Template:Did you know nominations/Ohio State Route 822

Closing note: A week has passed and nothing has been done to improve the state of the article. After 3 separate ×-marks, I'm afraid this nom can't be passed.

Ohio State Route 822

 * ... that Ohio State Route 822 is only 0.13 mi long?
 * Comment: GAN that just passed a few hours ago. This is my third DYK.
 * Comment: GAN that just passed a few hours ago. This is my third DYK.

Created/expanded by CycloneIsaac (talk). Self nominated at 01:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I was drawn to this short and catchy hook. However, the article was created in 2006 and has not been expanded five-fold, in fact maybe only just over twice the size in its prose sections. The length of the road is difficult to verify too, being sourced to an obscure document of data on the State website. I'd question the notability of this road, despite it passing a GA check I can't see any reliable coverage about the road presented here! But the article seems to fail at the first hurdle - not new enough or long enough. Sionk (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is long enough (1588 characters, 1500 minimum). Those documents are the only accurate way I could source it.&mdash; CycloneIsaac – E-Mail 00:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since this is a recent GA, there should be no problems with the date of the article.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyways, wouldn't have the reviewer said something about the notability of the topic before the review?&mdash; CycloneIsaac – E-Mail 02:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have. Most roads in state numbered highway systems are notable, and I see no indicator that this one is not. T  C  N7 JM  02:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact it is incredibly short and there's no coverage about it ;) Okay, I see recent GA's are eligible for DYK. Considering the length of the road is dubiously sourced and this is the key fact of the hook, I'm not willing to pass it. If someone else can see clear verification of the fact and want's to pass the DYK, go ahead. Sionk (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * An official document from the Ohio Department of Transportation is "dubious" now? The document clearly says that the road is 000.130 miles in length. T  C  N7 JM  03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I have verified that the length is supported in the reference. Looks good to me.  Dough 48  72  03:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg It's a no from me, I'm afraid. The prose is just over the 1500 character limit, but with some copyediting it could be brought under that, so it looks like an attempt to game the system by padding. It contains confusing jargon such as "after multiple trunctations" (?) and "The connector is part of the expanded National Highway System" (for me, "connectors" are things like RCA, XLR and TRS). The article is cited entirely to either trivial sources such as maps (which list every feature everywhere indiscriminately, not just notable ones) or news pieces that are actually about Fort Steuben Bridge and only mention the road in trivial passing mentions, and even then only tangentially. This is a good candidate for AfD or redirecting to the bridge article. If you want an example of how to improve this, I can suggest the history of Cardiff West services (AfD) as a starting point. Ritchie333   (talk)   (cont)   09:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Point well made. In fact SR822 never used the Fort Steuben Bridge, on which much of the 'History' paragraph is based. I'm surprised the GA assessment didn't consider that fact. Cut this down to a comensurate size and the article falls below 1500 characters. Sionk (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I'm opposing promotion of the hook, not because of the article itself, per se, but rather because the hook is boring.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)