Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Archive 1

message: I assume we want to start with a small WP? That way if things get messed up it's not as bad to fix. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oklahoma has about 70 pages right now, not sure if that's small enough or not. I'd want someone else to rate them anyway, as I've written the majority of them and so don't want to have a conflict of interest. —Scott5114↗ 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm working on WP:ILSR at the moment. The hard part was figuring out which categories to set up, and thankfully, that only needs to be done once, ever. It's a good thing there's preview, and a lot of code in <pre> sections. —Rob (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the bot work? And which templates have been modified? I created U.S. Route 101 Alternate (Washington) and U.S. Route 97 Alternate (Washington) and rated them as stub class, let's see if the bot finds it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea about the conflict of interest... I'm rating mine mostly Start or B-class anyways. Some stubs. Yes, it all works, but the updates happen once a day at about 0300 UTC and are done by a bot. —Rob (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The bot found the WI articles.  I've been rating most of them as stubs as they only have about 3-5 lines and an infobox.  A bunch at the beginning are starts and a couple are Bs.   --master_sonLets talk 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing the code 

message: Let's not assess any state that could get their convention changed until they've moved, since the page moves will mess up the system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Wisconsin got added. What do we do now? Manually delete the entries before we move the articles? Illinois is probably fine to do, and so is Michigan, and Maryland and Minnesota too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You have me to thank - I mean yell at - for that.  I thought about that before doing so - I do not think it will affect anything outside the log, and the bot should recognize (see ROB's comment below) --master_sonLets talk 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it'll break the system, as it's completely automated. The log might reflect the renaming of articles, that's about it. I'm in particular a fan of rating as many as I can get around to. —Rob (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I just rated Iowa, which has a proposed change ... oh well :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Because of the naming poll... 

message: I have implemented the importance portion of the assessment scale to the Texas articles.  The appropriate categories and subcategories have been created: :Category:U.S. road transport articles by importance --Holderca1 19:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: As this grows and spreads to the other projects, there is going to be a huge amount of articles involved.  I recommend that these be split into subcategories.  This will help keep the categories to a reasonable size and will help those of a particular project find their articles.  As long as they are subcats of the main category, it will not affect the total count on the assessment graphic.  --Holderca1 20:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured out a way to make this work both ways, I have the article go into two seperate categories, one for US Roads, which is counted by the bot towards the assessment, and one for Texas highways, so it is easier to find the articles within a state project.  --Holderca1 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Isn't the whole idea of "rating" an article POV? Espcially considering what you might consider A-class I consider a lousy stub? Seems a pointless waste of our rescources that could be better spent on writing articles. Gateman1997 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can't rate anything above a B without going through a peer review process and being granted a higher rating.  So no, I don't see any POV involved.  --Holderca1 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that still doesn't answer my point about how is this not POV to "rate" an article. Is the rating not subjective? Is subjectivity not inherently POV? Just seems like a waste of resouces and time to me that would be better spent writing articles. Gateman1997 01:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, because you haven't made your point clear.  One person doesn't rate an article, maybe you should look into the process for peer review, GA nominations, FA nominations before you discount it entirely.  In my opinion quality trumps quantity.  But if you prefer "lousy stubs" over quality articles, that is your business.  Also, WP:NPOV only applies to articles, so the policy does not apply here anyway. --Holderca1 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I rate articles depending on the mood I am in, but it can be changed and modified by other users. Comments can be left too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to add on to this, if you find an article is rated a B class, but you think it is a start class, by all means demote it.  Ensure that you put comments on the talk page as to what you think this article needs to justify its rating.  But what one thinks is good and bad is totally up to the person, for example, I will not put an article up for GA nomination before it has a map and pictures.  But that is just me.  --Holderca1 16:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: Credit to User:Alai for resolving the issue regarding pages classified as non-articles having comments. However, the new code that he posted on the project page attached to this didn't make it to all of the WikiProject templates. So if your state hasn't fixed yours, please fix it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NA comments 

message: Some editors do not like to ever take out articles out of stub categories.  Even when they get big.  They actively fight to keep the stub tag in there.  A stub is a short article.  As per WP:Stub if the total length exceeds ten sentences, it is not a stub unless it is a complicated topics.  Roads are not complicated! --- Skapur 05:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubs and stub classifications are not the same thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub categories getting overwhelmed 

message: I used AWB to assess the stub articles (with stub templates and all) as stubs? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would anyone object if... 

