Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/New Jersey Route 180/1

New Jersey Route 180[edit]

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

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 10:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main source, "Alps' Roads", is a personal site and not a reliable source. --NE2 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about notability, both this and New Jersey State Route 72 are related by history, per the leads of both articles. As both are short articles, IMO they should be combined.Dave (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - According to this discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Alps' Roads, along with a bunch of other road sites, were cleared for use in Good Articles. Steve Alpert uses the state statutes on his site, and they can be cited as a more reliable source. I also have some old road maps that show NJ 180, and I can use them to provide additional verification. As for the notability, I had suggested in the GA review that the article be moved to County Route 50 (Ocean County, New Jersey), as I thought it would be better to present the information about a current county route with a detailed route description and the historical information about NJ 180 in the history section rather than as a decommissioned route that defers to describe the route as it is today. If the article can be rewritten to present detailed information about the route today as CR 50, with additional citations from the state statutes as well as old road maps, then it should be kept as a GA; otherwise, it may need to be delisted and possibly merged back to NJ 72. Dough4872 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion didn't "clear" anything. I also don't see any state statutes for NJ 180, and there doesn't seem to be anything relevant in Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/History notes. --NE2 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then research the statutes and cite them. — master son^{T - C} 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alps' Roads does provide state statutes for the creation of NJ S40 in 1927 and the renumbering to NJ 72 in 1953; those individual statues can be used in verifying those renumberings. As for the creation and removal of NJ 180, old road maps probably need to be used to verify the information. I have a 1969 road map that shows NJ 180. If anyone else has a collection of old maps and can verify the information, then it can be added to the article as a reference. If no one can turn up good information in this regard, the article may not be able to remain a GA. Dough4872 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The state statues can be very tricky. Some are marked as ROUTE NO. - rather than the number. If I remember correctly, that is often done with decommissioned routes. Route 158 was an example of it, or its original designation is not in the statues at all. :| - I would see if we can find the description of the statues on the actual statues site.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have searched Google, the New Jersey Legislature's statues, and Ocean County's website and could not find any relevant information pertaining to NJ 180. Maybe it would be better if there was a way to contact one of the government authorities in order to find information about NJ 180. Dough4872 (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you read the descriptions of the statues?Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I went to the New Jersey Legislature's website, clicked under "statutes", and found several useful links at the top (FAQ, help, etc.) which can provide a description of the statutes. However, I don't think they would do any help for this article as I searched "route 180" and nothing relevant came up. Legislation for the creation and removal of this route may have been through a bill, of which only bills from 1996-1997 on can be found online. Dough4872 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Then I do not support this remaining a good article. If I recall, I reviewed an article earlier and put it on hold because I was not satisfied with only Alp's Roads being the sole source for these histories. This article even further is just a case where notability is questionable Is there enough important history (political, etc) to warrant an article for routes this short? — master son^{T - C} 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        At this point I am beginning to feel that this article was split from NJ 72 just to make an additional article that could qualify for GA status. I had reservations with listing the article as a GA all along, see the GA review. It may just make more sense to merge NJ 180 back into the history section of NJ 72 as all the information in this article can efficiently be presented there, therefore making NJ 72 a better article. Many former New Jersey routes redirect to the article that they were a former alignment of, as New Jersey Route 153 redirects to New Jersey Route 3. Dough4872 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is why we can't have silly games. --NE2 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are somewhat true in that regard. Both Mitchazenia and I were involved in the USRDCRWPCup at the time the article underwent its GA review and both wanted to get credit for the article passing. In addition, Mitchazenia is involved in the WP:CUP and is trying to get points for GA's there. Dough4872 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not so sure that Alp's meets GA criteria for being a reliable source. That's not to say that it isn't a nifty website. However, this description of its sourcing doesn't inspire my confidence that it meets Wikipedia standards for a "reliable publication process"; rather, it appears to be more of a self-published source. Majoreditor (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the material on the website, such as realignments of highways, may need to be field-checked with historical road maps. However, a significant portion of the information on the site comes from the New Jersey state statutes, which are reliable. It would probably help if we could find out how the contribuitors to Alps' Roads got the material that is used in the website. Dough4872 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist — This article should be delisted as a GA. Its sourcing does not follow WP:RS so the article does not meet the GA criteria, specifically criterion 2b on reliable sources. If the information on the site is reliable, then it can be verified in other sources. These other sources should be used to reference the material included in the article, instead of a self-published source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and merge to New Jersey Route 72 - With all the recent discussion at WT:USRD, I changed my mind and feel the information in this article would be better presented in the history section of the NJ 72 article, as the former route is not notable enough and does not have sufficient sourcing to have its own stand-alone article. Dough4872 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the RS concerns I mentioned above. Majoreditor (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Needs reliable sources, and more of them, to stay as a GA. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]