Talk:400-series highways/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 00:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article is better now. The issues with the article are a few AmE words (program and -ization), a gallery (try to move to Commons), and a few incited paragraphs. I'll tag the last issue with "cn" tags soon. Thanks for coming back, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English uses -ization in many cases to the best of my knowledge. I've removed the gallery, I never liked it myself. As for the citations, I feel the Network section uses summary style and is best left as is (plus it would take me forever to copy them over from each article). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I'll be passing soon. Thanks for coming back to this review. I'll be removing the cn tags soon. Thanks again,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment, but summary style doesn't negate our citation practices. If it needs a citation in the original article, and it's repeated in the summary, it needs a citation here as well. Imzadi 1979 → 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance of policies of the highways WikiProject. @Floydian: It appears that you need to add citations to those sections that you mention that didn't need citations due to summary style.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): that's not a WikiProject Highways thing, it's an English Wikipedia thing. As I said, if it needs a citation in the original article, it needs a citation in a summary posted in another article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I've elected to try the table option suggested by Imzadi. Since this article merely repeated the lede of each article, no information is lost. I still need to fill in more info on said table, as well as add source(s) to the second paragraph of the Design standards section, but we're inching closer! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Tomandjerry211 (alt), Floydian, where does this stand? There hasn't been a comment here since New Year's Day, and neither of you have edited on Wikipedia yet in February, but it would be nice to be able to wrap this up soon. Please drop by on your return and let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): I'm back with computer access. Besides the table (which I will get to promptly) and second paragraphy of the Design standards section, can you point out any glaringly obvious issues you'd like resolved? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211: on main account. --Rs chen 7754 01:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211, Tomandjerry211 (alt), and Floydian: as this has a table now, it looks and feels like a list and not an article because the core purpose is to list the 400-series highways. As such, I'd say it's not eligible to be a GA. I would support this for promotion at WP:FLC though after it were polished off a bit more to that level. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, even though it's a bit prosy.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good FL has a decent amount of prose to introduce and explain the topic being listed. List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan skews a bit less prosy than this only because there are so many entries in the table. List of Interstate Highways in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway are two other FLs that are closer to this in terms of list entry counts, and while they're not quite as prosy, they still have enough for comparisons, more so the latter as it also works to define the concept behind a particular roadway classification. Imzadi 1979 → 21:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a point I just remembered that I wanted to make after I hit save, but I guess to me the other example for comparison is Business routes of U.S. Route 127 in Michigan versus List of U.S. Highways in Michigan. The prose content there is unique in the encyclopedia; these aren't summaries of other articles being listed together. The list has a table that summarizes the data about several highways, as this page does now, and it links out to other articles for the expanded content. It also has an overall summary of the topic in terms of defining what a U.S. Highway is and the history of them in the state. In that list and this one, the point is to give readers an overview and point them to specific articles for the details. When it comes to the various business routes, they're lumped together in "listicles", or merged into the parent highway articles, because they are borderline in terms of notability. Imzadi 1979 → 21:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the comparison you've used of unique content vs. summarizations. I agree with this and formally withdraw this GAN. Thanks T&J. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing per withdraw request of Floydian, since Tomandjerry211 (alt) isn't around much and might not see this for some time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing it for me.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]