message: On the Texas WP template, the row displaying the importance rating reads, "This article has been rated as **-importance within WikiProject Texas State Highways." This is fine as the articles are fed into a Texas state highway importance cat. The problem is that the articles are also fed into the U.S. road importance category. As discussed above, the rating for an article within a project and its rating on a national level is not equivalent. Question is, what should be done? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The importance rating in Texas follows the above convention for the most part, Interstates are rated High,  US and State highways are rated Mid, and Farm/Ranch to Market Roads are rated Low.  With the exception here and there for the more important roads such as the Beltway in Houston as mentioned above is bumped up to High importance.  --Holderca1 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2

message: Where do bannered routes (like New York State Route 52 Business) fall on the importance scale? Are they rated the same as their banner-less parent (New York State Route 52) or are they bumped down a notch? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 3

message: As an extension of the last section, and an attempt to make discussion more organized, I'm going to break this down by importance level. Ideas for what should be in each section are welcome, and comments on those ideas are welcomed as well. Once we get enough ideas on what should be in each section, we can start hammering out the details.
I know some of you already expressed your opinions above, but if you could repost them here, that'd be great. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New importance system 

message: *Same as old system. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: *Major national routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High

message: *Occasional county routes; all state highways. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mid

message: *Minor roadways; most county routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Low

message: *Implement the list-class, used on other projects, for lists of highways. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: It takes forever to get something reassessed because nobody really checks the reassessment page. Would anybody object to doing away with it? As a replacement we could just remove the old rating when you want it reassessed, so that it shows up with other unassessed articles.—Scott5114↗ 01:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a separate talk page parameter for reassessment. See . --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment 

message: For those who haven't noticed, the assessment bot now counts the number of List-Class articles. This is not an issue - the issue is that the bot (and probably WP:1.0 by extension) assumes that List-Class articles have an importance tacked to them as well. Since (IMO) List-Class was partially implemented to circumvent this issue, that poses a bit of a, well, issue. A couple approaches could be taken: we could (1) ignore it and run with the status quo or (2) implement importance using a system totally distinct from the one for articles. Which one is best? I believe #2 is for the sake of cleanliness on the table; what everyone else thinks, I dunno. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it appears that no one has an opinion on the issue, I'll enable importance on List-Class. For the scale, we could probably just use the article system "plus one" - lists of state highways would be high-imp., lists of national systems would be top-imp., etc. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List-Class and importance 

message: Where is stats for assessment located for individual states? --Son 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:USRD/A/S - note that the table may be out of date at times (depending on how often it's updated by parsing the cats) and that states without their own categories will have no statistics. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State level assessment 

message: I have operated under the assumption that assessing (or re-assessing) an article where one has been a contributor would be a Conflict of Interest. Is this correct? or is this considered not a sufficiently formal process to be a concern? Either way the project page should state the policy, IMO. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's discouraged, but we're not going to bite your head off for doing it if you upgrade it properly. Best practice is to have someone else reassess it - you can get it done in minutes if IRC's got people in it by saying the magic words "reassessment bell" there and providing a link to the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see an issue with it since the highest you can rate something on your own is "B-Class," anything higher has to go through a review process.  As far as rating something a stub, start or B-class.  If it is extremely short, maybe only a paragraph or so, mark it as a stub.  If it has a history and route description section (at least a paragraph each) and a complete junction/exit list, mark as a B-class, anything in between should be a start-class.  Personally I see rating up to a B-class as being based on completeness more than anything.  --Holderca1 talk 17:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, For the record, I've got about 7 or 8 articles that I've expanded and tagged for re-assessment. The all were stubs, now either start or B. For now I'd prefer someone else rank them, I'm still a newbie to the process. Software conflicts are preventing me from using IRC right now. It's on my get around to it list.Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing one's own  articles? 

message: I think that Ohio Route 732 is far more than a stub.  It describes the major intersections and sites of interest served by this road.  It is also illustrated with several more pictures on the way.  A cursory look at Google Earth shows the information to be correct and descriptive. Marqqq (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone interested, see Talk:Ohio State Route 732/Comments. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio SR 732 

message: I assume this is where I should list these articles. I just tagged them with the appropriate projects. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can list them here if you want, but as long as they've been tagged with the USRD project banner, someone who frequents the unassessed categories will assess them within a few days. Unlike some of the larger projects, there is no assessment backlog that I know of at USRD (at least not since assessment was first launched). – TMF 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the new article bot has been golden.  --Holderca1 talk 18:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[North Carolina Highway 42]] & [[North Carolina Highway 98]] 

message: Hey, This page still has not been updated to reflect the new C class rating. Would someone who can recite what was decided upon a while back please update this page? Some of us would actually like to use it as a guide =-) I'm not trying to be a smart@#$%, just have a poor memory. Dave (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C Class 

message: Could someone get an assessment of it? RockManQ (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interstate 55 in Illinois]] 

message: I understand that this article is unlike 99 percent of the articles here.  It is a large and older article that has yet to be included in a project. It is thus unassessed.  I included this article in this project because it purports to be "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States" and because this information is strongly related to highways in the United States.  I also included it in the law project.  Is this article within the scope of this project? Synchronism (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though some may disagree. --NE2 23:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to see this article be improved and I think assessment is a good step to take in that direction.  I guess I can assume that if there are no voiced objections to its inclusion it will be assessed. :)Synchronism (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed limits in the United States 

