Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Utah State Route 103/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 User:Karanacs 19:36, 30 September 2008 [1].

Utah State Route 103

[edit]
Nominator(s): Admrboltz (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because even though it is short, the route is less than a quarter mile long, and is as comprehensive as it can get. The article passed its GA as well as WikiProject ACR, and has went through a PR as well, and I think the article is ready. Admrboltz (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

392 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad or good? Just wondering what this has to do with anything. CL — 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree when there are no photos at all - for once one could get a whole road into one photo, but we don't have it. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, you are correct Fasach Nua (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mainly on grounds of size. Some (not me) would call this a stub. A more in depth treatment could be envisaged, not that I am asking for one. It doesn't say how many lanes it has & there are no photos. No details of when construction approved, who designed or built it, & so on. But really there has to be a floor under which FA cannot go. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific component of the Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria that this article fails to meet? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That oppose is not actionable. Length is not part of WP:WIAFA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of actionable points made. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But according to this statement, mainly on grounds of size, those points were not what prompted you to oppose. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposing, and have given several actionable reasons. Your dictionary will tell you that "mainly" and "solely" are not synonymns. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length is not part of the FA criteria in any way, which means opposing "mainly" because of length is just as bad as opposing "solely" because of it. However, your concerns about comprehensiveness are legitimate, and can indeed warrant an oppose. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also fails criterion 3 on illustration. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox contains two images; one of the shield and another of the map. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely reasonable to expect at least one photo in an FA, especially given the point I made above. The article is very unclear as to what the road runs through. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the route description is for. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← I have added the lane information to the article, a photo has been requested via template on the talk page, as well as a local in the area. I have emailed the Utah Department of Transportation for information on the original construction approval. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose primarily based on sourcing. I consider the Utah Department of Transportation to be essentially a primary source for a road in Utah. That means the entire article is based on primary sources. Has the road been mentioned in any newspaper (even when it was first built)? Any road-specific magazine/journal/conference? The prose is also not quite up to snuff. The shorter an article is, the better the prose must be (because it is a lot harder to overlook one awkward sentence if there are 5999 other sentences than if there are only 50). Karanacs (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will attempt to locate secondary sources, but could you be more specific on prose issues. This article was PRed, but if you still see issues, please point them out so I can address them. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • examples of prose issues
        • There is a lot of passive voice: "An access gate located in the middle of the roadway serves as the eastern terminus" insead of "The eastern terminus is an ..."
        • Comma issues: " An access gate located in the middle of the roadway serves as the eastern terminus, and only grants access to authorized Hill Air Force Base personnel" - comma used when both sides are complete sentences but not otherwise
        • Some sentences are overly long and awkward (see fist sentence of history section)
        • The last two sections of history don't flow well together

Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per my reasoning at a couple (or soon to be a couple) short FAs, due to comprehensiveness concerns. There's so little content as to make it impossible for the article to meet WP:LEAD and still have content left for the rest of the article. Where's the context about why the route was even planned to begin with, et al? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On WP:LEAD, "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." -- I find that my lead does do this. It summarizes pretty much everything but AADT, which isn't all that interesting, but makes the article complete. The route was created along with the Interstate, so that the people on the interstate can access the base. Presumably the US Route could do this before any sort of rerouting. (though I can not confirm this on any map as the route is so short. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — What is this article lacking that M-28 (Michigan highway) or M-35 (Michigan highway) have given that the latter are 290.46 and 127.99 miles in length, respectively? All three have descriptions of the highway, complete with termini, traffic counts and the like. All three have their histories detailed. All three even have tables of the major junctions, which in the case of SR 103 actually has a junction with another state highway that isn't at its termini, unlike say M-553 (Michigan highway) at 19.6 miles. The two Michigan examples happen to be longer, so therefore have more route to describe. They've been around as state trunkline highways since 1919 so have longer histories, with M-35 having a much more interesting connection to Henry Ford. SR 103 happens to be a short road, but it is important enough to be designated as part of the state highway system in Utah. It has a historical connection to the creation of the Interstates in the area and a military base. As such it has notability. It has been said quite a few times that if an article can survive an AfD, it can be an FA. There is nothing in WP:WIAFA that has a minimum length requirement. This article scales well for the size of the subject matter compared to other highways that have FAs written about them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - instead of pointing at all the WP:WIAFA bullets, consider if you really believe this to "exemplif[y] our very best work". I think not. I would be embarrassed if this was to considered good enough to feature on the mainpage. In fact, the mainpage summary would probably contain 95% of the readable prose. More specifically, it is poorly illustrated (while the map may mean something who knows what Utah looks like, it's meaningless otherwise), has MOS breaches (WP:DASH for instance), three red links (yeah yeah, not part of the criteria, but please - the article can't have taken long to write so please fix that), the prose is far from engaging ("The route has been mostly unchanged since its formation, except for the name of the road that the highway is on." - yuck - "Three percent of this traffic was composed of trucks." yawn), the prose contains POV ("...the important function..."), date linking should be deprecated, a good proportion of the History (of, let's not forget, Utah State Route 103) talks about Hill Air Force Base. A number of the supports above seem to be pointy as these are basic issues that, beyond the size bone of contention, should be picked up. Once again, is this Wikipedia's "very best work"? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I withdraw this nomination. I brought this article here for critical commentary, not a bashing of my work. My article didn't even last long enough for Tony1 (talk · contribs) to challenge point 1a, which he has on almost every WP:USRD article that has come through. I was reulctant to bring this article to FAC, but after it passing GA, passing A-class review, as well as going through a WP:PR from Yohhans (talk · contribs), who says the article was "top-notch".

