# Talk:Ohio State Route 85

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Route 85/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 05:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
"SR 85 begins at a one-way road encircling Andover Township Park in downtown Andover. This road, acting in a similar fashion to a traffic circle, carries US 6 and SR 7 through Andover." I would use simpler wording like "SR 85 begins at an intersection with US 6 and SR 7 at a rectangular traffic circle that encircles Andover Township Park in downtown Andover."
"Pennsylvania Route 285" can be spelled out in full the first time and abbreviated as "PA 285" in later instances in the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
When SR 85 was first created, what routes were its termini at?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I will place the article on hold for a few fixes to be made. Dough4872 05:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

All issues fixed.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I will now pass the article. Dough4872 01:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


### Ohio State Route 85
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Clear consensus to keep. Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've picked one of these State Route articles almost at random, because most of them seems to have a similar problem. In this example, the 'History' section is entirely cited to original research based on comparing old maps with one another. It is a synthesis of original documents to draw a conclusion which isn't given by a reliable expert source.
I would also seriously question whether the interpretation of obscure Technical Services diagrams and mapping systems is transparent, or whether it requires interpretation and expert synthesis. Sionk (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose review, move to immediately close. This is acceptable, and in fact, Interstate 196 passed FAC using the same citation technique. As I noted there, the technique was vetted several years ago at WT:No original research/Archive 39#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. As such, the citations to historical maps to denote the historical changes to the subject highway have been regarded as an appropriate use of secondary sources. (MSHD/MDOT/etc maps may be first-party sources, but maps are secondary sources; the primary sources in this case would be the aerial photography, surveyors' notes or GIS data used to construct the maps in question. See the previous discussion and WP:Party and person).
The SLDs do not require much interpretation to read milemarkers nor the locations. This review should be immediately closed. Imzadi 1979 →  01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, it would save me having to work out how to transclude this to the Talk page! Sionk (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as a WP:POINTy nomination, and per Imzadi1979. GAR is not the place to change consensus. --Rschen7754 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose and close - Maps are not considered primary sources, the raw GIS data is. Maps, even if they are published by a DOT such as ODOT, are secondary sources. Also, it is not original research to cite a road map. Also, the straight-line diagrams are easy to interpret the mileage and intersections along the route. Dough4872 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Picking an article to demote "at random" is rather counterintuitive. This issue has been discussed numerous times, and consensus has always ruled that maps are acceptable sources, and information gleaned from them does not constitute OR. That said, the article became a GA less than a week ago, and there is nothing to suggest the review was fundamentally flawed. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the subject has reached consensus so be it. I quite understand that using a map to confirm that X is near Y is uncontroversial. I accept the point that maps are secondary sources. But comparing several maps and concluding that an event occurred at a certain date because it suddenly appeared on a map requires a level of assumption and synthesis. Thanks for the link to the discussion. Sionk (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Quote Anomie from the discussion five years ago: "It's not original synthesis to compare two maps and describe the differences (FWIW, the example at WP:SYN is more an example of poor writing, undue weight, and possibly POV pushing than actual original synthesis). While someone could make a legitimate complaint that there should be more interpretation or analysis as to why the changes were made (which would require non-primary sources, of course), I again see nothing wrong with sourcing as written. Anomie⚔ 15:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)" That editor also said I was going to post the same thing: if the map has a scale or other distance indicators, it's not WP:OR to use that to measure distances. In general it's not OR to state a fact that is plainly apparent to any generally educated reader of the source. That also means that if you have a map dated 1940 not showing a road and a map dated 1950 that does show it, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of either map, it's not OR or SYN to use those two maps to state "The road was constructed between 1940 and 1950".As for using Google Maps to source a route description, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it from a WP:OR standpoint. It may be poor style, uninteresting, undue weight, and/or travel guide material, but it's not OR. Anomie⚔ 23:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) positions which were supported by the others in the discussion. In short, yours is a minority opinion that has not been supported by consensus nor by actual practice. GAR-ing a single article will not change that consensus saying this isn't synthesis. Imzadi 1979 →  18:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)