Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recreational Roads in Texas/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by NapHit 16:11, 20 September 2012 [1].

List of Recreational Roads in Texas edit

List of Recreational Roads in Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria. This page would serve as the central topic for the potential good topic of Recreational Roads in Texas. Aside from this page, only two pages in the topic are non GA's, and both of them are at GAN. I have compared this to List of Interstate Highways in Texas, a FL, and feel this is list is worthy of FL. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I have some concerns with this list before I can support it for FL:
  1. "With the exception of RE 255, the number of a route decreases with the age of the route." Surely this could be worded better. I would try "With the execption of RE 255, the lower route numbers are for older routes, with increasing numbers for newer routes.
  2. Why is Ranch Road 1 mentioned in the list? It isn't an official recreational road and is treated more as being part of the Farm-to-market road system.
  3. I would suggest better pictures for the article. The current pictures barely show the road. Try looking on Flickr for an appropriately-licensed image.
  4. The article relies mostly on TxDOT and Google Maps for sourcing. Are there any other sources that can be found? Dough4872 22:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies:
  1. Changed
  2. Removed
  3. Still searching Flickr for an image I was unable to find a free image, but if anyone else wants to try, be my guest.
  4. Unfortunantely, since the routes are all located in rural areas, and all but RE 255 are short, there are no available newspaper articles or books available. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This meets the criteria, but I would still suggest looking for better images and additional references for the future. Dough4872 03:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query—what is "pantone brown"? Pantone Matching System, a trademarked method for specifying colors. The FHWA specifies the analogous colors of road signs with PMS colors. That color would be best named "MUTCD brown", or "PMS 469", but the PMS values are only for print use, not sign fabrication. I really would have nominated this article for a peer review before bringing it here. The lead was revised and expanded immediately before nomination. While that might work for GANs, it doesn't work well for FACs, and I suspect, FLCs. Imzadi 1979 → 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have shortened pantone brown simply to brown. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As it is now, I do not think this list "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work".
  1. Are they called "Recreational Roads" or "Recreation Roads"? TxDOT seems to be inconsistent in their usage. For curiosity's sake, I did Google searches for Texas "Recreation(al) Road" -wiki, which removes any Wikimedia sites from the search results. I got more hits for Recreation than I did for Recreational.
  2. Unless you're talking about a specific route, "recreation(al) road" is a common noun and should not be capitalized.
  3. "Very similar to the TxDOT's Park Roads, they provide access to recognized recreational areas, while Park Roads serve state parks." This sentence is sloppy and should be rewritten. You should link to the list of park roads and define what a "recognized recreation(al) area" is.
  4. What percentage of the Texas state highway system does the recreation road system comprise?
  5. "The Recreational Road system was created in 1970." Isn't this redundant to the first sentence of the second paragraph?
  6. Unless they're completely obvious, you should define abbreviations like RE before you use them.
  7. I don't know if "rapid" growth is the right word. Six routes within two years?
  8. "With the execption of RE 255, the lower route numbers are for older routes, with increasing numbers for newer routes." This sentence is incomprehensible; it should be completely revised.
  9. What is a "shield"? I know what it is, but that doesn't mean the casual reader does.
  10. How large are the "shields"?
  11. I'm left wanting a little more prose than what you're giving us. Yes, this is a list, but it just seems abrupt. I would split out the second and third paragraphs into full sections and then summarize them for the lead. However, if you split them out, the sections should have more details than they do.
  12. Finally getting to the list itself. Above you said the routes serve "recognized recreation(al) areas", but here it says "parks". Why are they different?
  13. Do you have the exact dates the routes were designated?
  14. Are these pictures here just to have pictures? They don't seem to have anything to do with the recreation road system.
  15. Commenting on something mentioned above: find secondary sources. I completely reject the idea that there are no secondary sources about the recreation road system.
This list has a lot of work to be done before it can be considered Wikipedia's very best work. –Fredddie™ 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies:
  1. Per the Highway Designation Glossary, the TxDOT's official guide to highway designations, they are referred to as "Recreational Roads".
  2. All changed (I think)
  3. Clarified
  4. This is not provided by the TxDOT, so I am unable to include it.
    So look outside of TxDOT. –Fredddie™
    The TxDOT is the only agency in the state of Texas that reports on highways. The FHWA could care less about the different numbered routes of Texas. Because of this, a lack of a source from the TxDOT means that no way to get this information reliably or without violating WP:OR . - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name.
    Wrong. Third-party sources could publish this information. In other words, a newspaper article, a magazine article or even a section in a book could have such information. You are not limited to TxDOT and FHWA or similar sources, and in fact, you should seek out replacements among third-party over those two first-party sources wherever possible. Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, I have been unable to discover a third-party source relating to the RE system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Removed.
  6. Clarified
  7. Reworded Removed; To be added in "History" section
  8. Majorly revised
  9. Reworded, with link to "reassurance marker" added
  10. I will add this to the new section(s) Added
  11. In the process of writing new section(s) Created sections for History and Signage
  12. Because the bulk of the sites served are simply parks. The column title is different because "Recreational Area" would be to long and mess up the table.
  13. Added specific dates
  14. Unfortunately, these are the best pictures available, and being illustrated is part of the criteria
    Have you tried contacting other Wikipedians who live nearby the routes to see if they can take pictures? Have you made arrangements to take pictures yourself? –Fredddie™
    I have notified WP:Texas about the issue. As for me, there is no way I could possibly get one because of school and the driving distance. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name.
  15. A search at Google News and at Google Books yielded no results about the routes or the system. In addition, I did some research with the Fort Worth Public Library's Genealogy, History, and Archives Unit, and found nothing on the system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would contact TxDOT's library for assistance. They may have some idea when news articles were written about the recreational road system or could at least point you in the right direction. –Fredddie™
    A search of the library only helped me out with planing for improving other highway articles, yielding no results on the RE system. In addition, a search of the archives of the Texas Highways Magazine, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston Chronicle did not provide any articles related to the system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 21:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you try contacting someone at the library or did you just do a search of the library's website? –Fredddie™ 01:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. I have found information on RE 255 potentially being affected by the proposed I-14 from a newspaper article, and have included it in the article. Secondary source added. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What about secondary sources for the other routes? Or the system as a whole? –Fredddie™ 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a secondary source for RE spurs. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still opposing. The history section is lacking. I'd like to see something on why the system was created and who within TXDOT passed the original minute order. Not the specific people, but what body within the DOT. The images are still an issue. The Procter Lake picture serves no purpose to the article. If we could actually see the highway, I'd have no problem with it. –Fredddie™ 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the points that you fixed or I fixed myself. However, it disappoints me greatly that you're telling me that you looked no farther than the Google search box to find secondary sources. As the absolute bare minimum, I suggest you visit a local library that has newspaper archives in house. –Fredddie™ 07:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed a few things, as TxDOT has defined certain names to be proper nouns in this context. They also don't hyphenate Farm to Market Road. As a specific type of roadway, I would say that they are proper nouns in this context, and shouldn't have their capitalization reduced. It's similar to the distinction between an Interstate Highway (part of the Interstate Highway System) and an interstate highway (any highway that crosses state lines with its designation intact). I would also say that such a distinction applies when discussing state highways (any highway under state maintenance) vs. State Highways (ones that bear that name as part of its designation). Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Park Roads system" or "The Park Road system "?
  • Changed
  • "56.596 miles " is it really measured to 0.001 mile? (even if it is, I don't think this level of accuracy is required in the lead prose).
  • Reduced to single digit
  • "RE 2 is the system's second oldest route, while RE 11, the system's eleventh and newest route, is numbered accordingly" may be just me but this sentence is grammatically incorrect, should there be an "and" before the "is numbered..."?
  • Reworded and clarified
  • You link "Farm to Market road" the second time, not the first, and our article calls it a "Farm-to-market road" i.e. hyphenated and not over-capitalised.
  • Corrected over-capitalizing
  • Is "cancelled" with two l's USEng?
  • Fixed
  • Not sure on the necessity for sortability on a table with just one entry.
  • Changed, but it appears that this has done something to the table
  • Use en-dashes instead of spaced hyphen in the ref titles (e.g. ref 6).
  • Added

