Talk:U.S. Route 29 in Georgia

Length of the route description
Frankly, I didn't read it. I didn't need to read it to know that it was way too long. Please do not restore another RD that is over about a third of the length of what was just removed. Anything else is excessive in keeping with my comments on Talk:U.S. Route 23 in Georgia.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This thing was a good 30 K shorter than US 23, and your article on I-75 in Michigan is a whopping 115,563 bytes. -User:DanTD (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I-75 is nearly twice as long and has a fully-developed history section. –Fredddie™ 00:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Expounding on this idea, since I-75 is twice as long as US 23, half of that article's size is 57,582 bytes. Before the RD was removed, this article was listed at 58,404 bytes before the history section was necessarily developed.  A road of this length, forseeably, the big three sections should be about the same size, right?  Giving some space for the lead, that's about 18,000 bytes for each section.  The RD that was removed was over 39,000 bytes. –Fredddie™ 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's compare the lengths of RD sections against the mileage of the subject:

Comparing them, the difference is clear, and the GA examples are way too wordy compared to the RD section of a fully developed article rated as a Featured Article. In short, these GA RD sections need to be cut down.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

So my estimate that you need to cut the writing to a third of its original size is wrong; it should be a fifth instead. Also,, you can't compare the full size of a complete article to an article missing components. Another factor helping out the Michigan articles: they have photos in their RD sections. That breaks up the wall of text issues dramatically.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's compare it to another article; Georgia State Route 316. Not over the length, but over the content. First it goes here, then it goes there, then it goes there, then it goes there. I don't want something like that for a road article, and I'm pretty sure you don't want it either. It has to be something that genuinely defines the road. Or better yet, look at U.S. Route 29 in Alabama before it was redirected, and compare it to my restoration. As far as adding photos go, there really aren't that many. I'm not having such an easy time finding pics that I could apply to the category as I hoped. --User:DanTD (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another issue with the writing style in these two RDs: they essentially repeat the RJL. We do not have to list every junction. A good RD gives an overview of the landscapes a driver would encounter if he or she drove from terminus to terminus. It does not need to be a turn-by-turn set of directions on how to drive the highway. Yeah, it can be so at times, but it doesn't need to be.
 * As for your Alabama example, that's another case where the RD looks like a huge wall of text no one will read. If there were a few photos added to break up the text, that would help, but otherwise the length is just too long. The good articles seem to have a words per mile count in the middle of the single digits, yet you're near or in the 20s.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you know of more pictures that can adequately replace some of the text, I'm game. All I see right now in the commons though is a bunch of stuff from Flomaton and vicinity. -User:DanTD (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Photos don't replace text; rather they break it up. Otherwise all a reader sees is page after page of just text. If you add some photos, it breaks up that wall of text staring back at the reader. Photos add some visual interest, force the lines to flow on different widths a bit. They can disguise the length of the text somewhat, but a long major section of an article is still a long major section no matter what. In short, you do need to learn to pare back the verbosity of your RD writing, even if you could slot in some photos.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Why was the entire Route Description deleted? Why are some of you reprimanding the author for restoring it? I agree that the Route Description needed condensing, but blanking it is not helpful. Having a header there without content is more detrimental than an excessive Route Description. For a while, I thought I was unable to see it because I was viewing it on mobile.  V C  01:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)