Talk:New York State Route 31F

New York State Route 31F 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.

New York State Route 31F is part of the New York State Route 31 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 3, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
December 17, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York 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 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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 31F/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, congratulations.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"under the Rochester Subdivision and over the Erie Canal once again" should be "under the Rochester Subdivision rail line and over the Erie Canal once again"?
Not done The first rail subdivision mentioned in the route description has "railroad line" attached to the end of its name, implying that all of the Subdivisions are rail lines. As an aside, the Rochester Subdivision is mentioned earlier in the description than the given sentence with no clarification (but prefixed with "CSX Transportation-owned", like the other subdivision explicitly identified as a rail line), so I'm not sure why this sentence was singled out. – T M F 23:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is too confusing to the reader, please reword it. Racepacket (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Adding "rail line" here is redundant since it's already been established that "Rochester Subdivision" is in fact a railroad. If this was truly the only issue with the sentence - which is what your initial comment implied - then I don't see any issue with the sentence as-is. – T M F 07:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try breaking it up into 2 sentences perhaps. The problem is that "Rochester" is the name of the nearby city, "subdivision" has multiple meanings, and no particular railroad name is mentioned in this sentence. Since the full name was given before, consider a parenthetical defining an abbreviated name, and using that abbreviation in this sentence. There are really several ways that you can fix this. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no commonly used abbreviation for any of CSX's subdivisions, so creating one just for this instance is at best wrong and at worst original research. Also, if I was to break up the sentence into two, it would likely end up in a rewrite of the whole section: the whole reason that the canal and rail crossings are in the same sentence is to give a quick summary of NY 31F's otherwise unremarkable last leg. If I decided to split the sentence, I'd be better off covering that three-mile, insanely rural stretch with a more "traditional" method. I also asked for second opinions about the sentence, and other editors also said it was fine as-is.

All of that said, I changed some of the wording in the article against my better judgment, even though I will maintain that there was no problem with how it was previously worded. A more serious issue with the original wording was that CSX Transportation was linked twice, which was missed before. Unless the new wording resulted in a MOS breach, there will be no further changes to it. – T M F 15:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your change, but I think the sentence about the second crossing ("under... over") was the one that gave me pause. I don't see your WP:OR point about using an abbreviation or shortening. Again, there are many ways to make the description clear. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I presume that since Turk Hill Road is a county route, it does not count as being concurrent.
That would be incorrect. Many sections of New York state routes are locally maintained, and if they're maintained by a county, then they also carry a concurrent CR designation. I'm surprised you brought this point up, considering you just reviewed a route (NY 31E) that has several locally and county-maintained segments. – T M F 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if it does count as a concurrency in your view, why are you handling it in this manner? Racepacket (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't think readers are so clueless that I have to explicitly say that the two routes are concurrent. Changed not because I think it's bad wording, but because I don't feel like bickering about this too. – T M F 16:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Are there any future plans? Rebuilding of bridges, etc.?
If there were any substantial future plans, they would be in the article already. – T M F 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether you checked for any substantial future plans or merely assumed that some other earlier Wikipedia editors had checked. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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:

I am putting the article on hold. Racepacket (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Congratulations. You put a lot of effort into this article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]