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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:44, 4 July 2024

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

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

Result pending

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]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :@[[User:RoySmith|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. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
+::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]]:
+::* {{tq|I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36]}} not supported by the map
+::* {{tq|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.
+::*{{tq| 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.  [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)