Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wisconsin Highway 29/1
Appearance
- Result: Procedural close. Article has been reinserted in the nominations queue. Geometry guy 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I request reassessement of the recently failed Wisconsin Highway 29 article.
The reviewer failed the article stating the following: "I failed this, not because of any minor points like mileposts, but because the source for the history is not a reliable source. --NE2 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)" I request reassessment for the following reasons:
- He failed to tell me which source he believes is unreliable - since there are several sources in that section, leaving me to wonder what's going on.
- Though it is reviewer's discretion, an opportunity should be given to improve the page by finding a more reliable source if it was this one small matter.
- The reviewer regularly edits articles of this type and is a member of WikiProject U.S. Roads, thereby creating a Conflict of Interest
— master sonT - C 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Wisconsin Highways" is not a reliable source. I figured that would be clear; sorry. --NE2 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Changed — master sonT - C 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to need to get some additonal sources tonight — master sonT - C 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Though I'm making this correction this does not address items 2 and 3 yet. — master sonT - C 21:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This reassessment is closely related to the reassessment of Interstate 70 in Utah: the GA fail was a procedural mistake and a probable conflict of interest. However, as improvements are being made, others may want to propose listing this article. If they do not, I will restore it in its original place at GAN. I hope it will be fixed and listed! Geometry guy 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also New York State Route 174. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that one too. Geometry guy 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing although NE2's actions was not correct, I bothered fixing NY 174 and am gonna send it to GAN instead of relisting it. A review from a non-USRD may be better than just a listing.Mitch32contribs 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, although I may readjust the date and move it up the list, if that is okay with you. Geometry guy 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done (set for december 28).Mitch32contribs 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, although I may readjust the date and move it up the list, if that is okay with you. Geometry guy 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing although NE2's actions was not correct, I bothered fixing NY 174 and am gonna send it to GAN instead of relisting it. A review from a non-USRD may be better than just a listing.Mitch32contribs 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that one too. Geometry guy 23:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also New York State Route 174. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- This reassessment is closely related to the reassessment of Interstate 70 in Utah: the GA fail was a procedural mistake and a probable conflict of interest. However, as improvements are being made, others may want to propose listing this article. If they do not, I will restore it in its original place at GAN. I hope it will be fixed and listed! Geometry guy 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Do what you want. I thought I'd help but apparently that didn't happen. --NE2 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, you helped me find errors I didn't see. Mitch32contribs 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm closing this, now. I would note that the lead needs expansion to summarize the article adequately. Geometry guy 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)