Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 319/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:09, 18 January 2012 [1].

New York State Route 319

[edit]

New York State Route 319 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC) and TMF[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after the failing FAC back in 2009, and help with User:TwinsMetsFan who practically redid most of the article, and is no longer active with Wikipedia unfortunately, this version of the article is much better than the one that I tried nearly three years ago. It has since met the U.S. Roads project's criteria for A-class, and hoping this time around, the results can be much improved over last time. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 00:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disamb. links and alt text good. Seems like you have some dead links though... --Rschen7754 01:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done two of the three. A quick explanation on the law citation. The state does not let you link any further than the front page, so if people WP:AGF and go to the Highway Law, Article 12, Section 341, you'll find the actual text being cited. I'd link to that but I am unable to. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed the article for the A-class review and believe it meets the criteria. This was back in 2010, but the article hasn't changed substantially since then. --Rschen7754 01:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Fredddie

(edit conflict) I reviewed this at the ACR level last year, but since then I've become a better reviewer, so I'll give it another pass. –Fredddie™ 01:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox
  1. You can barely see the outline of New York state in the map. I'll look at it once I'm done reviewing.
  2. The second mention of Preston (hamlet) could be reduced to "the hamlet".
  3. I believe, since you're talking about the city government of Norwich, you want to say City of Norwich. Also happens in infobox.
  4. Is there a pertinent article to which we could link from "maintenance swap"?
  5. Is the Chenango County section of 319 still called CR 10A? It should read "The Chenango County-owned section of NY 319's former routing is known now as County Route 10A (CR 10A)."
Route description
  1. I don't think you have to link to Hamlet (New York) again. I'll defer to someone else's opinion, though.
  2. "...as it entered the city of Norwich and became West Main Street." How do like switching "and became" to "along"?
  3. You should change "residential and commercial establishments" to "residences and commercial establishments". I know I'd never want to live in a residential establishment...
N&P Tpke
  1. 4.86 and 0.22 miles seem overly precise for 1907. Personally, I'd round those to the nearest quarter mile. I use fractions for this, but I'm aware some people don't like fractions in articles.
  2. I heard rumors that there is a new capital expenditures function of the {{Inflation}} series of templates. I'm not sure it's ready yet, but if it is, I recommend switching to that calculation.
    1. Not actionable at present. –Fredddie™ 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Designation
  1. "One of these highways..." is vague. You should take the middle three sentences of the first paragraph here and combine them into two sentences for clarity.
  2. When was ownership of NY 319 slated to be transferred to Chenango County?
Post-designation
  1. I would round the coversions down to the whole foot (29 and 71). I'd also change to the adjectival form since 29-foot-long is the adjective you want. {{convert|29|ft|m|adj=mid|-long}} → 29-foot-long (8.8 m)
  2. Does the new bridge handle 1154 cars per day, or is that the old bridge?
Major intersections
  1. Section looks good.
Refs and ELs
  1. These are not my forte, so I'll let others handle these.
Overall comments
Looks good. Fix these few things and I'll support. –Fredddie™ 02:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardoning the capital expenditures questions and the link to maintenance swap, I have fixed everything to the best of my ability. Also, the citation from 1907 gives 2 decimal point precision. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 02:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. True to my word, I support this article for FA. –Fredddie™ 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't include ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes
  • FN 2: page(s)?
  • Don't need retrieval dates for convenience links to print-based sources, like Google Books
  • Compare formatting on FNs 21 and 22
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher location. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed for you I hope. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That small box which is linking to the related portal has made a lot of whitespace, you should put that above the "References" section:
{{Portal|New York Roads}}
==References==
{{Reflist}}
--Z 05:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it below, its going to add more whitespace putting it above. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 05:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. Found an excuse to get a see also section in there. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 05:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this for FA:
  1. Could some more desciptive information about the route's surroundings be added to the first paragraph of the lead?
  2. In the lead, mention where CR 10A currently runs from to from.
  3. NY 990L still exists, so "Main Street continued east of NY 12 as NY 990L" should be in the present tense.
  4. "This section of the turnpike was accepted into the state highway system on July 22, 1911", can another word be used instead of accepted?
  5. The sentence "Designated as NY 319,[1] maintenance was handled by the New York State Department of Transportation west of the Norwich city limits and by the city of Norwich within the city." sounds awkward.
