Talk:New Jersey Route 68/GA1

GA Review

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

Embedded list concerns

Hello! I will be reviewing this page. My concerns will be added below as I go along. --Edge3 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's redundant to list the major intersections twice. I think you should remove the table and just keep the info in the infobox. --Edge3 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

USRD standard. Can't change that.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide a link to the policy and explain why it exists?--Edge3 (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The standards for all U.S. road articles are located at WP:USRD/MOS. The reason this section exists, more or less, is to list what routes a highway intersects, where the junction is located, and how far the junctions are apart; the combination of these three items help to convey to the reader how extensive a particular route is and where it passes through. That said, your point is valid from this standpoint: typically, the infobox only lists selected (or "notable") junctions while the junction list ("major intersections") lists them all. An example of this is NY 104. That said, I question the inclusion of county routes as "major junctions" in the infobox, especially when it results in the listing of all junctions on the route. – TMF 00:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS overrides project guidelines. See WP:EMBED. The preceding text already provides adequate info on major intersections in prose form, making the use of a table unnecessary. --Edge3 (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAC has never called this into question. If you have issues with WP:ELG please take it to the appropriate forum; GAN is not the place to overturn a guideline. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EMBED specifically states, " Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs." This article already presents the information in prose paragraphs in the route description section, making the use of a table unnecessary. WP:GACR #1 requires compliance with WP:EMBED, but not WP:ELG. Other articles may need the table due to their size, but this article is so small that it doesn't need to have the table. As far as I'm concerned, this article currently violates the relevant guidelines and should be fixed. --Edge3 (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But the table presents the info more effectively, for those who enjoy a more visual format. Therefore, the table is necessary. FYI, ELG is part of MOS, thus WP:GACR #1 does require compliance with ELG. Just because you don't think that the table is "appropriate" in this instance doesn't mean that others agree with you; consensus is clear to leave the tables in place on every highway article (unless a spur is described in its parent article), and Wikipedia is governed by consensus. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The table is the standard used on all US roads articles. It is not constructive to try to change this standard on a single article because you personally disagree with it. There are much more appropriate venues to take it up. As such the article should not fail on that point, and if you do decide to fail it, I feel you should step back and allow a new uninvolved reviewer to take over who knows the US roads standards. Jeni ^(talk) 21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewers aren't required to become familiar with project standards, but they are required to enforce GACR. In addition, ELG doesn't mandate the inclusion of an exit list. It only provides guidelines for those tables that happen to exist. --Edge3 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Think of it like a list of stations on a railway line article. --NE2 21:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I realize that such a list could be useful in some cases, but this article is so small that the table doesn't really provide any info that the reader doesn't already know. --Edge3 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Major intersections table is needed as it has the mileposts of the intersections and also mentions the names of the road, which is not present in the infobox. Dough4872 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but the info provided in the table is also present in the route description section, except for the mileposts of each intersection. Therefore, the table should still be removed, and the mileposts should be integrated into the prose paragraphs. See WP:EMBED. --Edge3 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

At WP:NJSCR, there is no notation indicating Major intersections tables are optional. Therefore, it should be included. Dough4872 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. MOS trumps project guidelines. --Edge3 (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, have you even read WP:EMBED? I can certainly see no guideline to back up what you are saying. Jeni ^(talk) 03:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs," and "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links." WP:EMBED clearly favors prose over lists. Therefore, the mileposts information should be moved to the Route Description section, and the table should be removed. --Edge3 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Embedded lists are not tables, and vice versa!

• This is an embedded list.

This

is

a

table.

I fully agree that embedded lists should not be used unless absolutely necessary. However, tables are not embedded list. (By the way, when you try to put milepost information in the RD it turns into "At 3.232 miles, Route 23 meets Route 3434. At 3.445 miles, Route 23 intersects with County Route 223." and becomes monotonous.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, tables are just a special kind of list. See WP:LIST#Tables. However, I can be flexible with this particular issue if someone can convince me that there is no EMBED violation. I'll post a message on WT:GAN soon. --Edge3 (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you won't let yourself be convinced - several people have disagreed with you, from inside and outside USRD. It's clear that you cannot be impartial in this review; I suggest moving on. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EMBED says that a prose description is preferable. I don't think it addresses what to do if the authors choose to do both a prose description and a table but it does say "...used only when appropriate". In this case, I'd defer to the wikiproject guidelines (if available) to determine whether it is appropriate. --maclean (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case the reviewer is suggesting that a change should be made against consensus and existing standards. This in itself is disruptive, and if it continues I'd be considering an ANI thread! Jeni ^(talk) 01:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stay calm. I take GACR very seriously, and I intend to enforce them as long as I'm the reviewer for this article. If you don't like it, then fine, file a complaint, but please respect the GAN process. --Edge3 (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you are enforcing is personal opinion and interpretation. Consensus here suggests otherwise, you are ignoring that. Several members of the US wikiproject have comment, and a couple (myself and maclean) who aren't from that project have also commented against your opinion. Why do you feel it necessary to ignore consensus? That certainly isn't part of the GAN process. Jeni ^(talk) 01:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has convinced me that there is no EMBED violation! I already know what the project guidelines say, but I'm only required to enforce MOS. Give me a reason to pass the article. --Edge3 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