message: Although this article was short when assessed, it has been improved. Are normal users allowed to change assessments or must it be decided by an administrator? Pzoxicuvybtnrm  03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no limitation on who assesses an article, although it is general discouraged to reassess your own, it's not against any rules either. (Especially if there is logic fairly applied to the reassessment, such as "C-class, has all big 3 sections") Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Colorado State Highway 22]] 

message: It might be worthwhile to consider using the listas parameter in the assessments?  While looking at the list of roads by state in :Category:Top-importance U.S. road transport articles it would have been nice to see the lists by state. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  listas 

message: I'm not really sure whether the following articles are B or C class. Could some people please look over the articles and comment if their current assessments should be changed? --Rschen7754 04:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there are no further objections I'm considering the UT audit done. --Rschen7754 02:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utah assessment help 

message: *Utah State Route 102
*Utah State Route 106
*Utah State Route 108
*Utah State Route 110
*Utah State Route 114
*Utah State Route 150
*Utah State Route 19
*Utah State Route 21
*Utah State Route 273
*Utah State Route 29
*Utah State Route 34
*Utah State Route 43
*Utah State Route 45
*Utah State Route 51
*Utah State Route 53
*Utah State Route 77
*Utah State Route 90
*Utah State Route 94
*Utah State Route 96
*Utah State Route 99
*Utah State Route 122
*Utah State Route 133
*Utah State Route 22
*Utah State Route 271
*Utah State Route 280
*Utah State Route 60
*Utah State Route 64
*Utah State Route 78
*Utah State Route 8
*Utah State Route 88
I have gone through the articles and made some assessment changes where necessary. Dough4872 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there are no further objections I'm considering the UT audit done. --Rschen7754 02:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Currently C

message: This is what should be checked for the "National articles" entry on WP:USRD/A/SA:
*Interstate Highways
*U.S. Highways
**IHs and USHs not tagged with a state
*Auto trails
*Articles on national subjects
Some auto trails, Interstate Highways, and U.S. Highways may have already been checked if they're also tagged with a state. These ones could probably be skipped; however, it might be worth rechecking them to make sure they're correctly assessed. – TMF 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National articles 

message: Hello: I am interested in improving some of the Puerto Rico road articles . I worked on PR-10 and submitted it to a GA review 2 days ago . 
Within a few hours of the submission an editor picked it up for a review but the article failed GA. No surprises here; this happens often. The reviewer indicated it also failed for B-class status. Upon contacting the reviewer with an interest to fix the article to achieve just a B-level mark, and interacting with him via several messages back and forth, I can sense a poor level of interest from him in working with me towards even this B-level goal. The interactions are turning into interactions with personal overtones , and this is not going to benefit anyone. I don't think we form a good team. 
I am wondering if there is someone in this project who would be willing to work with me in a fashion that will focus in critizing my edits, not my person.  If this is the case, my goal is to work on the few improvements the article might need to make it to B-class only. As I am very familiar with various aspects of this road, I am willing to do all the article-related work (research, write-up, etc,); I would just need someone from this US Roads project to perform a critical review of the article for B-class without incursions into unnecessary personal overtones. Anyone willing to help, please leave a message here and I will check back periodically. Thanks, My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a reply here so that the comments don't reflect only one side of the story. The article was assessed as C-Class under the USRD criteria at the time of the GA nomination, and it is still assessed at C-Class under the USRD criteria. The assessment I changed was in the WikiProject Puerto Rico banner, as I felt that the article did not meet at least one of the generic B-Class criteria. (It has an "obvious omission".) After a good night's sleep, I also felt that it didn't meet another one of the criteria (reasonably well-written), but B-Class requires that all 6 of the criteria to be met. Of course, the easiest answer to all of this is to address the GAN review. Doing that would grant the article GA-Class status, which is higher than B-Class. The editor above made comments on my talk page that, in my personal opinion, indicated that he wanted to discuss the situation ad inifnitum until I relented and just gave in. The editor has not even attempted to work on the article. The last edit made to the article was  at 00:43, September 24, 2010 . The GAN was reviewed between 01:00, September 24, 2010 when I opened the review page and 02:21, September 24, 2010  when I failed the GAN. I'd love to work with this editor on the prose quality, but he's complained about the criteria applied, and not worked on the article. The GAN feedback came in at 1,288 words and the article comes in at 1.847 words, and I skipped the RD for prose quality in the review which has similar issues to the lead and History sections. Like I said, he should have enough feedback to begin polishing the article to GA-Class level, not just B-Class. He could also engage the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, other editors, or myself to improve the writing quality of the article. I'd rather not argue about the things I can't change (the criteria) and instead discuss the things I can change (the article). Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Please take this somewhere else; personal attacks and assuming bad faith doesn't belong here. --Rschen7754 05:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for assistance by impartial editor