Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/New York State Route 308/1

New York State Route 308 edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: relisted Dr. Cash (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently listed as a GA, after a proper GAN. User:Derek.cashman delisted it on the grounds that it's not complete, and it doesn't satisfy the criteria. As it is a fairly short route, it is as complete and as comprehensive as it can be, and I strongly disagree with the delisting. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - Sort of ridiculous that someone would delist articles for un-comprehensiveness of the history. I would like to know what's missing, Derek, because as is, article meets USRD criteria as a complete history. I do understand if you're basing this off our FA, New York State Route 174, which has more history, but certain routes lack major history. I feel there is a chance that more may be coming, and I'd rather it solved here than on numerous talk pages.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted The article completely and entirely FAILS the broadness criteria. There is simply not enough information here to make a complete article. The lead section is also too short, and isn't adequately summarizing the article. Why is this road significant? The article completely FAILS to address that. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? Why should any article need to show why its significant? If you have a problem with road articles, bring it up at USRD. A lead is one thing, but a 6.19 mile route is not gonna be that long, compared to something like New York State Route 22 or New York State Route 17, both of which are over 300 miles long. It has been defined that something maintained by the state, or formerly maintained by the state is notable under standards. If you feel there's a problem with our standards, bring it up at WT:USRD or WT:NYSR.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with road articles specifically. What I do have a problem with is watering down the GA criteria to allow for more insignificant articles to get listed. All GAs need to adhere to the criteria, all six points of it. We don't allow some articles to skimp on some of them just so we can have more GAs on minor state roads that no one's ever going to take a look at. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that there are certain Wikipedia articles that can never be Good Articles? If an article on a specialized topic is complete but is very short (like this one), how would that ever become a Good Article? What does this particular article need for it to be complete? --Polaron | Talk 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is very short: both the road and the article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Relist — it has been suggested that the reviewer didn't read the article. Well, I did. For 6.19 miles (9.96 km) it was my editorial judgment that it was comprehensive. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A short article doesn't need a long review. I checked all photo's description page. I verified the edit history for edit-warring and stability. I found a few minor prose issues that I mentioned to the contributors on IRC that weren't anything I'd oppose over. I reviewed the sources. It's a short article about a short roadway. What more should I have done if I felt it was worthy of promotion? Put it on hold over a simple fix and then promote it ten minutes later? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist This article has adequate information for the length of the road. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's my understanding that even very short articles can be GA listed. The critical threshold is that they cannot be stubby. It must also be broad in its coverage. My initial reaction is that the article meets these standards. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't GA criteria written specifically not to exclude short articles on tiny topics? Majoreditor (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I think that hat was the original purpose - recognize articles for which FA might not be possible. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]