<- outdent. WP:EMBED: "In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence" "Tables of information and short lists can also complete articles, e.g. Politics of Germany presents an overview of the topic and includes a list of current ministers and a short list of German political parties." Not to mention your blatant ignoring of consensus. Also note the header of the page... "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. " Emphasis common sense, something which you seem to refuse to apply to any situation. Need I say more? I think its about time you stepped down and let a more experienced reviewer take control. Jeni ^(talk) 01:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you at least let the GAN process finish? There are safeguards against rogue reviewers, which you apparently think I am. If I happen to fail this article, then you can take the issue to WP:GAR. As I said before, I am willing to be flexible with my interpretation of MOS and will consider all comments made on this page. However, remember that GACR and EMBED were both formed through consensus as well, so Wikiproject guidelines can never override MOS.--Edge3 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the WP:EMBED concerns are related to the table in the 'major intersections' section. It's not exactly accurate or appropriate to apply that policy here, since it deals with embedded (bulleted) lists, and here we have a table. The table used is properly applied and commonly used by members of the wikiproject in question. I have no problems with inserting the table into the article. However, reading the article, I see a fairly uninteresting article that pretty much describes some random road in suburban New Jersey that goes from Point A to Point B. It pretty much describes a bit about why this road originated and has some description of its path through the counties. But it's largely devoid of information about anything else that has to do with the road. What roadside attractions do you pass going by it, for example? I'm not so sure I'd pass this by criterion #3 of the GA criteria, which deals with completeness. It seems like there's still work to be done. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Roadside attractions seem like indiscriminate travel guide-ish details to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

• "Route 68 crosses County Route 537 (Monmouth Road) before continuing north into agricultural areas with some residences." - Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Added citation. Dough4872 (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• In the History section, could you please add some info about why exacly this road was created? Was there a specific purpose for the road when it was built?--Edge3 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Mentioned it was destined to serve Fort Dix. Dough4872 (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT ?

Why on earth are you wasting time over such a pedantic stylistic issue, when there are much more fundamental improvements to address? The point of a GAR is to improve the article, not to tick boxes. Honestly, if a small percentage of the efforts wasted in petty squabbles were directed towards article development, the wiki really would be a much happier place. Anyway, in the spirit of hopefully constructive criticism;

• Caption, "Southbound Route 68 in Mansfield Township." shouldn't end with a full-stop as it is not a complete sentence
  • Removed period. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• In "Route description", the sentence beginning "The route passes..." includes various information without an appropriate reference. It contains weasel terms, "agricultural areas with some residences". How many is 'some', what exactly is an 'agricultural area'?
  • This describes the surroundings from the route as seen from satellite imagery from Google Maps. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "a short distance south"
  • Added distance. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that "phillyroads.com" is a reliable source; the alleged facts about why the freeway was never built seem somewhat contentious. Perhaps this could be resolved by using "According to xxx, " or similar
  • From previous discussions, this source is acceptable. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• The lede states that it is "7.97 mi (12.83 km)", and I don't see this in the details; the table indicates that it is 7.92 mi; which is correct? (In any event, talk of cm in terms of a road is probably not appropriate; 8 mi would be fine, I think)
  • Fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• I wonder why {{jct|state=NJ|US|206}} creates a link to U.S. Route 206 in New Jersey which is a redirect to U.S. Route 206?
  • This is standard for major intersection tables. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• The photograph shows a sign for a 'harvest lane' - what is this? Could it be explained in the article?
  • Harvest Lane is the proper street name of the road. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• The second sentence in the lede is very hard to read;

"It serves as the main connector between the New Jersey Turnpike and Fort Dix, running 7.97 mi (12.83 km) from an intersection with County Route 616 (Pemberton-Wrightstown Road) on the grounds of Fort Dix at the General Circle north to U.S. Route 206 in Mansfield Township, a short distance south of the New Jersey Turnpike."

I'm not completely sure of the meaning; it has too many clauses. I think that, in effect, it is saying that it "connects A and B (C mi from where D (on E at F) to G, near H". I think. It's hard to read this; maybe it can be split up a bit?

• • Reworded. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "From here, it continues through Mansfield Township" - "From here" is redundant
  • Removed. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• The para beginning "The route was designated..." contains the word "route" thirteen times within 73 words; could this be reduced?
  • Reduced some instances. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "begins at the General Circle" - is there a specific reason why it is "the General Circle", rather than just "General Circle"? Is it a proper noun? If so, the T in The should also be capitalized.
  • Removed "the". Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "45 mph (72 km/h) four-lane divided highway" - I'm not happy that this explains quite what a "45 mph road" is - presumably it refers to the speed limit on that section, but this really needs clarification
  • Removed speed limits. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "heading into a mix of farmland" - the phrase "heading into" seems rather colloquial, perhaps "towards a mix of farmland" is better?
  • Reworded. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "agricultural areas with some residences." - this is very vague and unreferenced
  • This is standard to describe what surroundings the route heads through. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "comes to an end" is a bit colloquial too; would "terminates" be better?
  • Changed. Dough4872 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "In 1941, what is now Route 68 was legislated as Route S39, a spur of Route 39 (now U.S. Route 206)" - this is very hard to read; how about, "In 1941, what is now Route 68 was legislated as Route S39, a spur of Route 39 (now U.S. Route 206)

 Chzz  ►  03:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fail

It seems that User:Chzz had pointed out some WP:GACR #1 issues, and User:Derek.cashman has pointed out a possible #3 issues as well. Since I highly doubt that these issues can be resolved in a week, I am failing this GAN for now.

I am also failing this article because I want to avoid any disputes on a page that is supposed to promote constructive editing. I apologize for pursuing such a trivial issue. I really messed this up so badly, and I don't think this GAN can continue peacefully. Think of it as a judge declaring a mistrial. --Edge3 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)