Talk:U.S. Route 30 in Ohio

U.S. Roads: U.S. Highways / Ohio Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. Highways
Locations	Ohio
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Intricate details

I'm giving the article a copy edit, and I was trying to trim out excess, intricate details. I gave up because the route description section is torture to read. The section is way too long for a highway of this length; there are featured articles on longer highways with more succinct RD sections that read so much better. Honestly, trying to read this text is a slog, and frankly, no reader will bother to read through the whole thing.

Some things of note:

We don't need a recitation of every creek. Maybe if the body of water doesn't have its own article, it doesn't need to be mentioned.
We don't need a recitation of every overpass. If the two highways don't connect, don't bother unless it's a major highway where an interchange would be expected.
Also, linking all of the creek names to the same list article without pointing to a specific entry to is against the spirit of WP:OVERLINK. It's also quite annoying to a reader who is dumped at a list who then must try to find the object of that link.
The RD should not be written as if it were a prose version of the junction list table. Yes, a well-written section will discuss some of the intersections, but not all of them. We typically exclude county roads from junction list tables (unless the intersection is an interchange) because those minor crossings aren't noteworthy. The same sentiment applies to the prose in an RD, and doubly so for township roads.
The RD probably doesn't need to explain how some intersection types work when it already links to an article about that type. (But also, see #5 about not mentioning every intersection.)

Based on the RD alone, I've downgraded this article's assessment to a C. It should not be changed back until the RD is trimmed by about half to remove the "wall of text" phenomenon that's going on here. Imzadi 1979 → 16:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. @Chaswmsday: Keep in mind that the average reader doesn't care about roads this much and doesn't need to know this detail. I would say that I'm a road enthusiast and even this puts me to sleep. --Rs chen 7754 18:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the bulk of this detail was added by Detcin in 2013, but it's only gotten worse since then. Imzadi 1979 → 18:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]