Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Testing the code

I assume we want to start with a small WP? That way if things get messed up it's not as bad to fix. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma has about 70 pages right now, not sure if that's small enough or not. I'd want someone else to rate them anyway, as I've written the majority of them and so don't want to have a conflict of interest. —Scott5114↗ 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm working on WP:ILSR at the moment. The hard part was figuring out which categories to set up, and thankfully, that only needs to be done once, ever. It's a good thing there's preview, and a lot of code in <pre> sections. —Rob (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Does the bot work? And which templates have been modified? I created U.S. Route 101 Alternate (Washington) and U.S. Route 97 Alternate (Washington) and rated them as stub class, let's see if the bot finds it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea about the conflict of interest... I'm rating mine mostly Start or B-class anyways. Some stubs. Yes, it all works, but the updates happen once a day at about 0300 UTC and are done by a bot. —Rob (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The bot found the WI articles. I've been rating most of them as stubs as they only have about 3-5 lines and an infobox. A bunch at the beginning are starts and a couple are Bs. --master_sonLets talk 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the rating feature to Template:NC State Highways WikiProject for WP:NCSH, but I'm not rating anything until the admins at WP:SRNC accept our convention. --TinMan 03:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of the naming poll...

Let's not assess any state that could get their convention changed until they've moved, since the page moves will mess up the system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, Wisconsin got added. What do we do now? Manually delete the entries before we move the articles? Illinois is probably fine to do, and so is Michigan, and Maryland and Minnesota too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You have me to thank - I mean yell at - for that. I thought about that before doing so - I do not think it will affect anything outside the log, and the bot should recognize (see ROB's comment below) --master_sonLets talk 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it'll break the system, as it's completely automated. The log might reflect the renaming of articles, that's about it. I'm in particular a fan of rating as many as I can get around to. —Rob (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I just rated Iowa, which has a proposed change ... oh well :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Importance

I have implemented the importance portion of the assessment scale to the Texas articles. The appropriate categories and subcategories have been created: Category:U.S. road transport articles by importance --Holderca1 19:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Split

As this grows and spreads to the other projects, there is going to be a huge amount of articles involved. I recommend that these be split into subcategories. This will help keep the categories to a reasonable size and will help those of a particular project find their articles. As long as they are subcats of the main category, it will not affect the total count on the assessment graphic. --Holderca1 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I figured out a way to make this work both ways, I have the article go into two seperate categories, one for US Roads, which is counted by the bot towards the assessment, and one for Texas highways, so it is easier to find the articles within a state project. --Holderca1 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

Isn't the whole idea of "rating" an article POV? Espcially considering what you might consider A-class I consider a lousy stub? Seems a pointless waste of our rescources that could be better spent on writing articles. Gateman1997 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can't rate anything above a B without going through a peer review process and being granted a higher rating. So no, I don't see any POV involved. --Holderca1 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but that still doesn't answer my point about how is this not POV to "rate" an article. Is the rating not subjective? Is subjectivity not inherently POV? Just seems like a waste of resouces and time to me that would be better spent writing articles. Gateman1997 01:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, because you haven't made your point clear. One person doesn't rate an article, maybe you should look into the process for peer review, GA nominations, FA nominations before you discount it entirely. In my opinion quality trumps quantity. But if you prefer "lousy stubs" over quality articles, that is your business. Also, WP:NPOV only applies to articles, so the policy does not apply here anyway. --Holderca1 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I rate articles depending on the mood I am in, but it can be changed and modified by other users. Comments can be left too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Another thing to add on to this, if you find an article is rated a B class, but you think it is a start class, by all means demote it. Ensure that you put comments on the talk page as to what you think this article needs to justify its rating. But what one thinks is good and bad is totally up to the person, for example, I will not put an article up for GA nomination before it has a map and pictures. But that is just me. --Holderca1 16:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

NA comments

Credit to User:Alai for resolving the issue regarding pages classified as non-articles having comments. However, the new code that he posted on the project page attached to this didn't make it to all of the WikiProject templates. So if your state hasn't fixed yours, please fix it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stub categories getting overwhelmed

Some editors do not like to ever take out articles out of stub categories. Even when they get big. They actively fight to keep the stub tag in there. A stub is a short article. As per WP:Stub if the total length exceeds ten sentences, it is not a stub unless it is a complicated topics. Roads are not complicated! --- Skapur 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stubs and stub classifications are not the same thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object if...