  6. The sentence "The transfer would be made upon completion of this section of NY 23." sounds redundant to previous information. Dough4872 03:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is long enough already on number one, plus the route hasn't existed for 28 years. I've done the rest of the ones expect for number two, which is already implied in the lead. As for number six, I've removed it, however, I added it because of a previous FAC comment and not really happy about that. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article looks good now. Dough4872 04:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Comments by  VC 
  • Lead:
    1. Paragraph 1, sentence 1: I would wikilink Chenango County and New York separately.
    2. P2S4: I would be a little more direct and change "maintenance of NY 319 was handled" to "NY 319 was maintained by." Put NYSDOT in parentheses after the wikilink and use the acronym throughout the remainder of the article.
    3. P3S1: As it is, this sentence has too much unspecific detail for the Lead. I would mention when the swap was approved by the legislature. Otherwise, I would get rid of the sentence.
    4. P3S5: Redundant because the city has always maintained the section inside the city limits. You can say the portion in the city of Norwich became an unnumbered street, but that may be too much detail for the Lead.
  • Route description:
    1. P1S3: "NY 319 continued to climb in elevation" According to Ref 4, the highway descends to cross a creek before climbing again.
    2. P1S4: "From here, the route descended into a valley separating two large hills with peaks approximately 1,800 feet (550 m) above sea level." I would move the wikilinked "sea level" to after the first elevation you give. I would remove this sentence because those two hills are on the same ridge line as the hill that has the cemetery.
    3. P1: Because you mention Gilmore Brook in the History, you should mention it in the Route description to give the reader context.
    4. P1S5: "East of the hills": I would reword because the highway intersects CR 19 and enters the town of Norwich on the descent.
    5. P2S1: This is repetitive with the last sentence of the previous paragraph. I would remove one of the sentences.
    6. P2S2: Change "At the base of the valley" to "at the bottom of the descent"
    7. P2S3: You mention the maintenance regime of NY 319 in three places: here, the Lead, and the History. To avoid being overly redundant, I would remove this instance.
    8. P2S4: "passed a mixture of residences and commercial establishments" Mention some specific notable establishments to add color. For instance, the route passes the Emmanuel Episcopal Church Complex. The highway's terminus was within what is now the Chenango County Courthouse District. The county courthouse is located at the northwest corner of the terminal intersection. The district was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1975, before NY 319 was decommissioned. There should be references you can add to corroborate the existence of these historic sites along the route.
    9. P2S4: "Intersecting with NY 12...NY 319 ended here" I would mention in the fourth sentence that NY 319's terminus was at NY 12. Then you can eliminate a somewhat awkward four-word clause at the start of the next sentence.
    10. P2S5: "NY 990L, a partially unsigned reference route maintained by NYSDOT." Two things here. First, I would change "unsigned" to "signed" because this route is an exception to reference routes not being signed. Second, if NY 990L is entirely state-maintained, I would mention the route is entirely within the city of Norwich for the sake of contrast, because state maintenance for city streets is unusual.
  • History
    1. P2: If you are able, can you identify where the 0.22-mile section was in relation to the 4.86-mile section?
    2. P4: There is no date anywhere in the second paragraph of the Designation and removal section. When was it decided to perform the maintenance swap? When did the new portion of NY 23 begin construction? Most importantly: What is the date on the New York State Highway Law that is quoted?
  • References
    1. Ref 2: Page numbers should be added to the references to reflect citations to NY 23 and NY 990L within the article.
    2. Ref 5 is mostly redundant with Ref 4 and may be used incorrectly. For citations 5a and 5c, the linked map does not differentiate between state and city maintenance. Can you clarify how you know the highway was maintained by the city within the city limits? If you can make a reference to the fact that "cities in New York maintain their own roads," that would be good enough. For citation 5d, CR 10 is not marked on the map. Ref 5 is correctly used for citation 5b.
    3. Ref 10 should cite pages 232 and 233.
    4. Ref 11 has a retrieval date of 2010. Are the numbers in the article updated for 2012 figures automatically?
    5. Ref 16: Include the article number, subsections, and subsubsections to direct us to the relevant passage, since we have to use a self-guided tour to get to the information.
    6. Ref 21: Add a link to the specific webpage to make it consistent with ref 22.
I will copyedit and check for wikilink consistency later.  VC  20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everything done but the last one of the lead, citation 11 (a template mess I cannot handle myself), the Citation 5 mess (I don't even know what you're asking me to fix) and the non-given dates of the source to when, besides upon completion. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out all comments that you have fully addressed. The others either have not been addressed or only partially addressed. I will start with your comments immediately above:
  • "the last one of the lead": Do you have an objection to my suggestion?
