Talk:New York State Route 227

New York State Route 227 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 29, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York Mid‑importance

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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.

Article recognition:

	This article was the Selected article of the New York Roads Portal in July 2012.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 227/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
a couple of small spots of prose concerns
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):
Just one thing needing to be mentioned in the body of the text
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:

Lead:
- Not neccessarily required, but might be helpful if you did "...in the Finger Lakes region of New York (NY) in the United States." which would spell out the obvious for those who won't know that NY is definitely the abbreviation for New York.
  - This is also a bit bizarre. "NY" is only used as part of the "NY #" abbreviation for "New York State Route #", which is established at the outset of the article. At no time is "New York" by itself abbreviated as "NY". – TMF (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I think instead of in the [[Hector, New York|town of Hector]] it would work better as in the town of [[Hector, New York|Hector]]~~
- ~~Linkie for "Perry City"? "Reynoldsville"?~~
- ~~Mention the total length in the lead?~~
Route:
- ~~Needs to mention the total length of the route.~~
  - I don't agree with this point at all. If it's a question of having the length somewhere in the article proper, it is present in the junction list. Ramming the length into the route description just for the sake of doing so is bad form; as such, virtually every road article doesn't mention the overall length in the route description. – TMF (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is the route length something that is important? I think so, and so if it's not covered in the article text, I can't really consider the article broad in its coverage. I'm sorry if you think its bad form, but it'd be like not giving the nationality of a person or the elemental number of an element - it's a fundamental part of the subject. It's obviously KNOWN, so it should be conveyed to the reader in the text - not everyone reads infoboxes. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, it's mentioned in the junction list - which is outside of the infobox last time I checked. The junction list is part of the article body, which is why we don't mention the milepost of every junction on the route in the description. I invite you to look at any of the various U.S. road Featured Articles, where the descriptions either make no mention of the length or do so in a way that's appropriate - certainly not in the "oh by the way" matter that it's been shoehorned in right now. And, no, I generally don't consider the length of the route to be important enough to mention in the description, considering it's been established in the lead (or should be in any road article worth its weight) and is presented again later in the article. – TMF (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you link some things in the route that you linked in the lead, but you don't link some things that you linked in the lead. Be consistent, and pick one practice or the other.
History:
- ~~YOu've already linked Tompkins County.~~
- Personal preference but using "c." (with or without the little template) in article text is really very bad prose. Better to use "became part of NY 78 around 1927" or spell out the full word "circa"... abbreviations really aren't a good idead in formal writing - it's why we don't use contractions either.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The circa part is not my cup of tea here, I didn't add the template in question. I am not the one who changed all the circa's to c. so, I wouldn't be able to justify the reason it its that way, I've changed it for now. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just the inconsistency of some stuff being linked in both the lead and body, but other things only in the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:YEAR, a subsection of MOS:DATE: "To indicate around, approximately, or about, the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, ca, ca., approximately, or approx., and should be spaced (c. 1291)." I've reverted the change. – TMF (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think they mean that in running prose, however. Note that the example is specifically in parentheses. Abbreviations are generally bad form in running prose, period. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The doc page for {{circa}} makes it pretty clear that the shortening of circa to c. applies everywhere. – TMF (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The doc page can say whatever it wants - plain old common sense prose rules tell you that abbreviations aren't a good idea in running prose. This is like high school composition ... but whatever. Note also that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations states rather clearly about "c." - "Use for dates only in small spaces and in the opening sentence of a biography (see MOS:DOB). It should not be italicised in normal usage. Do not use ca.". WP:Abbreviations also states ... "Unless specified in one of the two tables below, an acronym or initialism should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in brackets (e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs))." ... but I'm not going to hold up the GA status on a minutiae of MOS usage - but I would not consider the use of "c." in running prose proper at an FA, as it would conflict with the MOS on abbreviations. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The relevant section of MOS:DATE doesn't appear to allow the exception you suggest. The way I interpret the guideline is that "circa" should never be used in an article, which I suspect is why {{circa}} and its abbreviation hover tip exists. – TMF (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, c./circa is in one of those two exception tables referenced by your quote from MOS:ABBR. – TMF (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardoning the circa issue, what other links do you want me to move over, because I believe most are done. I don't think it would be fair to hinge an entire GAN on 5 letters.Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 21:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if items are moved over or not - the problem is that some are listed twice and some aren't. If you want to link things in the lead and in the body, you need have all links that are in the lead also linked in the body. If you don't want all the links in the lead also linked in the body, you then need to remove the links in the body that are linked in the lead. Right now, it's a mish-mash. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given what you want, even after scanning the article twice. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 22:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to run out shortly but will get right back to this when I get back ... it's looking pretty good right now but I always try to do a once over before passing an article. Shouldn't be a big issue here. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who has gone template-mad in the article? It is SOOOOO hard to edit. It took me quite a while to locate the "c." thing (back and forth between display- and edit-modes, typing a number of things into the edit-box ("mile", naaah, wouldn't work because it's buried differently in a template). I hate these templates, and they really turn off new editors. I know new editors who've given up and left because of this kind of template-disease.
BTW, I've changed the "c.", because it's awkward in such a numeral-rich text. $Tony (talk)$ 23:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I read around as being less precise than circa. To me, circa means it definitely occurred within a year of a given date while around implies it could have been anytime in a much wider timeframe. – TMF (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So circa means 1 January 1926 – 31 December 1928? I'd say around conveys greater precision than that precise imprecision. Tony (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]