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A reply, but according to the article, "specifically, in the state of Texas, the terms Farm to Market Road and Ranch to Market Road indicate roadways that are part of the state's system of secondary and connecting routes, built and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)." So yes, in this case, "Farm to Market Road" is correct as a specific type of highway in that state, while "farm-to-market road" is the more generic term used elsewhere. Imzadi 1979 → 06:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, well "used for Farm to Market Road System. The Recreational Road marker, like the Farm to Market Road shield" this is missing a "the" before the first Farm. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to all comments. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose over lack of secondary sources. --Rschen7754 23:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found and included an article from the Jasper Newsboy. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose. "Recreational Road 255 will potentially be affected by the proposed Interstate 14, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway."? That smells of original research. --Rschen7754 04:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been changed. The fact is is that RE 255 is located along the study corridor. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really belongs in the 255 article. Also, "The current proposed routing of the Interstate would run parallel to RE 255, but no official routing has decided on." is not supported by any source. --Rschen7754 06:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed so that it fits reference. This deserves to belong here because, when someone finally gets around to constructing I-14, it will majorly affect RE 255. RE 255 makes up about 2/3 of the recreational road system. If the route were to replaced or redesignated, it would have a huge effect on the system. And, as a note, I have minorly expanded the lead and added an additional secondary source. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still no, it belongs in RE 255. Do you have any secondary sources about the system itself? --Rschen7754 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm planning to contact the TxDOT to see if they have an archive of the Texas Highways magazine, since, according to the Glossary page, the magazine had information on the system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 14:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Recreational_Roads_in_Texas/archive1&oldid=1138484218"