I used AWB to assess the stub articles (with stub templates and all) as stubs? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance scale

Do we want to set up the importance scale relative to the whole nation (Interstates have high importance, U.S. routes and important state have mid-importance, and low-importance state and county routes have low-importance) or do we want the scale relative to each subproject (important routes have high importance, and so on down the scale)? I'd prefer having it by a project-by-project basis, so that I can look at the worklist and have the status of OK-3, 9, 11, 33, and 51 (and others) at the top of the list, followed by other, lower-importance routes. I'd like everyone else's opinion, though. —Scott5114↗ 20:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer consistency so that the system is easier to understand (so the system does not switch when you go to another WikiProject). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
This would still be consistent, it's merely the scope that's different (i.e. highways are graded as important if they are important to the project they belong to, rather than to the nation as a whole.) I think Texas is using this method currently, Texas State Highway Beltway 8 is currently High-importance. —Scott5114↗ 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's hard for an out-of-stater to rate importance-that's a concern, especially if the local SH WP does not want to work at rating. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally, the importance scale should be constant across all WPs (relative to the U.S. as a whole), as this is the U.S. Roads assessment system. Now, if each project had its own assessment system, that'd be a different story. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
But if it's the "U.S. Roads" assessment system, why is it being put in the state WP tag on the talk page? It just seems pointless to me to "rate" importance when we're not actually rating at all – the only thing being taken into account is what class of highway it is, which is easy enough to see from the title of the article.
It seems odd to me that CR 527 and CR 537 in New Jersey are rated low-importance when they span the entire state, while NJ 13 is rated mid-importance when it's half a mile long, unsigned, and no one knows it exists. -- NORTH talk 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this is the US Roads assessment system, this is being rated in accordance to its importance with the rest of the country. Low is for county routes and Mid is for state routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't answer my question. If it's a "U.S. Roads" assessment system, why is it being put in a tag for the state wikiproject. Alternatively, if someone from the state wikiproject comes along and notices an "incorrect" assessment (i.e. the one above), can they change it, or will it just be reverted?
Also, my second question... what's the point of rating them if all the rating is doing is saying what class of highway it is? -- NORTH talk 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Since that's the only highways WP tag on there... also such changes will be reverted.
The point is so that we can see how urgently the article needs to be revised and edited at a glance. This way, we can see how an individual project is doing and how we are doing as a whole. WP:1.0 also uses this data as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But see, that's the problem. CR 527 needs far more urgent attention than NJ 13. Assessing them arbitrarily like this is pointless. It might be good as a starting point, but if you can't allow someone with more knowledge about the individual roads to tweak it, then the system's completely bogus. -- NORTH talk 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the Texas WP was first subproject to rate importance, so I will provide input on what we have been doing. What we did was put each class of highways at a minimum importance level (i.e. Interstates = high, U.S. and State = mid, Farm/Ranch = low). Now these are the minimum, nothing is stopping it from being promoted to a higher importance, for example, Texas State Highway Beltway 8 would of been a mid importance article, but since it is a major freeway in the Houston metro area, it was promoted to High importance. I also take exception to "also such changes will be reverted." I would think someone within the subproject would know a heck of a lot more about an articles importance than someone unfamiliar with the state's highways. --Holderca1 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Rcshen knows I'm not for ratings or assessments, but if you're going to do them they shouldn't just be static based on an article's subject. They should reflect the true status of both that hwy and the article. And they should definitely earn promotion if someone with more intimate knowledge thinks they should be promoted or if the article improves to a point warranting it. Gateman1997 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

