Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/M-132 (Michigan highway)/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

M-132 (Michigan highway)

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted as not meeting GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just 193 words long, making it the shortest GA by word count.

Problems I noted with this article include but are not limited to:

  • Delist and redirect the article to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. There's nothing in the article that says why the highway was built or why it was decommissioned, so it fails criteria 3a. Regarding Google Maps, my view is you can use it to cite an existence of a building or a street intersection, but it doesn't contribute at all to notability. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Ritchie333, I think there are just certain articles that, even if they reasonably fully cover the subject, are so short that they fail the broadness criterion and you can't do anything about it. By using WP:DYKCRIT criteria, it would not pass DYK because it has fewer than 1,500 bytes in readable prose, so it's likely a stub, but then WP:STUBDEF says that articles with little inherent notability can be merged. I think doing that by blocks of, say, 25 articles, can be more useful than scattering barely notable articles around the encyclopedia, let alone maintain we have enough confidence to show this as "good quality" stuff.
PS. I accidentally used the GANReview tool to close this discussion, which I didn't mean to. I think I reverted all changes related to that accidental deployment, but double-check if I cleaned up everything. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just in case anyone is unaware, GAR is not AfD; this discussion is only about whether an article meets the GA criteria. Any arguments based on notability are at the wrong place; as far as I am aware, there is no rule forbidding simultaneous AfDs and GARs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: wouldn't needing a notability tag fall under #3 in immediate failures? It seems relevant, surely if a topic is not notable its not eligible for GA or FA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Horse Eye's Back, a notability banner is not a cleanup banner. There are quite a few FAs/GAs that have been deleted as non-notable (I have nominated two myself: Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956; there has also been e.g. ANAK Society). The non-correlation between the two processes is delineated at the top of WP:GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The the top of WP:GAR talks about GNG but says nothing about notability in general unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, what is more "general" about notability than the "General Notability Guideline"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is only part of WP:N. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an article falls below the long-established "stub" threshold for DYK, then in my view it walks like a stub, talks like a stub, and acts like a stub. And the GA criteria explicitly says stubs cannot be GAs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, per WP:STUBDEF, a "stub" is defined as "an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion." If an article such as this is not capable of expansion, but is still very short, it is not defined as a stub, and is thus eligible to be a GA. I repeat, questions of notability are not within GAR's purview—if you wish to invoke WP:ATD or WP:NOPAGE, AfD is the place to go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can make arguments like these though. If it's not capable of expansion because there's little to tell, is it broad? I mean it fails 3a at least because there are supposed to be main aspects, and you can't really say there are aspects (plural) to talk about, maybe one or two at most
Ideally though, I'd merge with other similar articles because the main claim to notability here is that it existed because MIDoT said it did and I-94 was then built built nearby... which kinda is too little to justify a standalone article IMHO. You know, we grade GAs above B-class articles. Will you give it a B? I'd say it's start-class. Probably an example of what a small article should look like, but still start-class. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Szmenderowiecki, I am, in fact, aware we grade GAs above B-class articles, having delisted hundreds in the past year. Taking the only WikiProject for which B-class assessment is still a thing, we find the following criteria: referenced   Done, not containing obvious omissions/inaccuracies   Done, a defined structure with a lead and sections   Done, no grammatical errors   Done, and an infobox/images/diagrams if necessary   Done. I do not know where you are getting your definitions of "B-class" and "start-class" from, but I would appreciate your opinion on which two of these B-class criteria the article does not meet, or an example of alternative B-class criteria this article fails.
As far as I can see, the article discusses three main aspects—the route itself, its history, and its intersections—if you feel that something is missing, feel free to say. Again, if you want a discussion on notability, please start a merge discussion or an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at the time it was created, it was fully paved" appears to be OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"After removal from the state highway system, the roadway is now simply known as Dexter–Ann Arbor Road" is also unsourced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not necessarily saying anything is missing. I am saying that there's just really too little to tell and it's fine for an article but falls short of GA.
Intersections is in fact just another way to describe the route, which I can read from a map conveniently provided in an infobox. The history is literally 3 (three) sentences long: commissioning, decomissioning, and current name. And that's it.
Now imagine stripping it of the route description. It's OK to describe it in an article, but since the only source is a map, it doesn't really give anything new to the reader, unlike, let's say, a newspaper article about the local importance for ranch farmers or whoever lobbied MIDoT to build it. Still giving a GA? For me, there should also be some astonishment from reading the article, and restating a map gives me none of it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine. Sometimes a topic doesn't need to have 70 paragraphs written about it. I have driven on this road; it's pretty nice. But it's not that long. What, specifically, are we demanding be added to this article? jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my real problem is the article doesn't tell me anything I can't get from a map, and where I'd understand the map better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I get that we've got a gamut of ideas about what the broadness coverage means; whether it's just "we cover everything reasonable about this topic and that's enough" or if there's a particular floor every article needs to get to. Reading this, I definitely end up on the latter side. There's basically nothing here that actually educates me on why this is a topic that matters. Ritchie's point that it can be replaced by a map and you lose almost nothing is I think a fair one to make. These probably should get merged together if all that can be said is in a paragraph or two, but that's not really the purview of GAR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking with the coord hat on, it is true that notability is not considered part of the GA criteria. If you think an article fails GNG and shouldn't exist, the venue is AfD, not GAR. With that said, speaking from my own perspective, the severe lack of substantial secondary sources (that say more than just maps) is a problem for meeting comprehensiveness requirements. If we can't find a single source besides a map that discusses this highway within the last 60 years, I'm not convinced the article can meet the GA criteria. I fully agree with Ritchie's comment that I think my real problem is the article doesn't tell me anything I can't get from a map, and where I'd understand the map better. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Ritchie. Not every topic can have a good article on it; some topics just don't have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This is one of them. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/M-132_(Michigan_highway)/1&oldid=1198796139"