Talk:Majura Parkway

Renomination at GAN

I'm going to strongly urge Nbound to withdraw a renomination of this article at GAN, and instead strongly urge that the article be taken to WP:GAR. The instructions there state, "Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or fail during a good article nomination." That is exactly what renomination of this article seeks.

The concept of article stability related to unopened roads, given precedents related to unreleased movies or unaired television episodes, is too important to ask one new reviewer to override a previous reviewer. Let's get others involved in a community GAR to discuss the situation since the renomination is essentially asking a new reviewer to overturn a previous decision, not asking the new reviewer to see if recent work brings the article up to the standards for listing as a GA. To do otherwise does not establish any consensus on the issue. Imzadi 1979 → 20:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The stability criteria are as follows:

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]

As I stated above, the issue you are suggesting relates to criterion 3, in that you cant write the plot/ratings/etc. sections for movies or television shows that havent yet been aired, and therefore the coverage cannot be broad. Same with elections from your original example where results and aftermath cant be included before the event. These things are events, as in they largely rely on information that only becomes available after a certain point in time. All the standard applicable information is already available for this road (it has the same content/sections as many other road GAs), once the road does open, it will not affect the very large majority of existing content (ie. additions will be required to note the opening - but not a wholesale addition/removal of existing information, of which the former does occur in the examples you have given earlier).

The article shouldn't be put up for re-assessment, as my recent work likely does change its GA applicability, and some time has elapsed since your original review. All the non-stability advice mentioned in your review is perfectly applicable, and has been acted upon, and I agree that it didn't meet other GA criteria last time for the (non-stability) reasons suggested in your review.

Until such point that the arbitrary enforcement of an opening date is established as a GA criterion, there is no reason for me to re-confirm the status quo (GA articles already exist about things that haven't happened yet - if the information is available for them). If you want to start an RfC to find consensus on the issue and change the criteria, I will happily withdraw or demote this article once the RfC is closed and changes are enacted. :)

If for whatever reason, another editor fails this GAN for the same stability issue alone, or with few further improvements, and without pointing out another criteria that is being broken that cannot be fixed, I will then seek reasssessment, as that review will be current, and it will be more appropriate to be viewed by the wider community. -- Nbound (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I know I agreed to review this but looking at it I have to say I'm not sure I can pass it due it probably being a future-class anyway. If I were you I would raise the issue at WT:WPGA.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no "non future-class" requirement - there are other GA articles written about future things (eg. Saudi Arabia women's national football team - doesnt exist). And lack of content cannot be argued as an issue, when articles such as Ohio State Route 228, and Ohio State Route 710 are GA'd with no more than a handful of sentences. Regardless I will bring it up at WT:WPGA. -- Nbound (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. You may wish to ask at WT:GAN instead, it seems a lot more active and more appropriate anyway.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Majura Parkway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502051634/http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au/Html5Viewer_1_2/Index.html?viewerConfigUri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actmapi.act.gov.au%2FGeocortex%2FEssentials%2FGE10%2FREST%2Fsites%2FBasic%2Fviewers%2FBasic_HTML5_12%2Fvirtualdirectory%2FResources%2FConfig%2FDefault%2FDesktop.json.js to http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au/Html5Viewer_1_2/Index.html?viewerConfigUri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actmapi.act.gov.au%2FGeocortex%2FEssentials%2FGE10%2FREST%2Fsites%2FBasic%2Fviewers%2FBasic_HTML5_12%2Fvirtualdirectory%2FResources%2FConfig%2FDefault%2FDesktop.json.js

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)