| Revision as of 22:51, 18 November 2011 editFredddie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors102,319 edits →U.S. Route 2 in Michigan: support← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:46, 18 November 2011 edit undoImzadi1979 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors151,754 edits moving discussion from nomination pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *FN 69: page(s)? ] (]) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC) | *FN 69: page(s)? ] (]) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| **FN 3 is multi-page and fixed. FN 69 is the the item I mentioned in my PS to the nomination statement. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''] ]'''</span> 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC) | **FN 3 is multi-page and fixed. FN 69 is the the item I mentioned in my PS to the nomination statement. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''] ]'''</span> 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose'''' |
*'''Oppose'''' see ] <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| **Not actionable; coordinates are not part of the featured article criteria, and one of the FAC delegates has stated that coordinates will not prevent an article from reaching FA. ] --''']]]''' 11:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *** If you refer to Karanacs, they said " This is an issue that could be brought up in a review" and "You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied". And who said, on 21 August 2011: "Yeah, I agree that coordinates aren't a priority - they should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA"? Rschen7754 did. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ****If you're going to use quotes, at least put them in context. Here's the full quote from Karanacs: "The FAC instructions are not going to micromanage which content is and is not included (and if that ever changes I'm targeting infoboxen, not coordinates, first). You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied, and the nominator can then respond. As a delegate, I am not going to fail any article that does not include it. And yes, this strikes me very much as forumshopping." Uchua has also weighed in: "In issues like this, FAs should follow the Manual of Style. If there is consensus at MOS that these coordinates must be included, then FAs must have them; I don't think it's a good idea to have the FA criteria talk about this quite specific issue." And as far as my comment, I repeat what I said earlier: "Yes, if you take that out of context, I did." --''']]]''' 12:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ***** Oh my. I didn't recognize any of those words, and in following the link, discovered that some time ago, I somehow inadvertently unwatched WIAFA. It does appear that Karanacs was misquoted and misunderstood. Now to catch up and see what else I missed, since I don't know how or when I mistakenly unwatched that page. ] (]) 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ******Andy is free to comment on the nominated article as he pleases, including opposing, but there isn't a requirement anywhere to include coordinate data in linear features, and there is no accepted method in including it yet for roadways. (We've reached a stalemate on discussions about the issue at ] on including guidance in ], which this article otherwise complies with.) The current guidance on linear features from the coordinates project is still a draft that has not achieved consensus. {{user|Ealdgyth}} stated in the previous discussion at WT:WIAFA that this issue "definitely needs more discussion as a general rule somewhere prominent so it can be seen by a large number of people who can then comment." Until that happens, and there is a guideline that isn't a proposal from 2008 that hasn't yet left the draft stage, I don't feel that adding such content is beneficial since the string of numbers displayed in the article adds very little to the end reader. The important details on where US 2 is in located in Michigan are already included in the article through a map in the infobox, the prose discusses its location in relation to the various municipalities and the counties, and there is a link to the OpenStreetMap page in the External links section. That's plenty, and I stand by my refusal to add coordinate data to this article in the absence of a guideline that requires it. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''] ]'''</span> 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Thank you for the response. You say "''there isn't a requirement anywhere to include coordinate data in linear features''". Since when did articles - let alone featured articles - only include what is ''required''? Even then, surely failing to include any coordinates is a breach of Criterion 1(b) "''it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context''". The discussion at WP:RJL is about columns of coordinates in road junction lists; nothing to do with including a single set of "title" coordinates to locate the road (and which enables readers to place a road on a map of their choosing, or about including additional coordinates, for key features, in prose. Yes, the guidance on linear features is still a draft, but in all the time it's existed, no-one has proposed a viable alternative, and the lack of consensus to which you refer is about ''how'' to give coordinates for such features; not whether to do so. Your dubious claim that "''the string of numbers displayed in the article adds very little to the end reader''" is unsupported by evidence and ignores the fact that the string of numbers are actually, coordinates in one of two, user-selectable, common representation of geographic coordinates which many of us learned to read at school, and is also a clickable link, delivering a page linking to many useful services. The infobox map which locates the highway in Michigan is useless to me and to anyone else unfamiliar with the geography of that state. Nor does it help me to easily see the road on, say, Google Earth, or whatever tool I might prefer to use. the link to OSM is to page of metadata, some in formats internal to OSM, and all of which will be unhelpful to casual readers, even when it does not, as at present, display the text "''Sorry, the data for the relation with the id 115988, took too long to retrieve''". Misplaced Pages gives coordinates on well over 700,000 articles (many of which are for linear features). There is clearly consensus to do this on Misplaced Pages. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Draft = no acceptance, hence being a draft. 700,000 article, how many of which are linear? Oh right... many. That's a reliable number. There are several dozen featured road articles, none of which have coordinates. That's just as much of a '''precedent''' (I think that was the word you were looking for, not consensus). There is no agreed upon method for choosing a single point to represent an entire road, so therefore you cannot expect a single coordinate to represent it. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :But I might add that you've been encouraged to come up with a way of drawing a line on map services. I can do it for google with most direct roads using a pair of coordinates; the url remains static outside of the DMS values, and so it is indeed possible. Why should an article contain inaccurate, arbitrary or rough numbers for something that is meant to be precise? If you know its in the US state of Michigan, you load up your favourite map service and type "Michigan", then you find the item. It's not a point, its a convoluted line. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 19:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::The word I was looking for was "consensus"; though yes, there is precedence for GeoTagging articles, too; '''including feature articles about linear features'''. I've just loaded up my favourite map service and typed "Michigan" and unsurprisingly, that didn't find the road. Pardon me for not responding to the rest of your straw-man rhetoric. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consensus implies a discussion, and from WP:CONSENSUS, silence (though this implies a discussion that wasn't answered) is the weakest form of consensus. Precedent is taking the standard from an existing set of articles and applying it to more... | |||
