Talk:Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The Interstate highway that the article speaks of currently exists not only in New Jersey, but for a stretch in Deleware to connect it to I-95. There are also plans to extend I-295 into Pennsylvania along the current route of I-95 to the planned I-276 interchange. --Engleman 01:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support Engleman 01:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support reasons below --Rschen7754 04:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support there is no sense in 2-3 separate articles, Vaoverland 04:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose weakly. 1) suggested name is just too darn long and awkward and IMO doesn't really do much to enhance the article--the vast majority of the road is in NJ and will be even after the PA segment. The parenthetical phrase is intended to disambiguate the title, and it is not always feasible or desitable to be accurate to the nth degree with such dabs. 2) There would in no case be any justification for multiple articles about the same road. Though there should probably be redirects from Interstate 295 (Delaware) and Interstate 195 (Pennsylvania) to here though. older≠wiser 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Shouldn't this article be titled Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania)? (I know it's not in Pennsylvania yet, but doesn't Delaware deserve to be listed?) --Engleman 03:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Put it up for a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Boothy443 | comhrá 03:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I support this move per wp above. --Rschen7754 04:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The move is complete; I'm checking for double-redirects now. --Chris 02:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Would NJ Route 73 be considered acceptable on the Interstate 295 info box?

[edit] GA failed

As of [1], the article during this review, I failed this article for Good Article status. This is a good encyclopaedic article, well-written and well-sourced, but I cannot pass this for GA because:

  1. The Exit list section that comprises more than half of the article is a heavy list. Per WP:MOS, list, numbered and bulleted items should be written in textual form. WP:WIAGA also states that list is not covered by the GA system.
  2. The Future development section is not yet an encyclopaedic fact. Information in this section may change in the future, so accuracy of the factual data is still questionable.

I suggest to drop the Future development section and expand the article. The Exit list should be separated into WP:LIST article, which can be further submitted to WP:FLC. Just provide some descriptions of the exits, probably prominent or major exits, and then point the reader to go for complete exit list article of this intersection. As always, if editors disagree about this review, you may submit this article to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A good article review and peer review have been opened for this article. -- NORTH talk 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage of GA by Consensus

[edit] Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey)

result: Pass as GA 3-0 (original nominator's vote doesn't count)

I disagree with the failure. The two objections were that the exit list should be separated into a new article (!) and that the "future developments" section is somehow not encyclopedic. Here is my rebuttal:

  • Just as articles about rail lines list stations, it makes sense to list exits in the article. I see only a few lists that are separated from the article:
  • There used to be others, like I-95 exit list, but there are now separate articles for each state that I-95 passes through, and so the list has been moved into those articles. The only others here that cover a single state are I-96 and Highway 401. The exit list for Highway 401 is 35 KB, so it was kept in AFD. The I-96 list is similarly 33 KB. But the I-295 exit list does not give such a message when placed in a user subpage, and the entire article is only 32 KB. Therefore, I don't think it is useful to split off the exit list of I-295 (and many other similar articles).
  • The future developments are things that have been officially talked about for a long time, and are well-cited.