I knew there were problems when SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) noted how many words were in the article. At this time, I popped over to WT:FAC to find to my dismay that short articles and found "Short articles like these are what GA is for, as they can hardly represent Wikipedia's best work". I went to ask Sandy on her talk page if I shot myself in the foot and she didn't know. CountyLemonade (talk · contribs) had a point, SR-97 needs an article, the red link looks bad.

I want to thank my supporters, even if they are a bit POINTy. Only one voter was from USRD, Julian came in to defend the lack of picutures (which have been questioned since its GAN), but he never voted. Johnbod (talk · contribs) was right, there was some information I neglected to include, and I told him I would contact UDOT for the info, but JC and John got into a back and forth because John was "The article is very unclear as to what the road runs through", and JC was correct, that is what the route description is for. I added a mid-point {{coord}} as requested, but then the requester said they didn't want it.

Karanacs (talk · contribs) had a good point, there are no secondary sources, which I had never thought of. I attempted to locate newspaper articles through the EBSCO database, KSL.com, Salt Lake Tribune, Newsbank (which searches: The Deseret News, The Hearld Journal, The Spectrum and the Standard-Examiner (the local paper of the area)). Google news also had nothing to say. If anything, I 100% agreed with Karanacs' oppose.

thedemonhog (talk · contribs) offended me, he didn't even read the article. It's not like WP:TLDR, cause its not long! Why should I merge an A-class/GA article into other articles? David Fuchs (talk · contribs) had concerns regarding the WP:LEAD, but as I stated, I found it was just fine, as the lead of the lead page says "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." which it did.

Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) was my lone WP:USRD member who voted, and even if it was a bit POINTy, he has a point, there is nothing in what a FA should be that says it must be x words long. It is essentially the same as all the other USRD FAs out there, just scaled down to a road that isnt even a quarter-mile long.

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) said he would be "embarrassed" to call this featured. I understand his concerns regarding the map, and maybe WP:USRD/MTF needs to work on maybe including a full state map in a corner for reference. WP:MOSDASH, I don't see the issue. If it is because I-15 isnt I–15, take it up with WP:USRD as that is the current standard. "Yuck" and "yawn" seem very condescending when trying to give critical review to an editor. "Important function" was specifically added by my PRer "If you're providing context for why the road is so important, state as much. Otherwise, it just looks like a random fact." "Date linking should be deprecated", TRM didn't obviously read the article very well as there are no linked dates except for in cite.php, which are still OK per the MoS. The Hill AFB info in the history is to show why the route is important, the road is 45 years old, and has been repaved a few times, thats it. If I were to cut out Hill AFB, there would be a very short history section... --Admrboltz (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to respond before the nom is closed...
"0.080-0.174" - en dash required.
Engaging prose means if I find something boring or badly phrased, I'll call a spade a spade - sorry if you found it condescending.
Why would you date link the citations? I read the article three times - it didn't take long - there's no need to link dates in citations any more.
"If I were to cut out Hill AFB, there would be a very short history section." - exactly the point.
It's not Wikipedia's very best work, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be practical: it's highly likely that a lower limit to word length will soon be imposed on nominations. This needs recasting as a merged article or one with larger scope. Tony (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (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/Utah_State_Route_103/archive1&oldid=1078809060"