Talk:North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Philroc (talk · contribs) 02:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Me and Fredddie are having an argument over whether two maps should be used as a source for where the route in the title went. The maps have the route on them, but one can't find it without being told where it is. That's why I put a footnote in the article describing where the route is. But Fredddie doesn't like that either, and now we need someone to tell us both what they think about this. Phil roc My contribs 00:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What kind of background information? Why isn't it cited and included in the article? –Fredddie™ 02:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misworded that. What I meant to say was that one would have to be told where on the map NC 13 is before they can find it. Phil  roc My contribs 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria  Because of the problems mentioned below, I'm going to put this article on hold. Nom, you have 7 days to fix the problems. Phil roc My contribs 13:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the lead does talk about the history of the article, so section 1b actually passes. Only problem now is with the sources as described below. Phil  roc My contribs 14:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * There were tags about the things the article said not being in the sources it gave for them, but most of them were wrong, and I decided to remove them myself. However, there are still some tags which were right, and which you need to fix.
 * I'm a bit confused on what you are asking here. Besides the part about the third reincarnation, most of the info should be from the maps that were cited. With the third incarnation part, I'm not sure how to cite that, because there were two previous NC 13's one from 1921 to 1932 then another one from 1934 to 1935. But I citing all of those maps would seem to me like it would be weird, and at the same time, I'm not sure how to cite that it is the last incarnation.--Ncchild (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, citing all of those maps would be fine. There would only be two that you would need to cite. About what I'm asking you, all I want you to do is find those two theoretical maps which show the other NC 13s and cite them. Phil  roc My contribs 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I tagged those maps with because it's not clear where NC 13 was on the maps.  That fails WP:V.  Ref 5, which is archived, the page loads, but the map on the page did not load, so I tagged it with . –Fredddie™ 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling us why you put in those tags. About the maps, just because NC 13 is hard to find on the map doesn't mean we should act like it isn't on the map at all. I know you don't agree with me on that. The problem is, you can't make the map zoomed in to a certain part right when you load it. Also, this map is the only resource we have for NC 13. I think we'll just have to deal with the fact that NC 13 is hard to find. Besides, it's not like it's not on there. About the dead link, archiving the page wasn't even necessary, since it's still up. Phil  roc My contribs 23:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we have to do a better job of identifying it. You can't do that with poorly labeled maps. –Fredddie™ 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There, I added a footnote to each map reference explaining where NC 13 is on the map. Now the only thing that needs to happen is adding the references for the third incarnation statement.  Phil  roc My contribs 23:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? That doesn't help the underlying problem at all and only reinforces my belief that at this time you have no business reviewing articles at GAN. –Fredddie™ 00:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These maps are the only resource we have to prove the history of NC 13. So there are two choices - these maps or no maps at all. What's your pick? Phil  roc My contribs 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdraw the article from GAN and dig deeper. I don't buy the "only resource we have" argument at all. –Fredddie™ 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to change this article to second opinion, since I think that's what we desperately need here. Phil  roc My contribs 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Since this article has been moved three times today, that fails the stability requirement. –Fredddie™ 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was stable when I reviewed it. Phil  roc My contribs 00:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your review has not ended. –Fredddie™ 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant when I made this checklist. Phil  roc My contribs 23:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * While I am not the official reviewer of this article, I feel neither the nominator nor the reviewer have a good understanding of the criteria. Should this article pass here, I will boldly reassess it per the WP:GAR process. –Fredddie™ 23:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your review has not ended. –Fredddie™ 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant when I made this checklist. Phil  roc My contribs 23:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * While I am not the official reviewer of this article, I feel neither the nominator nor the reviewer have a good understanding of the criteria. Should this article pass here, I will boldly reassess it per the WP:GAR process. –Fredddie™ 23:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * While I am not the official reviewer of this article, I feel neither the nominator nor the reviewer have a good understanding of the criteria. Should this article pass here, I will boldly reassess it per the WP:GAR process. –Fredddie™ 23:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"These maps are the only resource we have to prove the history of NC 13. So there are two choices - these maps or no maps at all. What's your pick?" If you're saying this, you should not be reviewing articles. It's way too easy to manipulate an unclear map to make it say whatever is convenient for us.

I am tempted to nominate this article for merging, anyway. If 5 refs is all that you can come up with for a potential GAN, and they're all maps, perhaps the article should not exist. --Rschen7754 08:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I support Fredddie's assertion that this article is no longer stable. I am particularly troubled by how the reviewer is making extensive changes to the article instead of the nominator. I suggest this GAN be failed for now. This article can be renominated in a few months after the nominator makes changes to the article, and it should be reviewed by someone who is not substantively contributing to the article.  V C  13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not really my fault. The nom doesn't seem to want to do anything, so I have to do things for them. Oh, and I'm failing this because of what Viridiscalculus said. Phil  roc My contribs 13:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)