  • "the Citation 5 mess (I don't even know what you're asking me to fix)": I would like you to explain how you use Ref 5 to support that the portion of NY 319 within the city of Norwich was city-maintained. Also, I would like you to explain how you support the mention of CR 10 when CR 10 does not appear on the map (did I miss it?) used for Ref 5. For the latter, I offered an alternative, namely that you can state "cities in New York maintain their own roads." Both of us know this fact, but you would need a reference to support that contention because that is a statement people would question. I might have been wrong in saying Ref 5 is redundant with Ref 4, because citation b for Ref 5 is supporting something (the existence of NY 990L) that cannot be supported by Ref 4.
  • "and the non-given dates of the source to when, besides upon completion": I did a quick search for legislation that would have changed New York State Highway Law Article 12, Section 341.8.2 and found nothing. You know the resources better than I, so can you take another stab at it? While I do not feel the article is comprehensive without the date of legislation, if getting this information is impossible, I will not withhold support for something that is unactionable. However, I need for you to state solving this problem is unactionable and explain why, for the record.
For the comments that are not struck out that I did not address immediately above, please explain what you did or did not do, why you did not take action or object to taking action, or ask any clarifying questions.  VC  16:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is a good enough explanation to why towards the law. Fixed the rest to best I can. You're going to have to handle the elevation mess (along with Gilmore Brook) or tell me how you want this worded, because its not coming out the way I think you want. As for the .22 & 4.86 mile differences, the larger one is SH 598, the smaller one is SH 598A, the internal designations (ironically those two were commented out in the article.) What's missing from the last sentence of the RD? I fixed everything you suggested. I finished half of the Ref 5 issue, I noticed that CR 10, the route in Preston that darts west, isn't marked, added the next quad to the west to fix it. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the quadrangles do show whether a road is state-maintained or not, and the extents of state-maintenance. See the quadrangle legend. – TMF 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at the maps and control sections are marked and there are arrow markers to indicate ends of control sections. So I think the Ref 5 concerns have been sufficiently addressed.
I wanted you (Mitchazenia) to find a date for the legislation authorizing the maintenance swap. I realized that might be difficult, since it would have occurred decades ago and the records might be hard to find. I was asking you to confirm whether finding that information was actionable or not. The link to the NYSR project subpage would not have been sufficient enough for me because it does not explain why adding the date would have been (un)actionable. Thankfully, this is moot because TwinsMetsFan found an article that provides the date the maintenance swap was approved by the legislature.
I struck out several more comments because they have been resolved. The remaining unresolved comments are things I am going to edit myself and strike out once I am done. In particular, you fulfilled my request to get sources for the historic site and district, but I am leaving that unstruck until I work on the sentence.  VC  03:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some sentences in the Route description and struck out the remaining comments. Once I do a final readthrough and check for wikilink consistency, barring finding other issues that require your attention, I will support accession.  VC  03:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed copyediting the article. While I was doing that, I found two more issues:
  1. There is no article for the hamlet of Scotts Corners, it is not mentioned in the Pharsalia, New York article, and no maps I have seen label it. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names does not list it. For the benefit of readers, on the first mention, can you explain where Scotts Corners is in relation to the nearest hamlet and which town it is in?
  2. Due to the vertical size of the first image (department store), I would switch the first and second images so the History header is not pushed aside.
