Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/M62 motorway

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.

M62 motorway edit

I'm nominating this article because it's gone through two PRs, and I can think of nothing much to improve this article, except maybe the prose, and short of anything big happening in the next few months/years, there's very little verifiable information I think I can add. Will ^(talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the article lacks any mention of rugby league even though the sport has a long association with the road. Even though I offered to reference any statements, they were still deemed unsuitable. I can't see how this article can be considered for FAC status with a huge area completely uncovered.-- GordyB (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless oppose - I knew when I saw you on the watchlist that it'd be about rugby league. Just, please, give it up. Will ^(talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not "give it up". The article is not yours to decide what content should go in.GordyB (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I put it in three days ago. If you have no other objections, please withdraw your opposition. Will ^(talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, using the New Statesman citation. Will ^(talk) 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's in the "See also". Happy? Will ^(talk) 14:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The second I read the first word, I see problems.
- The lead is way too short. It needs to adequately summarize what the article is going to mention, like the route description and history.
  - Done Will ^(talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two paragraphs is still not adequate. And where is the rest of the sampling? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
      - Two paragraphs is adequate for the article's length, according to WP:LEAD. Will ^(talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but it excludes some vital sentences, which can be in another lead paragraph. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- The infobox is way too long. I recommend using {{Infobox road}} and cut back on some of the information there, since they are only supposed to be sources of quick information.
  - Done Will ^(talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ELG for how to format exit lists. You may adopt it so that it fits the UK's format.
  - Not done - see below Will ^(talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done now (see below also) Will ^(talk) 16:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give readers a real prose description of the route.
  - Done, or at least tried. Will ^(talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should be a lot longer and in its own section. It should not be with the exit list. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
      - Why should it be longer? There's not much you can write about 30 miles of flat semi-urban land, 40 miles of moor, and 30 more miles of flat semi-urban land. Will ^(talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because the current description lacks any interesting meat besides location. Give the reader a bird eye's view of the road. It's boring right now; spice it up a bit.
        Done Will ^(talk) 12:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire References in music section is unsourced. At least put refs for the lyrics so that it can show how it relates.
  - Done Will ^(talk) 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More as I find them. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

Most of these are based upon what works for US Roads, which doesn't necessarily work for UK roads. But still... Will ^(talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of WP:ELG, it's purely a WP:USRD style guide. It was moved after an editor asked (IIRC) its creator to move it into Wikipedia-space, and I don't think the agreement of two editors is enough to move the scope of a guideline from national to international. The article (and A500 road, for that matter), would not've passed GA as it would've failed the MoS criteria. Will ^(talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. While it may look like a purely USRD style guide, it is actually for all limited-access road articles. The only thing is localisation to the road it is covering. You may want to initiate a discussion about international applicability on the talk page. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

It is a USRD style guide. No other project uses it. If you can show me a discussion where there's consensus to internationalise it, then I'll change the exit list. But now, it's fine. Will ^(talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. If Chinese limited-access road articles existed, they would've been formatted as such. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

On seconf thoughts (sleeping over it),

Done. Will ^(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More problems at the moment:
- I've noticed that a lot of the article relies on a source called the CBRD. It's unfortunately not reliable, since it is a personal website. Find newspapers, maps, and atlases instead.
- Why is the section "Development after opening" where it is? Seems a little disorganised from the rest of the chronological history. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
  - CBRD is reliable. Interesting reading on why it is. Will ^(talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah—Chris's British Road Database??? You have got to be kidding me; it's no more than a personal website. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
      - "To cap it off, the Highways Agency and Department for Transport have been known to refer some queries here when they couldn't provide the answers themselves." (emphasis mine). You're seriously not suggesting that the British goverment has standards for reliablity lower than Wikipedia, are you? Will ^(talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done - development and incidents switched Will ^(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ - seeing the rugby thing above was what made me click the article. That link appears out of nowhere, and a line about why it's there should be included in the article; I suggest renaming "references in music" to "references in culture" and make note of the rugby connection there. --Golbez (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Will ^(talk) 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, roadcrufters unite! --Golbez (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More stuff:
- Doesn't the UK use the metric system? If it is so, shouldn't all primary units in the article be in km instead?
  - Not for road distances...we're a confused country! Carre (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. Roads are officially measured in miles in the UK (and it's one the last things that does). Won't fix Will ^(talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A citation for the exit list is needed.
  - Doing...; thinking of a way to cite it. Will ^(talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Will ^(talk) 10:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the distance column, you might also want to provide a conversion to the other unit. Also, the list is not precise enough.
  - There's more risk of false precision by converting to kilometres. The citations for the exit list only do it to the precision of a mile, and I can't find any other reference links. Again, Won't fix Will ^(talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On Windy Hill, near the highest point of the motorway, the road divides into two and Stott Hall Farm, and its 18th-century cottage, is situated in between the two halves.—awkward.
  - Done Will ^(talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to comb through the external links to make sure it complies with WP:EL.
  - Done Will ^(talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

哦， 是吗？(User:O) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (GMT)

Support - Very good article with good sources. I really like the good use of maps too, they are always very informative. Any opposition I can see seems to be minor and has already been fixed so I'm very happy! Well done to the editors of this article. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well-written (and referenced!) article and largely per Andrew's comments. Rudget.talk 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite my strong distaste for the WP:ELG junction lists, this article is well written, referenced and would be a great addition to the featured articles on Wikipedia. Regan123 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this critical error in the route description: routes/roads do not travel. They never did, and they never will. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:46, 25 November 2007 (GMT)
Done Will ^(talk) 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is well written, well referenced, and meets the criteria. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Route description has too many stubby paragraphs. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
Okay, Done. Will ^(talk) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all of the criteria. Only one nit-pick in the infobox it indicates Major cities but Goole is a town not a city. Keith D (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know; I'm using that field as a major destinations field. Will ^(talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.