On the Texas WP template, the row displaying the importance rating reads, "This article has been rated as **-importance within WikiProject Texas State Highways." This is fine as the articles are fed into a Texas state highway importance cat. The problem is that the articles are also fed into the U.S. road importance category. As discussed above, the rating for an article within a project and its rating on a national level is not equivalent. Question is, what should be done? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The importance rating in Texas follows the above convention for the most part, Interstates are rated High, US and State highways are rated Mid, and Farm/Ranch to Market Roads are rated Low. With the exception here and there for the more important roads such as the Beltway in Houston as mentioned above is bumped up to High importance. --Holderca1 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Part 3

Where do bannered routes (like New York State Route 52 Business) fall on the importance scale? Are they rated the same as their banner-less parent (New York State Route 52) or are they bumped down a notch? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are all Interstates high but all U.S. Highways mid?

U.S. Route 50 seems somewhat more important than Interstate 180 (Wyoming); why is the latter higher importance than the former? Should it be? --NE2 10:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that importance ratings should not be tied to highway system class. See also the discussion in the section above. The current system is good as a starting point but editors familiar with how a specific highway is actually used should be allowed to change these ratings without being reverted. My view is that importance is related to how necessary is it for an encyclopedia to have articles on this specific road. Some county highways might be more important than some very short interstate highways because of the way they are viewed by the community or by their treatment in secondary sources. --Polaron | Talk 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The system that is currently in place was designed so that we would be able to give quick and dirty assessments to every article. Now that every article, at least ones with a quality assessment, has been assessed in importance in one way or another, I do agree that the system is quite flawed. As another argument to support the two above, Interstate 315, an unsigned interstate, is ranked the same as Interstate 95 and higher than U.S. Route 1. One notable exception exists to the current system: U.S. Route 66 is ranked as Top-importance.
The question is then what should the criteria be for the lower three classes? Remember, due to the setup of the assessment system, the criteria must consider the importance of the road on a national scale. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to say that if even a part of a road is on the National Highway System, then it needs to be at least High-importance, because almost all tractor-trailers are limited to them. Because of the tractor-trailer restriction, more truckers (I think) will probably be looking at the NHS roads a lot more. (→vishwin60 - new age roads) 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a summary of what was discussed on IRC (not for authoritative discussion, but to develop ideas):
  • NHS roadways should be high-imp. only if they are expressways, freeways or limited-access. Alternatively, major routes that are part of the NHS (like NY 5) are high-imp. Other routes are mid-imp.
  • By default, state highways are mid-imp.
  • Coast-to-coast highways are high-imp. Border-to-border was undiscussed, but these could probably be high-imp as well.
  • County routes and bannered routes should almost always be low-imp., except in rare occasions like US 90 Business in New Orleans, CR 97 in Suffolk County, New York (expressway with an SPUI interchange), and CR 522 in Osceola County, Florida (tolled expressway).
  • Top-imp. was undiscussed. Most likely, it would remain the same.
Further comments are welcome. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, agree that border to border should be high as well, don't want to be biased towards east-west highways. :) --Holderca1 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I-5 is only north-south border to border Interstate... Interstate 95 would be Mid under this system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but I don't think the border-to-border and coast-to-coast guidelines are meant to be taken literally with no exceptions. There should be some flexibility in there, as U.S. Route 6 is, in my view, a coast-to-coast route although it ends in eastern California. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I-95 would be a border to coast highway, since it doesn't have a southern border to even go to, lets use a little common sense on this. Lets not forget I-75 which is similar to I-95, they both hit the Canadian border and the only way they can go any further south is if they build a bridge to Cuba. I-15 just misses it by 20 miles and I-35 misses it by about a hundred miles. That is close enough in my book, since the west-east coast to coast highways don't all go right up to the waters edge. One such example is I-90, it ends about a hundred miles east of the Pacific. --Holderca1 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to have a list of NHS routes handy. I would imagine that NHS routes are pretty high in number so I would question some of the smaller ones. Plus, a state highway that's not on the NHS that runs concurrent with a NHS route is considered on the NHS for that duration (i.e. WIS 23 and I-39 (WI)/US 51. To get consideration for this I would strongly suggest a route be NHS for the entire route at minimum. 3d interstates should be mid-importance - unless that 3di is a vital link in the system (say NY's I-390, PA's I-476 (NE Ext PA Tpk) or maybe even I-294 (Tri-State Tollway) around Chicago). At minimum I would say Interstates 5, 15, 25, 35, 55, 65, 75 and 95 for north-south and 10, 20, 30, 40, 70, 80 and 90 for E-W routes are high in my book. I-85 is too short and a diagonal route, I-25 maybe could be on it. US routes stand a good chance of having high importance if they don't follow interstates too much or are NHS routes (I think most US Routes are) (US 93 would be a nice example here). master sonT - C 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that all interstates are NHS routes, including 3di. --Holderca1 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The FHWA has maps of the NHS. I looked at Virginia and it seems to be a reasonable system of main roads, most of them four-lane divided, at least outside urban areas. I don't think we should include the "Major STRAHNET Connectors" or "Intermodal Connectors"; those are spurs to military facilities and intermodal transportation facilities. --NE2 11:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had found the maps, but I couldn't find a listing anywhere, that would make it easier. --Holderca1 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That was a concern I had in the back of my mind regarding using the NHS as one of the factors determining a route's importance. Perhaps the NHS isn't the best way to go. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, should we make a list of roads in the National Highway System, or is this too "crufty" for the encyclopedia? I'm going to start at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/NHS. --NE2 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do a list, a cat would probably be more appropriate. --Holderca1 12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A cat would have many pages (as in many hundreds of articles) and would not make it clear which portion is NHS. I think, if we are to have something listing the NHS, a list would be better. --NE2 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

