Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhode Island Route 4/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:27, 24 November 2009 [1].

Rhode Island Route 4 edit

Nominator(s): Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:20 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Rhode Island Route 4/archive1

We am nominating this for featured article because after months of work, this dual research project of a Rhode Island freeway is probably ready for Featured Article status. The route went under a partially-excruiating A-class review, solving the AltText in the process. And for once the prose isn't mine, but theco-nominator, User:Raime's. We are open to all comments Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) and Rai•me 10:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)[reply]

Support 2c. Decline: 2c. resolved and checked at Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Inconsistent Author ordering (Some corporate authors before title, some corporate authors after title, individuals before). Inconsistent date formatting YYYY-MM-DD; Month D, YYYY. Inconsistent date positioning: Author (Year), Author ... Year. Lack of Provenance information. Italics indicates published material, if the reports are published, they were published by an Authority, unclear if Institution is Author and Publisher, or just Author. Any consistent resolution is fine for these problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the ones published by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (or its predecessor, the Rhode Island Department of Public Works) are in correct form, as no author is cited. Also, a lot of these depend on the citation template used, which I have little control on.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date order within citation issue comes from the fact that the works aren't authored, this is controlled by if you've entered an author field. The date style (YYYY-MM-DD, Month D, YYYY) is entirely controlled by the editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite report, which is in the same style / formatting system package as Template:Cite book correctly formats your reports with the data you currently have. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got the date consistency solved. Also, I changed the books to reports per that. Help me fix them, because I actually have never used the template.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No dabs or dead links (per the link checker tool), and the given alt text has no obvious problems, which is good. I'm a stickler for consistent date formats, so I thank Fifelfoo for checking those. Featured articles have consistent citation formats (see criterion 2c) and I think date formats are integral to that. --an odd name 03:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I have reviewed this article twice and at this point only have a few concerns before I can support the article:

As discussed above, the references should use consistent date formats.
In References 5-9 and 13, "report" should not be wikilinked.
- Template error, corrected at Template. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may help if some non-map sources can be added to the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 the template does that. #3, RIDOT produces nothing.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably other non-map sources that are not RIDOT. Dough4872 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent hours looking, I've been unable to find anything, especially because we're talking an expressway here.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 13:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need to wait and see if Raime can find more sources. Dough4872 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that Raime only edits un so often, so I may end up doing the work in this co-nom, but its fine.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm back now. I can try and find other sources, but I doubt I will find anything. Why is it that adding non-map sources would be more helpful? Everything stated in the RD is supported by the cited maps. Cheers, Rai•me 08:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the map sources are good to have in the route description, it is also good to back them up with non-map sources as well. There have been discussions about this, such as in the AFD for New Jersey Route 64, where it was argued more secondary sources were needed in addition to Bing Maps. ---Dough 48 72 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments from that AfD seem to be that an entire article needs more secondary sources than just maps to be notable; it didn't seem to be specifically related to citations in the RD. If the map sources from reliable sources back all statements adequately, I'm still not sure why other sources are needed. However, I cited this article from RIDOT in The RD's mentioning of the new exit 7. Cheers, Rai•me 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That helps. ---Dough 48 72 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I will support the article the way it is now, but it would still help if more non-map sources can be added. ---Dough 48 72 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1a comments—as a lifelong Rhode Islander, I just have to offer my two cents. At quick glance, it looks like a great article. I'm getting ready for class, so I'll make this quick for now:
- In the second para of the lead, shouldn't "long-range" be "long-term"?