Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:17, 1 December 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel I have fixed every (real) problem that was brought up at the last nomination and over two peer reviews. The article is not perfect and I'm sure some cool things could still be done to it, but they would only be navigational aids and not anything new content wise. Let me know if the images need adjusting, as I can fix those pretty quickly. I feel the redlinks to county roads without articles should be left, as they encourage the creation of those articles. However, if the choice between pass or fail comes down to redlinks, then I will remove some of them. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion with no votes placed
| ||
---|---|---|
Alright, I believe I've addressed all of the above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Restarted Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to reviewers Please revisit this FLC and a) clearly restate the remaining issues, if necessary, and b) if possible, make a succinct declaration (i.e., support, oppose, or neutral). Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, The list, as it is, has too many redlinks. --Fredddie™ 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would lean more towards support if the current list format is scrapped for a format similar to List of highways in Hamilton County, New York. --Fredddie™ 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Golbez
|
---|
Try this: {{Roadlink/KL|8}}. It's shorthand for a superimpose template. The only other parameter which can be changed is the left-right justification {{{x}}}. --Fredddie™ 05:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Still not ready to support. Too many unresolved comments.—Chris!c/t 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those comments are personally keeping you from supporting? So far the only unresolved comment seems to be the redlinks, and perhaps the image size (though I made the requested adjustments). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain they are, but I believe they are. You'll have to use your judgement or see what the posters say. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This list has too many major issues:
- There are not supposed to be citations in the lead unless that information is unique.
- There are large areas of uncited information in the prose portion of the list.
- The article has too many redlinks.
- Reference #4 appears to be a personal website and is probably not reliable.
- The article relies too heavily on Google Maps as a source. ---Dough4872 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.
- I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No citation in the lead was unique, so I've removed them. This lack of desire for citations in the lead directly contradicts the requirement for a sourced statement in the lead for DYK. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) What is in the prose that you find controversial and in need of a source?
- 3) Not part of the criteria, should be forbidden as a reason for opposition, but I am fixing this atm.
- 4) Looks can be deceiving. That website is run by a member of the MTO and is the only reliable source on the subject. They will be releasing a book within the next several months which I will source upon its release.
- 5) As stated before, google maps is for user convenience. Official MTO roadmaps are used for highways, and local maps used for county roads. I had an idea for fixing this which I will implement later tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:When_to_cite, not everything needs sources. Only information that is controversial or that may be challenged needs sourcing. Unlike the US, Canada does not have straight-line diagrams describing highways mile for mile, nor do many counties provide more than a simple diagram or list of their county roads. However, information such as how many lanes a highway has can be discovered on a variety of maps and by looking at satellite imagery. It may be slightly outdated at times, but that does not mean it can't verify the validity of the information. I feel I have sourced all of the information that could incur a genuine challenge, so if you'd like to point out specifics that you don't believe to be true, or information that you'd contest the validity of (without being a beaurocrat and contesting each and every sentence without a citation at the end), I'll try and find the most reliable source available on the information, otherwise you are effectively prohibiting all Canadian (or at least Ontario) roads from ever having the possibility of being a featured article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.
Could all reviewers please note the new set-up for referencing. All the Google Maps references are separated, and are exclusively used for the 1/10th of a kilometre accuracy for route lengths (whilst being supplemented by a reliable up-to-date 2010 paper atlas that I've measured using the scale and a digital caliper ruler). I have also updated many other refs (Such as the continuations into other regions) to the 2010 atlas. I also expect to make at least another 4 roads (4, 7, 9, 18) into articles within the next day or so. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have collapsed my earlier comments; I am going on a trip soon so may not be able to address responses, so I didn't want my oppose to weigh upon the deliberations. Switching to neutral for now. I still think the tables need smaller shields, but the work on fleshing out the redlinks is moving along. Also, at current, one of the refs is broken, giving a big red error at the bottom. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have now changed the way the shields are displayed in the left column. This should take care of the whitespace issue. Where once I could see a max of 8 at a time, I can now see up to 14. In addition, I've added {{nths}} to the two terminus columns, so that they now sort the highways and roads with numbered designations into order. The redlinks are also several magnitudes better than before. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Looks okay, but needs substantial work.
- Title is purely descriptive, and thus the boldfont in the first sentence should be killed.
- The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake. - Why link to Road 3 if it redirects to the same page...?
- The city of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that. - Out of place and quite off-topic for this article.
- The shields in the Secondary highways segment are so small that they contribute no additional value to the text; I suggest removing them, to be honest.
- Almost all of the citations are inconsistently formatted/need more info.
- The "Route Maps" thing is bizarre. Just cite Google Maps collectively and remove the dozens of ugly footnotes.
- Misplaced punctuation all over.
–Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the first two. The part regarding the Victoria County bit is important (on top of the fact of it being historical), as the article makes many references to the past roads, or to Victoria County roads that were replaced. As for the shields in the secondary highway section, they are the same size as in a junction list, and were mostly there to show the difference in their appearance, but I have removed them. I will not replacing the end footnotes to Google Maps, as each one is a link to a map of that route, and I hardly see that as an inconvenience or detrimental aspect. The punctuation and inconsistent citations I shall take a look at, but are there any places in particular that you feel need attention? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it necessary to cite an almost identical Google Maps source dozens of different times when you could simply list one neat and concise general source? As it is, the large block of Google Maps links isn't really visually appealing. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.
- My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Into a single reference to maps.google.ca? How absolutely useless would that be (its ok to go over 100% for this one)? I'd lose all of the information! Point noted, but disregarded. Those references will all be remaining, because I absolutely refuse to remove hordes of valuable information on the grounds that one editor finds it visually displeasing, probably based on dissimilar articles. They provide a visual accompaniment to what is otherwise a distance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.
To be quite honest, I'm going to restart this candidacy when it expires. Two of the opposes were from editors involved in a quarrel with me elsewhere on the project, and they have made a point of not returning to counter those votes despite me making the improvements they requested. Not to mention that the point of FLC's is back and forth communication. I'm aware the pending holidays play a role in this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your frustration, but as an FLC director, I respectfully ask you not to re-nominate, at least not immediately. The disagreements that have surfaced here don't seem to be resolving themselves. I will be archiving this FLC tomorrow, as there is clearly not a consensus to promote. Re-submitting will not be helpful or fair to the other FLCs (this one has been up for about six weeks). FLC is not the place for dispute resolution, nor is it where articles should be overhauled (that's why we have peer review). I suggest that you and the other involved take a break from the article for a few days to cool down and have time to regain focus. Then, start a centralized discussion somewhere (article talk page, WikiProject talk page, or peer review) and try to work out your disagreements. When significant progress has been made in that front, please consult me or another FL director, and we will be glad to let you re-nominate the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not planning to until after new years. There are no disputes on this article right now, they were regarding a completely separate issue. I simply feel their anger towards that brought them here to oppose this. Dough and JC have made legitimate comments that I can improve the article with in the mean time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:52, 1 December 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.