This redirect is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This redirect is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport
@Imzadi1979: Since you are the article's creator and primary contributor, your opinion as to the rating of this article is not without bias. I will notify the proper WikiProjects to get some more opinions. - SweetNightmares22:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assess articles daily for USRD, and this meets the criteria of that project for B-Class. It has a route description, a history section, a junction list (collectively the "Big Three"), and it's properly cited. For USRD, that means B-Class. Imzadi 1979→22:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What possible reason would you have to believe an editor who has written over 200 Good Articles would purposefully mis-assess this one? TCN7JM22:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SweetNightmares: USRD uses a slightly different assessment scheme based on the Big Three. If an article has all three of them, it is at least C-Class, and if it's fully/properly cited, it's a B. Everything in this article is cited, and all three sections are present, so it's a B, period. Imzadi 1979→22:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
C-class distinction requires the "big 3," but B-class criteria are less clear. The criteria for USRD is located here: "Once an article has reached C-Class, it has reached the point where another editor should review it before its assessment is raised further. There is a gentlemen's agreement among USRD editors to not give their own work a B-Class rating in most cases ... [B-class articles are] complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it may not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert."
IMHO this article is good, but nothing above and beyond, and it only has six citations, three of which are from the same source, and two of which are just maps. There is one measly picture despite the route being some 2000 km long, and no map. The article also does little to tell us about anything other than the parcours and establishment of the route. Does it go through any parks? Are there any lookouts along the way? Etc.
More general guidelines may be found here. I realize that different projects may have different ratings, but the front of the article currently displays as such, which can be misleading to readers, and it's better to err on the side of caution in my opinion. - SweetNightmares23:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those more general guidelines do not apply to a USRD assessment. The LSCT overlaps other state or provincial highways in its entirety; it never exists as a separate roadway. More specific details on each mile of the tour can be found in each of those articles, so even though it's 1,000 miles (1,600 km) or so long (not 2,000 km), this article was written to be a summary without going too far in depth. Rather than argue with those questioning the assessment, I'll remove the opportunity to question it. The article has been merged back, and someone else can deal with cleaning up the parent list someday. Imzadi 1979→23:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