New importance system

As an extension of the last section, and an attempt to make discussion more organized, I'm going to break this down by importance level. Ideas for what should be in each section are welcome, and comments on those ideas are welcomed as well. Once we get enough ideas on what should be in each section, we can start hammering out the details.

I know some of you already expressed your opinions above, but if you could repost them here, that'd be great. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Top

High

Mid

Low

Other

  • What about bridges, tunnels, and ferries? Auto trails? "Foo in state" articles? Historic turnpikes? Named interchanges? --NE2 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Bridges, tunnels, ferries: low, except for extreme cases (Woodrow Wilson Bridge comes to mind). Auto trails, state detail articles, turnpikes: varies by road. Interchanges: mostly low. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment

It takes forever to get something reassessed because nobody really checks the reassessment page. Would anybody object to doing away with it? As a replacement we could just remove the old rating when you want it reassessed, so that it shows up with other unassessed articles.—Scott5114↗ 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There is now a separate talk page parameter for reassessment. See {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}}. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List-Class and importance

For those who haven't noticed, the assessment bot now counts the number of List-Class articles. This is not an issue - the issue is that the bot (and probably WP:1.0 by extension) assumes that List-Class articles have an importance tacked to them as well. Since (IMO) List-Class was partially implemented to circumvent this issue, that poses a bit of a, well, issue. A couple approaches could be taken: we could (1) ignore it and run with the status quo or (2) implement importance using a system totally distinct from the one for articles. Which one is best? I believe #2 is for the sake of cleanliness on the table; what everyone else thinks, I dunno. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it appears that no one has an opinion on the issue, I'll enable importance on List-Class. For the scale, we could probably just use the article system "plus one" - lists of state highways would be high-imp., lists of national systems would be top-imp., etc. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

State level assessment

Where is stats for assessment located for individual states? --Son 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:USRD/A/S - note that the table may be out of date at times (depending on how often it's updated by parsing the cats) and that states without their own categories will have no statistics. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessing one's own articles?

