maps and state department of transportation reports, so I went searching for more information.
    • Per [2], it appears that much of the roadside in a certain area is covered by invasive plants. I suspect that with more digging you may be able to find out why that is - did the road construction or an effect of the road impact this?
Unnecessary. Marshlands are the main reason, which I have added mention of.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This study [3] gives information about red-light running at some Route 4 intersections
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found indications of multiple state and federal reports that were studying expanding the road in the late 1980s/early 1990s. In particular, it appears that there were related archealogical finds, which would be very interesting to see. The following list is not comprehensive [4] [5] [6] [7]. The archaelogical evidence has been discussed in newspapers as well: example [8]
You're not making anything easier for Google Books - No access - and I don't live in Rhode Island, so accessing those aren't easy unless Raime has access. I can use the abstract of the newspaper, but without access, I can't get anything else.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Used the abstract, which covers enough I think.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more newspaper articles available about at least the 1980s construction [9], which may provide background or local interest information not included in a government report.
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Related to the point directly above, this article provides no justification for the road. Why was it a good idea to originally build the road? Why did it need to be expanded? (some article snippets I've seen suggest that the road could be the site of many fatal/serious car accidents?)
    • From some news article abstracts, it looks like Rhode Island resisted raising the speed limits when first allowed by the federal government. Is there any information on whether/when the speed limit was raised on Route 4, and what objections there might have been?
That was on Interstate 95 between 4 and the CT line, not worthy (I looked at the articles).Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like traffic cameras are on at least one Route 4 intersection and the ACLU got involved [10]
Not the reason, but did find something involved.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like some groups in the 1990s were protesting any further expansion [11] - why?
Done.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs context, and although not all of these ideas may be useful, they will hopefully point you in the direction of what types of context might be useful. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to a question up there, I found these links in a ten-minute search of Google books, Google scholar, and Google news (search terms "Rhode Island" "Route 4"). I don't have easy access to any of them; I strongly encourage you to find good access to the Providence Journal archives. Karanacs (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got significant amounts in. I hope this covers more than enough.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned by the comment above that you "Used the abstract, which covers enough I think." That is not acceptable for research. While abstracts often mention the highlights of an issue, they cannot place events/issues/etc in proper context. It's better not to use the information at all rather than rely on a short abstract. Karanacs (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was the abstract of the lone news article in that section.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The links I provided are examples only. It is up to you to do more research and determine whether there is enough information to include in the article. That means doing searches of your own and actually reading full articles, not just article abstracts. I suspect this will take considerable effort and recommend that you withdraw the FAC nomination in the meantime. I'm taking this off my watchlist; once the research has been done, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you get me money to read such stuff. I don't have any money to pay towards the full stuff. This FAC isn't moving. I've added considerable information to this from what you provided and if the abstract of a newspaper article isn't going to satisfy you, then I don't care. This FAC is not moving and I did the research.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 14:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To write a solid featured article, you'll need access to the complete articles. The blurbs (abstracts) that Google News or other archival sites (NewsBank, etc.) really aren't sufficient for FAC for the reasons Karanacs gave above. The information given in the blurbs is often too vague to write anything based solely on it, or at least too vague to accurately write anything based on it.
FAC shouldn't be easy. To write a good, comprehensive, solid FAC, you need to devote considerable amounts of time to gathering resources (and not just ones online), researching, and writing the article. I've seen editors spend weeks, even months gathering different resources from vastly different IRL (print) sources to ensure that they had done enough research to write a rock-solid featured article. That doesn't seem to be the case here at all, at least not compared to the amount of time and effort that those editors devoted to their articles.
The generally negative tone of the reply above is very similar to what I've seen by you in different venues when similar points are brought up by other editors. Consider this: had the appropriate amount of time been invested on research for this article, and for that matter any article before it was taken to FAC, this point wouldn't keep being raised by reviewers. The same is true for article prose on some of the other FACs in the past; the more time is spent refining it, the less it will be an issue come FAC time. – TMF 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki - ask people for help. If you don't have access to a particular source, perhaps someone else does. Why don't you try asking around? The solution is not to refuse to do the work, but to find a way to solve the problem. Leave a message on the FAC talk page or on the talk pages of editors who live in Rhode Island and who might have access to the archives of that particular paper. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange for help in finding sources, pictures, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I've done as much as I physically can without using the suggested parts of Wikipedia, which I will doubt work anyway. Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose (on comprehensiveness) stands until off-line sources have been consulted. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 23 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rhode_Island_Route_4/archive1&oldid=1140156620"