Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)
Ever since it failed the GA review, the article was cleaned up and was expanded. I know it's a bit short for a FA but it is a topic with much history. If you oppose it, please give suggestions on how to fix it. Thank you. --  JA 10  T · C 05:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The name is not the common name. No one knows it as SR 1002; it's known as Tilghman Street and Union Boulevard.
 * The writing isn't great.
 * Reference 25 ("1941 Lehigh County Map") does not show that the cities built Union Boulevard. It could have been built, at least partially, by the state.
 * Before "Thus, in 1987...", a sentence that I wrote, but that needed a source, was removed. There is now no explanation of why Church Street is the west end.
 * Reference 5 ("Diners of Pennsylvania") does not say anything to support "traffic improved on the William Penn Highway". It also doesn't say that "the public was ignoring the railroads"; what it says is that the "the railroads are virtually ignored by the traveling public" now, not then.
 * The major intersections table has unnecessary formatting such as the bolding of routes and the gray background. I suspect that the "DeLorme Street Atlas USA 2007, Toggle Measure Tool" does not have enough precision, and thus two decimal places is false precision. It definitely is for the overall length, which references MapQuest, since if you click "reverse route" it changes from 13.77 to 13.81.
 * None of the external links are useful. The map links do not belong on a long road, and do not even lead to a point on the road. The other links are only somewhat related, failing External links.
 * This needs some work on the writing and original research fronts. --NE2 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The agreed upon naming convention is what the title of the road is.  --myselfalso 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who agreed on it? The guideline says that we should use the common name. --NE2 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. First of all, the article is following WP:PASH rules on the junction table don't blame the article. Second PennDOT has this route signed as a quadrant route why do you want to rename it, we had this conversation before. And Delorme does use the two digit decimals as well as other department of transportations, meaning it can be used here. I agree with some things, but what I don't understand is the sentence about Church Street. You seem to have wrote it, but wikipedia has a rule, if it doesn't have a source is deleted, and you didn't have a source, so you might have been lying about that sentence. Although, theres one point I agree with you but strongly disagree with rest. --  JA 10  T · C 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read false precision.
 * You removed the sentence, and now the next sentence doesn't make sense. It says "Thus...only the portion...between Church Street and PA 378..." but doesn't say why Church Street is the end. --NE2 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, you can thank Vishwin60 for driving me away from the article; I might have helped fix the problems were it not for him. --NE2 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I removed it, it has no source. If I can be kind enough to provide it for me I would be grateful. --  JA 10  T · C 06:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source, but I'm pretty sure it's true. Without it, the article is incomplete. You're going to have to find a source. Try looking through state laws from that time period. --NE2 06:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the ugliness in the debate that just happened here has been moved to the talk page.  V 6 0  干什么？ · VDemolitions 23:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The fact that there's ugliness that needs to be moved to a separate page proves that the article isn't stable enough to be considered for a featured article.  Both sides make valid points:  SR 1002 isn't really a common name, but it's the only name that applies to the entire road that the article is about.  The AfD for the article, while it was extremely POINTy, seemed to indicate that the road was notable not because it's a secondary state highway, but because it's the main street of Allentown – so maybe the article needs to be written so that it's about Tilghman Street and not the state highway (as it originally was).  Regardless, this (as well as the issues surrounding the junction list) need to be resolved at the article talk page and/or Requested moves before the article is considered for a higher status. -- 66.165.10.74 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The name of the article should not apply to FAC, especially since the name is of a naming convention]] decided by the WikiProject.  --myselfalso 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the vote. WP:USRD members already have decided to name the articles as their signed. There's nothing wrong with the junction table, its simply following project standards. And stop calling the article ugly and assume good faith. Your vote was not helpful by the way. --  JA 10  T · C 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they were referring the the discussion (see Vish's comment above). —Scott5114↗ 23:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I want some FAC reviewers to comment the article based on the writing and forget about the damn name. The article is using the correct name and it was decided by project members and anyone wants to change the naming they can talk on the project about it but the article is following project standards and therefore shouldn't be blamed on this FAC. --  JA 10  T · C 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. Raul654 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't really like the choppy writing style. -- TREYWiki  22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a better explanation of why you opposed it. Because you don't like the "choppy writing style" doesn't help me improve the article. --  JA 10  T · C 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't help anyone to improve the article, other than a crude comment about choppy writing.  V 6 0  干什么？ · 喝掉的酒  ·  ER 4 17:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The overall flow on the article needs some work. It stops and starts with choppy sentences. Like this.-- TREYWiki  18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for elaborating.  V 6 0  干什么？ · 喝掉的酒  ·  ER 4 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the league of copy-editors will fix the problem with the writing, after that, it should be considered an FA. --  JA 10  T · C 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, I'd like to have the citations numbered correctly. They are all over the place. When citing a source more than once, put reftext first, then where you want the other citations with that source to be. I dont like to see the numbers go 3,1,2,4,7,10 ect. -- T. Wiki  23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I did do all that. Please comment on something useful to help the article, since this has already been accomplished. --  JA 10  T · C 01:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry about that, some users explained what you meant. --  JA 10  T · C 01:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.