Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/M-218 (Michigan highway)/1: Difference between revisions

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

Result pending

Article was not reviewed thoroughly and is basically one huge piece of original research, references are entirely primary sources and even Google Maps (!). I personally don’t think this is salvageable, considering I can imagine this getting sent to AfD in this state. JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh. The editor that reviewed this appears to have reviewed it (not much reviewing seems to have gone on though) as one of 52 articles during this backlog drive. A sample check of a few of the highway related ones shows that they are just as problematic as this one — same deal, referencing almost entirely from primary sources (yes, Google maps too), original research, notability tags…

Is there any way to batch demote these? They’re all fairly short, if that helps. JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are perfectly acceptable sources, especially for highway articles. Taken as a complete collection, the official state highway maps document the various changes made to the state highway system from its inception to the modern day, when each individual highway was extended, truncated, rerouted, commissioned or decommissioned. They are not primary sources; they’re no more primary than a newspaper article that reports facts from multiple sources, and yet those same newspaper articles aren’t viewed with any bias when they appear in the reference list of an article.

Translating the content of maps to words is not original research any more than translating the content of a French-language source is original research, and yet we don’t hold any disdain for non-English sources.

That all said, I’ve added some additional newspaper articles not conveniently available when this article was original written and reviewed 13 years ago. On that basis, no AfD should be necessary nor desirable, and the article should be in better shape to retain its current status. I’d be happy to work on other articles as time allows if someone is gracious enough to drop a line on my talk page before initiating another GAR. Imzadi 1979 → 08:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard disagree. Looking at a historical map from an archive of the organisation that built what it depicts and then writing a history of the road based on that is precisely what a historian should be doing and precisely NOT what a Wikipedia editor should be doing. Most of the old newspaper cuttings are kind of the same problem, though not as bad. Don’t get me wrong, the article isn’t bad, especially with the new sources, it’s just not Good with a capital G. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close and retain as GA. @Imzadi1979:, didn’t we go through this whole “maps are not a primary source” thing back when another editor was running roughshod over Michigan highway articles, and then making up self-contradictory and utterly impossible rules for what they considered a reliable third-party source or what they considered “original research”? The OP has failed to indicate how a map constitutes original research, failed to identify what “good with a capital G” means by the standards of WP:WIAGA, and failed to explain how the subsequent newspaper articles aren’t sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As for not explaining why newspaper articles aren’t sufficient, I retract that. They can be enough, and thank you for your work on adding them @Imzadi1979. (Though I haven’t spot-checked them, so it’s not impossible that they aren’t, but let’s assume that they are. If someone has the time to do that that would be great.)

  That being said, I don’t see how interpreting a map is not primary research. “We publish only the analysis […] of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves” (WP:RS). I’m sorry, I really am, but I don’t see how looking at a map and interpreting what you see is compatible with this. If you could link to this previous discussion that you had so I can see what the arguments were, that would be great. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JustARandomSquid: That same argument was presented in a few other recent highway articles, and no one could come to a proper conclusion as to how maps are original research. Check the GAR on F-41 (Michigan county highway) as but one example, and I’m sure Imzadi could dig up more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]