# Talk:Ranch to Market Road 187

The lead needs to summarize all of the article, and it currently does not. Some more information, in general, from the RD and H sections should be summarized and added to the lead. I would also repeat the longest RM factoid right up in the lead. The RD  and H sections could use a little copy editing to mix up the text a little. Instead of just "it" to refer to the roadway, use things like "the roadway" or "the highway" or "the road" or RM 187 once in a while for a little variety. If these two things are done, the article would warrant promotion to B-Class. Imzadi 1979 →  07:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note to Good Article Reviewers, 
The reference for the Seven Days in Utopia subsection does not directly state that parts of the movie were filmed on the road, but if you use streetview on Google Maps to verify, you will see that many of the locations shown on the reference are located along RM 187. 
Just a note, 
Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 01:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ranch to Market Road 187/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
You do not need to use "then" in the route description to describe the progression of the route.
The sentence "RM 187 continues north through the rolling South Texas grasslands for nearly 3.5 miles (5.6 km), before turning in a northeast direction, then, after about two miles (3.2 km), turns back to a northerly route." is very choppy and wordy and may need to be split. I would also suggest changing "the rolling South Texas grasslands" to "rolling grasslands" as you have already mentioned this road is in South Texas.
The sentence "The highway then continues through a relatively unpopulated area of grassland and hills,[3][4] before passing, and giving access to the K Bar Ranch Airport" sounds awkward and needs to be reworded.
The sentence "The highway then, after a few miles, crosses the Frio River, and proceeds past the Waresville cemetery, giving access to the cemetery, the Links of Utopia Golf Course, and the Utopia on the River Airport, before passing through the village of Utopia." is very long and choppy. I would suggest reworded to "A few miles later, the highway crosses the Frio River and proceeds past the Waresville cemetery, the Links of Utopia Golf Course, and the Utopia on the River Airport, before passing through the village of Utopia.
A lot of sentences in the history begin with "On Month Day, Year". Try varying the sentence structure.
You also use "extended" a lot in the history, try finding other words to use.
You need to use {{convert}} to convert mileage measurements to kilometers throughout the article.
The sentence "On June 2, 1967, a large portion of FM 2257 was redesignated to RM 187, bringing the route to its southern terminus US 57, adding approximately 5.0 miles, totaling to 81.9" is long and choppy. Also, "totaling to 81.9" needs a unit.
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): 
In the lead, can some more descriptive information about the road be added, such as towns the road passes through and roads that it intersects?
Can the lead be reorganized to summarize the description of the route first then describe the history?
I would suggest moving the information about the movie filming to the history and getting rid of the subheaders in the route description.
"On July 15, 1949, the highway was again extended southward, adding 6.7 miles to the route.", where was the highway extended to?
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 put the article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 03:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The date format in the history should still be "Month Day, Year", my concern was that all the sentences began with "on Month Day, Year". The sentences should be rearranged to describe the dates in other parts of the sentence. Also do not refer to April 1 as April Fool's Day. The headers "Batesville to Utopia" and "Utopia to northern terminus" still need to be removed from the route description. There are still several instances of "then" that are used in the route description to describe the progress of the route. Dough4872 00:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I went through the article and made some copyedits. I am now ready to pass the article. Congratulations on your first GA! Dough4872 16:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to the nominator and the reviewer, I found matching imagery for two photos that were in this article on Google Street View, and Google copyrights that imagery. The photos have been tagged for deletion on Commons and removed from this article. They were obvious photographs of the Google Street View imagery on a computer screen. (I could see reflections in the sky on the one photo that looked like furniture.) Imzadi 1979 →  18:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 1, which is the Highway Designation File, is a summary of minute orders. Those minute orders would be the primary sources, making the file a secondary source.
Footnote 3, is the paper TxDOT map. That map is a secondary source that relies on GIS data or aerial/satellite photography which are primary sources. Any paper map could substitute for this one, but by using TxDOT's map, we have the implied guarantee that TxDOT would put the line on the highway in the right place.
Footnote 4 is Google Maps, specifically the hybrid satellite imagery view.
Footnote 5 is from Utopia, Texas, and details the various filming locations from the movie. A quick cross reference with Google Maps will show that they are on the subject highway.