I have operated under the assumption that assessing (or re-assessing) an article where one has been a contributor would be a Conflict of Interest. Is this correct? or is this considered not a sufficiently formal process to be a concern? Either way the project page should state the policy, IMO. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's discouraged, but we're not going to bite your head off for doing it if you upgrade it properly. Best practice is to have someone else reassess it - you can get it done in minutes if IRC's got people in it by saying the magic words "reassessment bell" there and providing a link to the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with it since the highest you can rate something on your own is "B-Class," anything higher has to go through a review process. As far as rating something a stub, start or B-class. If it is extremely short, maybe only a paragraph or so, mark it as a stub. If it has a history and route description section (at least a paragraph each) and a complete junction/exit list, mark as a B-class, anything in between should be a start-class. Personally I see rating up to a B-class as being based on completeness more than anything. --Holderca1 talk 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, For the record, I've got about 7 or 8 articles that I've expanded and tagged for re-assessment. The all were stubs, now either start or B. For now I'd prefer someone else rank them, I'm still a newbie to the process. Software conflicts are preventing me from using IRC right now. It's on my get around to it list.Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohio SR 732

I think that Ohio Route 732 is far more than a stub. It describes the major intersections and sites of interest served by this road. It is also illustrated with several more pictures on the way. A cursory look at Google Earth shows the information to be correct and descriptive. Marqqq (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Marqqq

For anyone interested, see Talk:Ohio State Route 732/Comments. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina Highway 42 & North Carolina Highway 98

I assume this is where I should list these articles. I just tagged them with the appropriate projects. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can list them here if you want, but as long as they've been tagged with the USRD project banner, someone who frequents the unassessed categories will assess them within a few days. Unlike some of the larger projects, there is no assessment backlog that I know of at USRD (at least not since assessment was first launched). – TMF 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the new article bot has been golden. --Holderca1 talk 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

C Class

Hey, This page still has not been updated to reflect the new C class rating. Would someone who can recite what was decided upon a while back please update this page? Some of us would actually like to use it as a guide =-) I'm not trying to be a smart@#$%, just have a poor memory. Dave (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 55 in Illinois

Could someone get an assessment of it? RockManQ (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Speed limits in the United States

I understand that this article is unlike 99 percent of the articles here. It is a large and older article that has yet to be included in a project. It is thus unassessed. I included this article in this project because it purports to be "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States" and because this information is strongly related to highways in the United States. I also included it in the law project. Is this article within the scope of this project? Synchronism (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though some may disagree. --NE2 23:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to see this article be improved and I think assessment is a good step to take in that direction. I guess I can assume that if there are no voiced objections to its inclusion it will be assessed. :)Synchronism (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Colorado State Highway 22

Although this article was short when assessed, it has been improved. Are normal users allowed to change assessments or must it be decided by an administrator? Pzoxicuvybtnrm 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no limitation on who assesses an article, although it is general discouraged to reassess your own, it's not against any rules either. (Especially if there is logic fairly applied to the reassessment, such as "C-class, has all big 3 sections") Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub class guidelines

The page is incorrect regarding the a currently accepted method to assess articles, and I think I know why. This usual practice is that a stub article has all of the content of an article indistinguishable from the lead, or one separate section created that's separate from the lead. A start article has a second section started and separated from the lead. A C-class has the third of the big three separated out, where the big three are route description, history and the junction list. A B-class has all of the sections fully formed, although further expansion is always possible even on Featured Articles. A B-class article should have citations in place as needed and be ready for GAN with some copy-editing for quality. Up through B-class, articles are typically assessed based the quantity of content, and above B-class they are assessed on the quality of the content.

What this guideline is saying in the summary section is that the RD or History section is sufficient to gain start-class. The error there is that this is assuming that a junction list is present, which would make two of the big three sections present. Since C-Class was introduced, most of us have been operating under the scheme I explained above. The reasoning being is that if an article only has an RD or History section (and no junction list) then the entire content of the article can be collapsed into the lead, making the section subdivision meaningless compared to a division between two actual sections and the summary in the lead of the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

