Talk:New York State Route 195

New York State Route 195 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 27, 2014. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	New York
	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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 195/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have a soft spot for road articles and I'm familiar with Mitchazenia's work, so why not? A first look seems to indicate it's pretty much right there. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a nice light read, and already very well done. I imagine this will be a short review.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose reads very well, although I have a couple of things to highlight, which I'll put below. Article appears to be compliant with the MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I have one or two factual questions to which the answers seem unclear, but that's it. References are properly formatted, all appear to be reliable, and I don't see any potential OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Routing and history are usually the two major points to any road article, and this one hits both. Each is well covered and in-depth, but focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No POV issues detected.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edits from March indicates a good, stable article.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Two images, both used well and with appropriate captions. Both are free images and are marked appropriately.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Very nice. Very well done.

Some nitpicking notes

"NY 11B was extended west to Potsdam by the following year.[13] NY 11B was rerouted c. 1938 to continue east from Nicholville to Malone while its former routing north of Nicholville was designated as NY 195.[1][2]" It's generally not a good idea to have two consecutive sentences start the same way; it tends to read choppy. Can one of these sentences be started another way?
"NY 195 was first a piece of the former Route 30, a legislative route designated in 1908." Designated by who? The state of New York, a county, or federally? I can see there's a link in the below section to help readers, but I think it would be helpful to have in the lead as well.
"After NY 2 and NY 2A were decommissioned in 1927 for US 11, leaving the route unnumbered for a few years." This is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence.

Looks great otherwise. Should be a couple of quick fixes and then ready for a pass. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Also no edits since March since it was at GAN since March. Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 02:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of why I wanted to do this one, honestly. I have one that's been the same way since April. In any case, we're all set to pass this article. Well done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]