--NE2 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was the reviewer. Looking at your lists of exits, aren't they evidences that lists should be separated into WP:LIST articles? Having more than 50% of the total space in this article, it seems that the Exit List section is better to be separated. You said: the exit list is only 32KB? Please look at WP:SIZE, 32KB is the upper limit for a considerably good size of WP article. What do you mean by placing in a user subpage? And about future developments, they are indeed well-cited, but I don't recall any future projects, future plans or future events in an encyclopaedia book. However, I might have a second thought about the future developments section, as long as editors warn readers with {{future}} template. — Indon (reply) — 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read my statements more carefully; I was saying that the exit lists that are split are over 30 KB. Here the entire article, including the text, is only 32 KB.
"Encyclopedia books" generally do not include future plans because they are books, and cannot be updated. Wikipedia is not paper. O-Bahn Busway, a featured article, includes future plans (at the end of O-Bahn Busway#History), and MTR, another featured article, has a whole "the future" section. --NE2 20:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the future section. It is allowed, but the article still suffers with the "list problem". Either split (less than 32KB size is not a problem for a list article) or treat the whole article as a list article. WP:LIST does not merely contain list, but also some textual sections. However, both split and treat options still hold for the GA failed decision that GA does not cover list, per WP:WIAGA. — Indon (reply) — 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an article that contains a list, not a list that contains an article. Or are articles like Northeast Corridor actually lists? --NE2 23:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If Northeast Corridor is nominated for GA/FA, then I'm sure somebody would suggest to separate the listy part into list article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indon (talk • contribs)
Let's wait and see if someone else comments, and I can decide whether to continue to ignore the GA process. --NE2 12:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the large table in the article count as a table or chart rather than just a list only? Homestarmy 13:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if it does not cover more than half of the article space. The section itself is named as Exit List. I suggest to make a description (1-2 paragraphs) about prominent exits from this highway and use {{details}} or {{see also}} template to point readers to the complete Exit List article. Would the article then too short? Well, you can Accidents or Maintenance sections, for example. — Indon (reply) — 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, just because a table is big in comparison to the rest of the article, I don't see how it stops being a table. It looks like it falls under WP:TABLE, where they can be used as lists of information.... Homestarmy 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still confused as to why the list should be split out. It seems wholly unnecessary, especially since whenever exit lists are brought to AfD - or when discussion is held on WikiProject pages - consensus is always to merge them with the main highway article. To quote WP:LIST: "Embedded lists are either included in the article or appended to the end of articles. They present information or aid in navigation to related articles." Perhaps if Indon would explain exactly what the "list problem" is, rather than linking to shortcuts, I might be less confused.

It's true that good article criteria does not cover lists, but as has been oft repeated, this is not a list, but an article that otherwise (as far as I can tell) meets the criteria and happens to contain a list "appended to the end of the article" to "present information". -- NORTH talk 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to listen opinions here. If consensus says the article is not WP:LIST, then I concur GA for the article. The rest of the article is excellent. — Indon (reply) — 19:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you for keeping an open mind. -- NORTH talk 23:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Perhaps my understanding about WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Embedded lists are wrong. Anybody else? — Indon (reply) — 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it, everyone who's commented here is correct at least in part. It would make sense to split the exit list into a separate article (as you said), but only if the article or the exit list itself were long, which it's not (as NE2 said). WP:LIST allows for lists to be included at the end of articles as "embedded lists" (as I said), but apparently according to Wikipedia:Embedded Lists, the exit list isn't the type of list it's talking about. Which brings me to what Homestarmy said. Are we sure this is a list at all? Just because it's called an exit list doesn't make it the same sort of animal as List of AM stations in Las Vegas. I think WP:TABLE covers much more closely what we're talking about here, which under #When tables are appropriate says "lists of information" "best presented in row-and-column format" – a perfect description of what an exit "list" actually is. -- NORTH talk 18:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading WP:WIAGA, I have a couple more thoughts to add on the "list" issue. As Indon pointed out, GA status does not apply to list articles. But this is not a list article – to beat a dead horse, it's an article that contains a list to add additional information in a neat and organized fashion. So let's look at the actual criteria at WP:WIAGA

  • Is it well-written? (IMHO, yes.)
  • Is it factually accurate and verifiable? (Yes, everything should be referenced well enough to meet this criteria.)
  • Is it broad in its coverage? (Yes, covers past, present, and future.)
  • Does it follow the neutral point of view policy? (IMHO, yes.)
  • Is it stable? (Yes. There are some reverts here and there, but certainly nothing that was in danger of becoming "an ongoing edit war".)
  • Does it contain images, where possible, to illustrate the topic? (Other than the shield images, there is only one, but it has a "succinct and descriptive caption", and "a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status."

-- NORTH talk 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the exit lists, the project standards fully back exit lists. If there is a problem with that, it should be addressed there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Support GA. After some thinking, it seems to me that this most likely is a table, and since there's nothing in the criteria about WP:TABLE, (and because its not that bad to just IAR it or something) I don't think its length is really a big problem. The article is quite good in most other ways even if the long table looks a bit odd. Homestarmy 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Support GA (as original nominator) per Homestarmy and my most recent comment above. -- NORTH talk 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Support GA It's a table, folks. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Support GA Per NORTH and Aerobird. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to pass. Diez2 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)