That leaves footnote 2, which could be argued is a primary source, but given that the footnote is used for one single sentence, it can't be argued that the article relies on a primary source. Imzadi 1979 →  02:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". This article relies on TxDOT sources. As the road is built and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) these sources are affiliated with the road. That's 3 of 4 sources that mention the road. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, uses historical maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department and the Michigan Department of Transportation to establish its history in addition to other sources; Featured Article
M-28 (Michigan highway), uses historical maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department and the Michigan Department of Transportation to establish its history in addition to other sources; Featured Article
M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), uses historical maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department and the Michigan Department of Transportation to establish its history in addition to other sources; Featured Article
M-35 (Michigan highway), uses historical maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department and the Michigan Department of Transportation to establish its history in addition to other sources; Featured Article
U.S. Route 41 in Michigan, uses historical maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department and the Michigan Department of Transportation to establish its history in addition to other sources; Featured Article
U.S. Route 131, uses historical maps published by the Michigan State Highway Department and the Michigan Department of Transportation to establish its history in addition to other sources; Featured Article
List of Interstate Highways in Texas, uses TxDOT highway designation files for historical information; Featured List
I've already said that we could swap out the TxDOT paper map for the appropriate citation to another paper map, without any change to the article. (In fact, it's probably fair to say that Google Maps was the primary source for the RD section with the paper map as a backup for verification in case of a discrepancy with Google's cartography.) However the TxDOT map would carry the implied guarantee that they'd mark the line correctly on their own maps whereas Rand McNally and others may or may not. (Rand McNally uses the symbol for "secondary state, secondary provincial or county highway" on its map for RM 187 which is the same symbol they use for the Loops, Spurs, FMs and RMs. The Road Atlas (Map) (2008 ed.). 1 in:31 mi. Rand McNally. 2008. p. 101. ISBN 0-528-93981-5. {{cite map}}: Text "section EK2–EM2" ignored (help)) If the paper map citation is changed, you're down to two TxDOT footnotes left, both of which are secondary sources. (As I said, the highway designation file is a compilation of dates from the minute orders which are the primary sources, and a fact sheet on the FM/RM system which is used for one sentence is a compilation of facts from department logs and other documents.)
I question the attention this article has received since the editor who keeps slapping tags onto the article was the same editor that nominated it for deletion. At the AfD, which was closed as a keep, eight other editors (myself included) explicitly commented against deletion and no one supported deletion. Several of the participants in the AfD disputed the "issue" with using official DOT sources for an article on a highway. If FAs and FLs use these sources, and they're judged to be acceptable on "our finest work", then it's pushing a WP:POINT to say they can't be used here. Imzadi 1979 →  06:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
This article still relies on sources affiliated with the subject. No one has said they can not be used,  just that this article needs citations from independent reliable sources. If you look at the first example you linked above you will see lots of independent sources used. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
All of the Michigan highway articles rely on MDOT sources for length. (The Physical Reference Finder Application or the Control Section Atlas are both published by MDOT.) They all rely on maps published by MDOT or its predecessor the Michigan State Highway Department to substantiate the historical timeline. Look at the last item I listed, the List of Interstate Highways in Texas. It has 42 footnotes; one is from the Federal Highway Administration, one is from the Texas Transportation Institute, 18 are Google Maps and the rest (22) are from TxDOT. That list relies on government sources (the TTI is part of Texas A&M that's affiliated with TxDOT) to verify its information. This argument is getting old; you couldn't get the article deleted so you keep tagging it as if there is something wrong. I suggest that you drop the stick and back away. Imzadi 1979 →  18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The sources are perfectly acceptable; similar articles have been accepted at FAC several times. It seems like someone doesn't want to move on from the AFD. Please drop the WP:STICK and move on. --Rschen7754 06:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Simple question. Does this article relies on sources affiliated with the subject. The tag is appropriate. