Talk:North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951)

North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951) was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 6, 2016	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
January 11, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 15, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 23, 2021	Articles for deletion	Kept
Current status: Former good article nominee

U.S. Roads: State highways / North Carolina Low‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	North Carolina
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article does not have a KML file. Please work with the Maps department to create and add a file for this article.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Carolina Highway 13 (1935–1951)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Philroc (talk · contribs) 02:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Fredddie are having an argument over whether two maps should be used as a source for where the route in the title went. The maps have the route on them, but one can't find it without being told where it is. That's why I put a footnote in the article describing where the route is. But Fredddie doesn't like that either, and now we need someone to tell us both what they think about this. Phil roc^{My contribs} 00:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of background information? Why isn't it cited and included in the article? –Fredddie ™ 02:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Sorry, I misworded that. What I meant to say was that one would have to be told where on the map NC 13 is before they can find it. Phil roc^{My contribs} 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

@Ncchild: Because of the problems mentioned below, I'm going to put this article on hold. Nom, you have 7 days to fix the problems. Phil roc^{My contribs} 13:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncchild: Just noticed the lead does talk about the history of the article, so section 1b actually passes. Only problem now is with the sources as described below. Phil roc^{My contribs} 14:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:
There were tags about the things the article said not being in the sources it gave for them, but most of them were wrong, and I decided to remove them myself. However, there are still some tags which were right, and which you need to fix.
I'm a bit confused on what you are asking here. Besides the part about the third reincarnation, most of the info should be from the maps that were cited. With the third incarnation part, I'm not sure how to cite that, because there were two previous NC 13's one from 1921 to 1932 then another one from 1934 to 1935. But I citing all of those maps would seem to me like it would be weird, and at the same time, I'm not sure how to cite that it is the last incarnation.--Ncchild (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ncchild: No, citing all of those maps would be fine. There would only be two that you would need to cite. About what I'm asking you, all I want you to do is find those two theoretical maps which show the other NC 13s and cite them. Phil roc^{My contribs} 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged those maps with {{Not in source given}} because it's not clear where NC 13 was on the maps. That fails WP:V. Ref 5, which is archived, the page loads, but the map on the page did not load, so I tagged it with {{Dead link}}. –Fredddie ™ 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Thanks for telling us why you put in those tags. About the maps, just because NC 13 is hard to find on the map doesn't mean we should act like it isn't on the map at all. I know you don't agree with me on that. The problem is, you can't make the map zoomed in to a certain part right when you load it. Also, this map is the only resource we have for NC 13. I think we'll just have to deal with the fact that NC 13 is hard to find. Besides, it's not like it's not on there. About the dead link, archiving the page wasn't even necessary, since it's still up. Phil roc^{My contribs} 23:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have to do a better job of identifying it. You can't do that with poorly labeled maps. –Fredddie ™ 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: There, I added a footnote to each map reference explaining where NC 13 is on the map. Now the only thing that needs to happen is @Ncchild: adding the references for the third incarnation statement. Phil roc^{My contribs} 23:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That doesn't help the underlying problem at all and only reinforces my belief that at this time you have no business reviewing articles at GAN. –Fredddie ™ 00:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: These maps are the only resource we have to prove the history of NC 13. So there are two choices - these maps or no maps at all. What's your pick? Phil roc^{My contribs} 00:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the article from GAN and dig deeper. I don't buy the "only resource we have" argument at all. –Fredddie ™ 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: I'm going to change this article to second opinion, since I think that's what we desperately need here. Phil roc^{My contribs} 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Since this article has been moved three times today, that fails the stability requirement. –Fredddie ™ 22:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: It was stable when I reviewed it. Phil roc^{My contribs} 00:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your review has not ended. –Fredddie ™ 23:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: I meant when I made this checklist. Phil roc^{My contribs} 23:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
While I am not the official reviewer of this article, I feel neither the nominator nor the reviewer have a good understanding of the criteria. Should this article pass here, I will boldly reassess it per the WP:GAR process. –Fredddie ™ 23:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"These maps are the only resource we have to prove the history of NC 13. So there are two choices - these maps or no maps at all. What's your pick?" If you're saying this, you should not be reviewing articles. It's way too easy to manipulate an unclear map to make it say whatever is convenient for us.

I am tempted to nominate this article for merging, anyway. If 5 refs is all that you can come up with for a potential GAN, and they're all maps, perhaps the article should not exist. --Rs chen 7754 08:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support Fredddie's assertion that this article is no longer stable. I am particularly troubled by how the reviewer is making extensive changes to the article instead of the nominator. I suggest this GAN be failed for now. This article can be renominated in a few months after the nominator makes changes to the article, and it should be reviewed by someone who is not substantively contributing to the article. V C 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Viridiscalculus: It's not really my fault. The nom doesn't seem to want to do anything, so I have to do things for them. Oh, and I'm failing this because of what Viridiscalculus said. Phil roc^{My contribs} 13:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Carolina Highway 13 (1936–1951)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 06:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best! jp×g 06:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. This isn't going to be a fun review.

All the sources from this article are maps. Let's take a look:
I opened the first map, which is an enormously confusing mesh of highways: isn't this the work of a state government? Isn't this public domain? Wouldn't it be possible to take a screenshot of the section that shows this highway? At any rate, I looked very closely on this one for the alleged route of Highway 13, based on the outline from the OpenStreetMap insert in the infobox, going northeast from just north of Seagrove to the middle of Staley. I do not see anything at all labeled 13. I see mile markers on the side of other roads labeled "13". There is no highway that remotely follows the route laid out in the article. This source does not seem to show anything.
The second map has the same issue (an extremely large image with no indication of where the highway is). After much effort, I see that NC 13 now does indeed go northeast from Seagrove... but it doesn't go to Staley! It goes northeast, then northwest, and connects to 64.
The third map is unclear on what precisely is going on. It does show a 13, which just kind of connects to 902. There is another route, coming out of the north side of 902 a good few miles east, that connect with Staley. Nowhere does it say this is 13.
The fourth map shows nothing at all going northeast from Seagrove. The number "13" appears somewhere near that area, on a completely different road, as a mile marker.
The fifth map is a present-day Google Maps link. This is barely a WP:RS to begin with, and it's being used to support a statement about where a highway went in 1936. It demonstrates absolutely no factual claim (besides the fact that, in the year 2021, there are roads that follow a route described in the article).
The sixth map, from 1924, shows absolutely no highway connecting Seagrove to Staley, which isn't even on the map.
The seventh map, from 1935, also shows no highway connecting Seagrove to Staley.

The fact of the matter is that this article's only sourcing is seven scans of old maps, which is enough of a problem, but it is even more of a problem that literally none of them confirm the claims being made in the article.

To make things worse, all of these issues were brought up in the last unsuccessful GA nomination, and were not fixed; in fact, the article had zero edits between February 2017 and November 2020, at which point no new sources were introduced at all. I do not doubt that this article could meet notability criteria with additional references, but as it stands, it seems to consist of nothing more than original research; I'm failing it, and would advise that more work be done before a re-nomination. jp×g 07:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]