[1] - this has been discussed before, and the page is thus correct. --Rschen7754 04:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That discussion was two years ago. I think that practice has evolved and changed from what this page says, and the page should be modified to comply with how we some of us are actually doing things. That's why I started this discussion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Expounding my thoughts further, There's a difference between stub templates and stub-class, as we should all know. The concept is that the stub template is related to the level of organization of the article. An article can be organized well enough to remove the stub template, but still be stub-class based on content. My thoughts are that an article that has no subsections is a stub. An article that has all of the Big 3 sections is a C-class article. To be B-class would require the sections be substantially complete and properly referenced. I think that's a starting point where we all all agree.
Articles may have a single subsection started, but that doesn't merit the upgrade to Start-Class, in my mind. Under the way this is written, simply starting either the RD or the History section is enough to bump an article to Start, but a junction list is not. A single subsection can be collapsed back into the lead by removing the line that creates the heading. Those four equal signs and a bit of text between them then is the only organizational difference between a stub-class and a start-class article. A proper lead section can't summarize a single section, which negates a bit of the purpose in having that heading to divide the article. The junction list, at its core, is an expansion of the same section of the infobox, which is a component of the lead. (And no, infoboxes are not required for articles anywhere except by the project, they are just very common. A roads article could pass FAC without one.) Just like the junction list expands in greater detail the section of the infobox, so too should the RD or the History sections expand upon the summary of the subject in the lead.
Ok, so the proposal: simplify the summary on this page. Stub=0 or 1 of the Big 3, Start=2, C=3, B=3 completed sections. Articles that don't fit the standard mold, like those that won't have junction lists, should have a discussion on their talk pages, or another appropriate forum linked to the talk pages, to discuss the appropriate assessment. Articles that have other sections, like Tolls, Services, Future should have those weighted in the assessment in favor of bumping up above the standard assessment based on the number of Big 3 sections, depending on the level of development of the sections. One-sentence sections, without appropriate justification for a lack of content, should not be counted in assessing articles.
The reason for my proposal is to have a measure of objectivity and consistency on the lower end of the scale. In practice, B-class has become the dividing point on the scale where quantity of information and basic organization stop determining assessment, and the quality of the information and the quality of the organization start to control the assessment rating. Especially with the drive to expand the stub-class articles to reduce the stub count by half this year, I think we need to make sure we're on the same page regarding some of these assessments. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What was eventually decided on this issue? --Rschen7754 04:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What's being used in practice now is basically what Imzadi outlined in the reply above: stub if it has just a lead or a lead plus one of the "big three", regardless of which of the three it is; start for a lead plus two of the three; C for a lead plus all three in some form; and B for a lead plus all three complete and referenced. If an article has all three sections completed but one or more is unreferenced, it's C; likewise, if all three are referenced but one or more is incomplete, it's C. There's some interpretation involved, though, as some articles with all three sections but with one woefully underdeveloped (such as a one sentence history) have been assessed one level lower than it would be otherwise. – TMF 06:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I should note that no consensus, either formal or in practice, was ever reached on the issue of how other, non-big three sections (like Future or Suffixed routes) affect how an article is assessed. I don't factor them in if an article has them; some others might, though. – TMF 06:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Could the page be updated then? --Rschen7754 06:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I took a shot at doing it. About the only thing that isn't covered is the practice of "downgrading" an article based on a grossly underdeveloped section, but I wasn't sure of the best way to include it in. – TMF 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

listas

It might be worthwhile to consider using the listas parameter in the assessments? While looking at the list of roads by state in Category:Top-importance U.S. road transport articles it would have been nice to see the lists by state. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Utah assessment help

I'm not really sure whether the following articles are B or C class. Could some people please look over the articles and comment if their current assessments should be changed? --Rschen7754 04:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently B

Currently C

I have gone through the articles and made some assessment changes where necessary. Dough4872 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as there are no further objections I'm considering the UT audit done. --Rschen7754 02:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

National articles

This is what should be checked for the "National articles" entry on WP:USRD/A/SA:

Some auto trails, Interstate Highways, and U.S. Highways may have already been checked if they're also tagged with a state. These ones could probably be skipped; however, it might be worth rechecking them to make sure they're correctly assessed. – TMF 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance by impartial editor

Hello: I am interested in improving some of the Puerto Rico road articles [2]. I worked on PR-10 and submitted it to a GA review 2 days ago [3]. Within a few hours of the submission an editor picked it up for a review but the article failed GA. No surprises here; this happens often. The reviewer indicated it also failed for B-class status. Upon contacting the reviewer with an interest to fix the article to achieve just a B-level mark, and interacting with him via several messages back and forth, I can sense a poor level of interest from him in working with me towards even this B-level goal. The interactions are turning into interactions with personal overtones [4], and this is not going to benefit anyone. I don't think we form a good team.