| ::Anyways, I'm looking for a number, not a "many", because I can provide approximately 40 that do not, quickly. What rhetoric by the way? You're just choosing to ignore the points you can't respond to, because there is no good response. Again, what source do we take the coordinates from? How can one number be applied to the entire length of a non-straight feature with any sort of accuracy? - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' — I am one of five editors who reviewed this article through ]'s A-class Review process. This article fulfills all of the Featured Article criteria. If there are any remaining issues, I am confident they are minor and Imzadi1979 will ably correct them. <span style="border:1px solid #329691;background:#228B22;">''']]'''</span> 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | *'''Support''' — I am one of five editors who reviewed this article through ]'s A-class Review process. This article fulfills all of the Featured Article criteria. If there are any remaining issues, I am confident they are minor and Imzadi1979 will ably correct them. <span style="border:1px solid #329691;background:#228B22;">''']]'''</span> 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose'''. see ] --] ] 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Respectfully, I disagree with Imzadi1979. ] starts "A featured article exemplifies our very best work' and 1(c) continues "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Emphasis '''sources''' plural. Because we obviously can easy do much more and IMO better than the infobox map, the openmaps link, and the textual description, by the use of {{tl|coord}} and {{tl|GeoGroupTemplate}} which link to multiple RS maps, we should. It is incomprehensible to me that we would deliberately not take the opportunity to link to this diversity of rich sources, and promote this as an article that exemplifies our very best work. Under what part of "best" in a web environment is "deliberately not linking to some of the best sources around" found? Where will we find a user base ''thankful'' or ''happy'' that they can't view this structure on GoogleMaps or Bing or their preferred map provider? Only if an aim of this FAC is to deliberately and needlessly frustrate or dismay segments of our readership should this be promoted. At the risk of boring you, I will oppose each road article FAC having the same issue as this one. I appreciate your view may differ from mine; there we go. --] ] 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you for your comments, but this article does use multiple map sources. To wit: | |||
| *:*Footnote 2: the ''Physical Reference Finder Application'' from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) with cartography by the Michigan Center for Geographic Information | |||
| *:*Footnote 4: the online edition of ''National Highway System, Michigan'', a map prepared by MDOT. | |||
| *:*Footnote 6: the official paper MDOT map from 2010, copies are free upon request from the department if others wish to get their own. | |||
| *:*Footnote 8: the online map from Google Maps, used for aerial photography alone. (Google Maps is notorious for cartography errors. I had to submit an error report because they showed ] on the map views of Grand Rapids, Michigan, even though MDOT hasn't signed that designation since 1979 or 1980.) | |||
| *:*Footnote 11: the 2008 edition of Rand McNally's ''The Road Atlas''. | |||
| *:If these aren't enough high-quality reliable sources to verify the information from the "Route description" section, please let me know. Otherwise, your reasoning has been addressed. Additionally, what would be a high-quality, RS for the exact coordinates used for the roadway? OSM is user-generated and can't be used as a source. MDOT does not publish coordinate data for its roadways and for me to measure it from Google Maps runs into issues with ] and their reliability. I must respectfully state that that your opposition has already been addressed and no further action is required. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''] ]'''</span> 02:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You don't appear to have addressed Tagishsimon's - or my - concerns about failing to link out to GeoTemplate and its useful tools; nor the fact that failing to include title coordinates prevents the article from being include in Google Maps', Google Earth's, an OpenStreetMaps' Misplaced Pages layers. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Several editors went through this article at the ACR stage and all the problems they found have been resolved. Meets all the criteria. --''']]]''' 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | *'''Support''' Several editors went through this article at the ACR stage and all the problems they found have been resolved. Meets all the criteria. --''']]]''' 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support'''. I am one of the aforementioned editors who did a thorough check of the article at the ACR stage. It meets the FAC criteria. –]] 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | *'''Support'''. I am one of the aforementioned editors who did a thorough check of the article at the ACR stage. It meets the FAC criteria. –]] 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:46, 18 November 2011
U.S. Route 2 in Michigan
U.S. Route 2 in Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of the major highways in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There isn't anything flashy about this roadway, but I think that the article is ready for review here. (P.S., my copy of the article from The Daily Mining Gazette lacks a page number, however the Portage Lake District Library in Houghton, MI, has been contacted to see what page it was on in the print edition.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I have reviewed this article twice prior and feel that it meets all the criteria. Dough4872 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot convince FN 3 to load on my computer - can you confirm that it works on yours, and if it is a multi-page source (I can't tell) can you specify page number?
- FN 69: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- FN 3 is multi-page and fixed. FN 69 is the the item I mentioned in my PS to the nomination statement. Imzadi 1979 → 03:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose' see Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1#Coordinates discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support — I am one of five editors who reviewed this article through WP:USRD's A-class Review process. This article fulfills all of the Featured Article criteria. If there are any remaining issues, I am confident they are minor and Imzadi1979 will ably correct them. VC 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. see Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1#Coordinates discussion --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support Several editors went through this article at the ACR stage and all the problems they found have been resolved. Meets all the criteria. --Rschen7754 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I am one of the aforementioned editors who did a thorough check of the article at the ACR stage. It meets the FAC criteria. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)