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Never knew that map companies were affiliated with TXDOT. But regardless, if that's what you believe, then I encourage you to take this article to GAR, and take some of the FAs mentioned above to FAR. --Rschen7754 05:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are two books, Google Maps, and two additional paper maps and the Rand McNally Atlas used as sources. For TxDOT sources, you have 5 pages of their Texas County Map Book (really one source but individual pages have been cited), their paper map, the Highway Designation File and one page of "fun facts". Once again, I encourage you to drop the stick. I too am curious how Rand McNally, Mapsco, American Map/Mapquest.com, Google Maps, Globe Pequot Press, and Random House are "affiliated with the subject". The guideline you quote is to avoid painting something in a overly flattering light, yet TxDOT is neither flattered nor criticized in an article that takes no more opinion of a roadway beyond: "it exists here, here and here. It was changed there, there and there. Oh yeah, the filmed a movie along it."  Imzadi 1979 →  06:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You'll notice I have stopped adding that tag (even though it is still relevent). Because independent sources have been added. But this happened after the tag was removed. It's meant to be the other way around. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not WP:OR to cross reference a filming location (the exterior of the garage and restaurant in this case) with its address on Google Maps to derive that the filming location is on Main Street, which also happens to be RM 187. I'm invoking WP:BRD here. You were bold in removing it, you have now been reverted, and the onus is now on you to discuss the situation so that we may come to a consensus on how to move forward. Please assume good faith by coming to the table to discuss this since you seem unwilling to drop the stick on the article. Imzadi 1979 →  07:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
That sort of cross referencing is original synthesis. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." None of the sources state what is claimed. As for the info itself, does it belong in an encyclopedia? One of a pletora of movies made every year happened to have one of many roads in America in the background. So what? Who has deemed it important enough to write about in independent reliable sources? Was it relevent to the plot? What makes this info noteworthy? It is improperly sources and in the bigger picture of this road, largely irrelevant. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand what this dispute is about (the above discussion is about the problems with the text, but that's only half the story.) Thanks to this revert war, I'm having to dig through historical revisions. Is this really necessary? This is an article on a secondary state highway. My $.02, by wikipedia tradition that is notable enough for an article, but just barely, and not likely to generate a lot of web traffic. If this article is in a less than optimal state for 3 days while this is discussed, no big deal, it's not like this article going to be widely referenced by CNN in a news story this week. As such, this revert war is silly and smacks of immaturity. With that said, Assuming the Utopiatexas.info site is reliable, using a cross reference to google maps isn't ideal, but passes muster. This would be no different that using google maps to get the latitude and longitude of the Eiffel Tower, Walt Disney World, or Mount Blanc, and this has passed muster in FAC many, many times. If you're going to scream murder over that, you are essentially saying we need to demote every FA that has coordinates in the title, as in 99% of the cases they came from google maps or similar mapping services. However, my question is, is Utopiatexas.info a reliable site? I haven't dug deeply, but the copyright notice implies it is an official site of the municipality, but it also has the same author listed at the footer of every page on the site, with a gmail.com email address, which more resembles the practice on personal websites. Dave (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The only dispute currently affecting the page is over the use of original synthesis being used for the paragraph about a movie. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability secondary state highways may or may not be sufficiently notable to merit a unique article. The AFD decided it this one was but not that every issue the article had was resolved. Other issues have since been improved but there is still a dispute about that one issue. The sources used do not Verify the included text. The coordinates have never been an issue. Personally I think Utopiatexas.info is not a reliable source but haven't looked hard. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The site looks to be the official site of the community, and it wouldn't be the first time that the primary webmaster doesn't have an e-mail address from that domain name. Not all communities will have a paid staff person to maintain a website. As Dave points, out, this is not original synthesis. Would we prefer a single source that says: "hey this shooting location was on RM 187"? I've written FAs based on maps that show a highway crossing a rail line, and had to look up the name of that rail line from a second map. That is not original synthesis, that's appropriately synthesizing the corpus of knowledge necessary. We are not publishing a novel theory here, but cross referencing that said location is on the subject highway. Imzadi 1979 →  05:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Utopiatexas.info: This site appears to be an official self published site for Utopia and as such could be an acceptable source for use in Utopia, Texas but not in other articles.
Regarding original synthesis. I have brought it up at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. In your example do both the highway and rail line appear together in one source? Yes. That establishes a conection between the two. Are the film and the road both together in one source? No. No connection established.  Dave's reasoning is flawed. He compares it to using a single source which is not happening here. He brings up a point that has never been an issue. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)