I am wondering if there is someone in this project who would be willing to work with me in a fashion that will focus in critizing my edits, not my person. If this is the case, my goal is to work on the few improvements the article might need to make it to B-class only. As I am very familiar with various aspects of this road, I am willing to do all the article-related work (research, write-up, etc,); I would just need someone from this US Roads project to perform a critical review of the article for B-class without incursions into unnecessary personal overtones. Anyone willing to help, please leave a message here and I will check back periodically. Thanks, My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Just a reply here so that the comments don't reflect only one side of the story. The article was assessed as C-Class under the USRD criteria at the time of the GA nomination, and it is still assessed at C-Class under the USRD criteria. The assessment I changed was in the WikiProject Puerto Rico banner, as I felt that the article did not meet at least one of the generic B-Class criteria. (It has an "obvious omission".) After a good night's sleep, I also felt that it didn't meet another one of the criteria (reasonably well-written), but B-Class requires that all 6 of the criteria to be met. Of course, the easiest answer to all of this is to address the GAN review. Doing that would grant the article GA-Class status, which is higher than B-Class. The editor above made comments on my talk page that, in my personal opinion, indicated that he wanted to discuss the situation ad inifnitum until I relented and just gave in. The editor has not even attempted to work on the article. The last edit made to the article was [5] at 00:43, September 24, 2010 . The GAN was reviewed between 01:00, September 24, 2010 when I opened the review page and 02:21, September 24, 2010 when I failed the GAN. I'd love to work with this editor on the prose quality, but he's complained about the criteria applied, and not worked on the article. The GAN feedback came in at 1,288 words and the article comes in at 1.847 words, and I skipped the RD for prose quality in the review which has similar issues to the lead and History sections. Like I said, he should have enough feedback to begin polishing the article to GA-Class level, not just B-Class. He could also engage the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, other editors, or myself to improve the writing quality of the article. I'd rather not argue about the things I can't change (the criteria) and instead discuss the things I can change (the article). Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! So you continue obsessed with carrying on and now are also following me around. I sense you just don't get it, so let me put it to you in these no uncertain terms: You and I cannot work together, our styles do not meet successfully, and it is necessary for us to part ways. Given this state of affairs, I came to this project page convinced, from prior interactions with other folks here, that there are other editors here with whom I can work. The idea in coming here is precisely to save you having to be involved further in the assessment of that article, and coming here, I was hoping, could reduce the potential of some form of confrontration between us.

Unfortunalety you appear obfuscated with wanting to be the only one who is able to assess the article, and that seems to be getting in the way of moving forward. My purpose in coming here was stated quite clearly in the section title, and I am not sure how you managed to miss that. That purpose is to get a response from someone other than yourself. Don't take this personal, some people just work better with others than others do. I am not sure how you are failing to see (and to accept) that. Somehow you seem to have found it offensive if you are bypassed. You need not find that offensive: it's one thing people do when there is an impasse. Let me be clearer then: your various GAN feedback/1,288 words/1.847 words tools have nothing to do with the problem at hand. The issue is that your style and mine clash; they are just not compatible. No offense, but I am not sure why after several comunications back and forth, you just don't seem able to get that into your head...and most importantly unable to register that the best course of action at this juncture is for you to remove yourself from the process of assessing this article. That's why I came to this page, please do not dissapoint me further by interferring.

Continuing in no uncertain terms, the idea right here, right now, is that you would voluntarily step aside and let someone else do the assesment of the article into B. That's what it means when it says "Request for assistance by impartial editor". It means you are out of the picture (but just temporarily,,, you can come back once this matter has been solved). Hopefully this time I have made my position clearer to you, and further explanations will not be necessary.

