Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 70 in Utah/1

Interstate 70 in Utah

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Procedural close. Reinserted in the GAN queue. Recommend that the article is put on hold, e.g., by NE2. Geometry guy 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have several reasons for requesting reassessment
 * 1) In a rapid fire succession of edits, the reviewer added several articles he was working on and failed articles that were in line before his.
 * 2) Procedure was not followed. The reviewer simply deleted all mention of this article being nominated for GA status. The reviewer did not add any content that was supposed to be added, such as the GA Failed template to the talk page.
 * 3) As another editor whose article was failed in this succession of edits has mentioned, the reviewer is a frequent editor and author of US roads related articles. The reviewer has contributed to the article in question, but mostly the exit list section.
 * 4) On the talk page only a one line reason was given for failing the article -- reliable sources. When pressed about which source, the reviewer picked one that is almost entirely confirmed by other sources used on the page, including official department of transportation sources.
 * 5) When pressed on the subject of what is inaccurate about the article, he challenged a statement where I used the highway resolution page from the Utah Department of Transportation as a source. As this is an article about a Utah highway, I don't know what source would be more authoritative than the state department of transportation.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

--NE2 09:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (1)(3): Who cares?
 * (2): So I didn't dot my "i"s. You can do it.
 * (4): Then you should use those sources, not the unreliable source ( http://members.aol.com/utahhwys/index.htm ) that is currently cited.
 * (5): You should read the PDF more carefully; the AASHTO correspondence is all in 1976.


 * (1)(3) We do. You may not review articles to which you have previously contributed. This is stated clearly in the GAN guidelines. Geometry guy 10:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I have not contributed to this article. The articles I was working on were different ones that I added to the nomination page. --NE2 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... I totally missed that I had done the exit list. Had I remembered that, I probably wouldn't have reviewed this, but now that I have it's kind of late to fix that... and the exit list doesn't really matter much anyway for the overall criteria. --NE2 10:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the edit history for Good article nominations speaks for itself. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A contributions slice probably provides a better history. However, we should try to assume as much good faith as possible in the light of this evidence: NE2 could have spent an hour on these reviews before failing them, and failed them in good faith on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria. Nevertheless, it is fairly clear that the reviews were inadequate (these articles should have been put on hold, not failed) and that NE2 had a conflict of interest to reduce the backlog so that his own nominations would be reviewed more quickly. I am sure NE2 did not realise that he was acting improperly by doing this. He could easily make amends by placing these articles on hold and offering to give them a proper review.
 * If he chooses not to do this, I will restore them in their original places on the nominations list. Geometry guy 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. I thought I'd help but apparently that didn't happen. --NE2 00:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand by my choice of sources as usable for wikipedia. However, I agree that if the same claim can be sourced via a government website or personal website, the government source is the better choice. I admit my logic in "divying" sources was flawed. I will switch sources to the fha.gov source where applicable. Thank you for your efforts.Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources look good now. I'd be willing to promote it, though I still think the route description needs a bit of work. If anyone knows the proper process to close this and promote it, please do so. --NE2 04:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The route description was and is a challenge. I would welcome any help in adding more content. If you look at the maps, that part of the country is pretty bare. The freeway is about 230 miles long, but only has maybe 4 stoplights within 20 miles of it's corridor (all in Richfield). It's the only drive I know in the world where you can be on a busy freeway, yet its been 100 miles since you've seen so much as a power pole, forget a gas station or restaurant. Quite a unique experience, if you've never done it. As the article states, it has a unique origin and history, and may inspire the creation of a national park, but as far as things to describe, not much there.


 * I've had a quick look at the article, and still think it needs a proper review. The lead does not adequately summarize the history section of the article, and it is not clear that the section on the railroad is fully cited (it seems to be written from a single source, which is fine if there is no additional information in the section, and no other sources are readily available). The article might also benefit from a "See also" or "External links" section to provide further reading. Geometry guy 12:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)