Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ridge Route/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 14:01, 28 February 2007.

Ridge Route

Review commentary

Messages left at Lucky 6.9 (e-mail), California, U.S. Roads, National Register of Historic Places, and Southern California. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count two citations, one external jump, and a scattered handful of references at the very bottom of the page (1c). Prose is also not terribly brillant, including this direction given to me: "...if you step out of your vehicle for exploration within the forest boundaries." Hbdragon88 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, this article needs inline citations or it should not be FA status. I know nothing about it but maybe those who did the body of work on it can assist.A mcmurray 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly uncited, entire Driving section speaks to the reader directly. Remove. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, not a single edit since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, multiple problems and nothing happening. Trebor 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c), and prose (1a). Marskell 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So wait... what the heck needs to be done? I believe the editors who originally worked on this article left, and I'm not exactly sure what to do, having never nom'ed a FA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just looking it over:

Few inline citations
Speaking directly to the reader (driving directions)
Contradiction between "Navigating on the Ridge Route demands safe driving habits. Potholes, loose sand, debris, remnants of mudslides and rockslides and many of the aforementioned 697 curves await today's traveler. " and "As of August 2005, the 1915 Ridge Route is officially closed for public access, "You can not drive in, hike in, motorcycle in etc. on the damaged road. Angeles Forest closed the road because pipeline companies are operating heavy equipment on the road to repair their lines damaged during...[the] record rain fall [experienced in Southern California in winter 2005]." Can you drive on it, or not?--HowardSF-U-T-C- 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove — a lot of work needs to be done, and few people have the time or interest in working on it. — Deckill er 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom. Hbdragon88 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated this for WP:USRD/AID. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Deckiller and Hbdragon88. LuciferMorgan 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have chosen to improve it as part of the WikiProject U.S. Roads/Article Improvement Drive. Please give us a few weeks to do so. I have requested the book that is cited through interlibrary loan but it has not arrived yet. --NE2 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A few weeks might be too long to keep this on the page; perhaps it can be re-nominated for featured status when you're done. — Deckill er 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that because of bureaucratic reasons or because there's a good reason not to keep something here for a few weeks? --NE2 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have to try and keep entries moving, because we have a limited group of people outside of the indiviudal article editors who can work on the articles, and there are so many to process. So it's a mix of both reasons. — Deckill er 11:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Offer respite. If you have too many processes then I suggest prioritizing instead of assuming that "Remove" is the default option. The point of FAR is primarily to get articles improved, not to satisfy the schedule of the reviewers. If someone offers to work on the article, it's the FAR-process that should be blown off temporarily, not those offering to work on the article. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, needs a lot of work, if it hasn't already been pointed out there are also image issues. --Peta 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those can be fixed. If this is removed I may just send the book back when it arrives, since I assume it's harder to get something through FAC than to keep it there. --NE2 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't let this article's status prevent you from improving it. Yes, FAs are great stuff, but all articles need work regardless of their article status. Please don't return it - keep it and improve the article... Hbdragon88 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, FAR may be harder on articles than FAC at the moment. And yes, the FA status isn't the be all and end all of a page's worth; improvement is always welcome.
    - We can leave this open, but "a few weeks" is a little vague. Some work needs to happen in the meantime. You might start with the image tags. Marskell 10:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tagged them as lacking source; what more is to be done? --NE2 10:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, sources should actually be found for them or they should be removed. The LEAD is underweight, and it needs more sourcing. Marskell 18:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.