If you have a sense of teamwork you will now understand what I have been trying to tell you, and just let go on the PR-10 assessment. Maybe you will like it; maybe you won't. So, let me then make you an offer, now that you are here interfering with my attempt to get the article re-assessed by someone else. It is this: I hope I am wrong, but I sense you may just be control-driven, meaning the "my way, or the highway" type. If you are, then let me know, and I agree to go my way and leave you with the PR-10 assessment, to do as you wish: you won't have to deal with me anymore. I think that will work fine for both of us. What do you say?

Ah, but one last thing, do not revert the B assessment of the article within the -Puerto Rico- project again; not just will you be contributing from complicating matters further (as the GAN was not made within the scope of the Puerto Rico project), but, more importantly, the Puerto Rico B assessment had been previously done with the participation of the a full project team. No offense, but please do not mess with it, and do not revert those edits over there again. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Please take this somewhere else; personal attacks and assuming bad faith doesn't belong here. --Rschen7754 05:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the guidelines.

This is in response to a discussion raised on my own talk page. I work with WikiProject stub sorting. Recently the Category:Indiana road stubs category has come up severely undersized. When I first investigated and started tagging stub Indiana road articles as stubs, my edits were removed. A second attempt raised the discussion.

The gist of that discussion is that USRD claims to follow the WP Assessment Guidelines, but that you guys grade differently than many other projects. And there's the rub. Either you follow the WP guidelines, or you don't. And you don't.

According to your guidelines, an article, no matter how honestly stubby it is, that contains 2 of the "big 3" sections, automatically gets a "Start" class rating. Just having the big 3 sections, with a sentence or two under each, ranks as a C-class article. A review of the true guidelines shows that, an honest common-sense assessment, based on the WP guidelines could easily, in many cases, give no better than a "stub" rating to several of your C-class articles.

I was conservative in my tagging of the Indiana road articles, and found over 70 articles worthy of no higher rating than Stub class. Yet, because these had certain headers, and a table, each had been unjustifiably tagged as start class.

Please review your guidelines with common sense. Please review how they differ from the honest intent of the true WP assessment guidelines. Please review how your guidelines are being used to unjustifiably lift the grade of hundreds of honest stub and start class articles.

Again, if you say you use the WP assessment guidelines, please do. You need to apply common sense, not just automically grade based on irrelevant criteria.

Dawynn (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember, there is also a difference between Stub-Class and Stub. The former is an assessment, and the latter is a classification based on length. The two, while similarly named, are not directly connected. Other projects are free to assess articles differently than we do, and they do. Of note, these 75 articles are also on short highways, so some of the sections will necessarily be short compared to highways that span hundreds of miles. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have seen historical evidence of automatic bots changing the class for *all* projects tied to a particular article, based on the class of the highest-rated project. (So, if three projects mark the article as stubs, and one project marks it as C-class, the bot automatically upgrades all the projects to C-class) I don't know how active such bots are, but be aware that you may be unintentionally impacting other projects.
  • WPSS uses the assessment guidelines in determining what we tag as stubs. It is not strictly based on size.
My first attempt at tagging stub articles for Category:Indiana road stubs was met with Detcin removing my tags, claiming that the articles are not stubs (because of the altered grading system instituted by USRD). I have no personal problem with USRD grading articles however it prefers, if we can be allowed to tag articles that are honestly stubs as stubs. Dawynn (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have not seen such a bot operation in a very long time, if at all, and I'd oppose such a bot operation now if proposed simply because each project has varying criteria for assessment. As for Detcin's actions, that's totally separate. You'll notice that the 76 pages I edited were only the talk pages; I left the stub tags on the articles alone, because a stub tag on an article is based on length of the article, and our USRD assessment is based on structure and the content of the article relative to the length of the road and its location. Imzadi 1979 → 19:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I can cooperate with that judgment. Thank you for your understanding. Dawynn (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/Archive_1&oldid=1144736224"