Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 85 in North Carolina/1

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No point in WP:FIXLOOPing until the end of time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from Special:Permalink/1232539652:

I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".

I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sourcing problems:

Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39] I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43] the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.

Reading the thread noted by Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16] and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53] both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use reliable published sources to establish verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you mentioned that you don't have a newspapers.com subscription. Free access to newspapers.com is available via WP:TWL. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. Just got back from a short errand. Where is it on the Library? I can't seem to find it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, never mind, I found it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you still have to have a subscription to view PDFs of pages and clip articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wikipedia Library does let me access the articles for free. You're right about the clipping part, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread about this at WT:The Wikipedia Library#Can't create clippings on newspapers.com. To be honest, I'm still struggling to figure out the dance you have to go through to generate clippings with the new system. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same. What makes it annoying is the fact that I did indeed log in through the library, but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't let me take the clippings. I have no idea if this is my problem or a problem on the site's end. That's also pretty tedious. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith, do you think the issues have been fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. I spot-checked on statement ("Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction") It's still cited to the same useless map, plus the addition of a blog, which not not a WP:RS. Somebody else needs to give this a proper evaluation. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith @AirshipJungleman29 Now look, I reaaaaallly don't want to use Google Maps for this. But I did talk with Bneu on his talk page and he says that most road editors would agrees that it can be used as a last resort in case I can't find any other source to confirm it. Well, it turns out I indeed can't find the source, and I'm starting to get nervous. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went to the USGS website and everything is there. So now everything should be confirming to its source. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I've also put DeLorme as a source to help confirm everything in there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to verify facts against a source. Looking at the Fair Grove Quad, I can see that I-85 crosses Johnsontown Rd. But none of these facts are verifiable:

I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd (if anything, it looks the opposite)
Where mile marker 99 is.
What direction traffic flows on each section of I-85.
Which section of I-85 goes over the other when they cross 0.2 miles east of Johnsontown Rd.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to using maps as sources, but you can't just cite them and say whatever feels good. Just like with any other source, you need to carefully read the source and only say what the source says. This is crucial and non-negotiable. I hope whoever does the reassessment review will take the time to carefully check that the sources cited throughout this article do actually support the statements they are supposed to support. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I think at this point I'm going to have to use Google Maps as a source. I can't find anything else, and the official NCDOT maps don't help either. It's a last resort that I can only do since there's no other source to use. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are my responses for each one of your points.

I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd: I've changed under to cross to make it sound more neutral and in place for the source.
mile marker 99: TBH, I didn't think that this was even needed in the article, since it's almost unnecessary except for exits and major interchanges, so I removed it.
I've added Google Maps as a source for the last two points you've made. As aforementioned, there's little to no information I can find about the statements online. Based on articles like Interstate 75 in Michigan, which are featured and use Google Maps as a source, I feel that it's a bit adequate to use it in this article as well. Let's hope that someone else who checks over the article says it's perfectly fine to do so.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NoobThreePointOh, as reviewer time at GAR is limited, please make a note here when you believe the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review, and !vote accordingly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, I do believe now it does meet GA criteria, so is it possible for someone to begin a full review of the article? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look. Picking one citation at random:

It reaches the main exit for Belmont at NC 273 near milemarker 27, then crosses the Catawba River on the Cameron Morrison Bridge, entering Mecklenburg County.
- The map does not say this is the main exit. There's another exit that gets you to Belmont at N. Main St. Why couldn't that be the main exit?
- Nothing on the cited map says anything about mile marker 27.
- The map does verify that I-85 crosses the Catawba River, but says nothing about the bridge being named the Cameron Morrison Bridge.
- The map doesn't mention Mecklenburg County.

Please stop wasting everybody's time with this. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

I've changed the wording so that it displays Belmont at both N. Main St. and NC 273 for clarity, since both of them go to downtown.
This part was cut out despite the source I put showing that exit 27 is milemarker 27, so it's a whatever thing.
The last two: I've put a source describing all of the road and bridge names in North Carolina, but the naming of the bridge as well as the counties it connects is on page 21 out of 27 pages on the .pdf document.

I looked for other places where you might suggest improvements and tried fixing them there, but I won't be asking any other checks for a couple days at fear that I might get blocked by you in terms of wasting time. I'm apologizing for that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, one thing before I go: Could you get a roadgeek to review the article as a second opinion? Thanks, and out. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per WP:FIXLOOP.--Laun chba ller 09:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.