Once at least the first item is done, I will support.  VC  03:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few places that I've seen Scotts Corners used is in the state highway law, which is why I went with that location versus another one. I've added a note specifying where Scotts Corners is in relation to the closest hamlet of consequence, North Pharsalia. That should also imply what town the location is in, since the junction with NY 26 was previously mentioned as being within the town of Pharsalia. As for the image suggestion, whether or not the image pushes the History header aside is going to depend on what resolution a reader is viewing the page at. On a widescreen monitor, it does affect the header location, but once you get away from the widescreen displays and make your way toward, say, 1280x1024 and lower on a monitor or a tablet or netbook, the effect on the History header is less pronounced. Long story short, there's a lot of factors there that's largely out of the editor's control, which makes me lean away from the suggestion. All of that said, the reason that image is there versus any of the others is that the image shows NY 319 when it was still assigned, and I think it makes the most sense to put it in a section that profiles NY 319 as it was prior to 1984. – TMF 05:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source check: Mitch, has there been a spotcheck on one of your past FACs for accuracy in representation of sources and close paraphrasing? If so, please link; if not, still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this even relevant? Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following the question? Since the Halloween 2010 debacle, we've tried to make sure every nominator gets at least one sourcing check-- I can't recall if you've had one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Between February 16, 2010 when Tropical Storm Marco (1990) passed and when M-185 (Michigan highway) was nominated (and later passed) in November 2011, I did not nominate an article at all to FAC. Besides the fact that I've had problems of it in the past, most of this writing is rewritten by now conominator, and this is technically his first FAC. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why was this not brought up on M-185 (Michigan highway)'s FAC? Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not close that FAC, suppose that Imzadi had had a recent check per his other FACs (but I really don't know), and delegates can't catch everything. For that matter, Ucucha may have a different method of checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1 had a spot check on May 30, 2011. Since I had copy edited and re-cited the M-185 article before nominating it, my Brockway spotcheck should have applied to that nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 01:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so is it the case that Mitch has not had a source check? That's what I'm reading, want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both me and my conominator, effectively. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check:The only one I see that looks at all funny is the 1966 image, this. The photographer's name doesn't seem to match the uploader. (his mother's?) Is there any chance that he can send an email to OTRS confirming that he owns the copyright? Also, the file description page lists a date of 2008, which is probably when it was uploaded. You should change that to the date this photograph was taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme explain how this happened. I have a Flickr pro account and photostream, I happened to come upon the photo in person, and I used a Flickr mail account, I emailed him, asking if he'd be willing to let us use the photo. He said yes on the condition that we credit his father as the photographer, which is exactly what I did. I responded saying he needs to change the copyright status, which he immediately did, and I went ahead and uploaded it. And now that I look, he's changed the copyright back, I have the mails that document this conversation, and if this photo is going to go away because he changed it back. However, I cannot forward the emails unless you have a suggestion since FlickrMail isn't regular email. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't beat the issue. That's fine. I misunderstood that Sandy wanted a source review and instead did an image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of speeding this along, I'll attempt the beginning of the source check myself, but I'm hitting some roadblocks and could use some help:

  • Text says: "The town of Norwich was created on January 19, 1793, and was originally much larger than it is today" (note WP:MOSDATE#Precise language issue with "today" needs fixing). There is no close paraphrasing cncern there, but the source says that Norwich then included what are today known as other towns. Our "much larger" is unclear (in that it refers to size, not population).
  • I am unable to access either of these sources -- get an error return:
  • 6.^ LaFrank, Kathleen (April 2009). "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Emmanuel Episcopal Church Complex". New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Retrieved January 11, 2012.
  • 7.^ MacDougall, Ellen T. (March 1975). "National Register of Historic Places Registration: Chenango County Courthouse District". New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Retrieved January 10, 2012.
  • I can't verify any of the text from this source, but I suspect that's because I'm not reading it right, and just need some help:
  • New York State Department of Transportation (January 2009) (PDF). Official Description of Highway Touring Routes, Bicycling Touring Routes, Scenic Byways, & Commemorative/Memorial Designations in New York State. pp. 14, 35, 66. Retrieved June 9, 2009.
  • Could you please lead me to or quote the exact text from that source that verifies text in this article?

Trying to get this moving, since we are so desperately lacking reviewers to do this kind of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 7 is something with your computer, because it opened for me, it opened in the viewONE program when I loaded it on Chrome. That's not something I can rectify easily. I've adjusted the wording on the Norwich one and replaced the original Citation 6. My co-nominator is working on the last one.Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, it requires the ability to use Java applets in your browser. --Rschen7754 22:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant passages from the 2009 route log are on pages 35 and 66 (pages 39 and 70 of the PDF). Page 35 reads "NY 319 Deleted (7/84)". Deleted is the state DOT's term for removing a designation, so this means that the NY 319 designation was officially eliminated in July 1984. Page 66 reads "NY 990L East Main Street/City of Norwich Arterial from NY 12 to NY 23 – Chenango County." This means that NY 990L is a reference route designation that begins at the junction of NY 12 and East Main Street and follows East Main Street and the "Norwich arterial" (in reality East River Road) to a junction with NY 23. This alignment is confirmed by reference 8, which shows the entirety of the previously described alignment as state-maintained. – TMF 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_York_State_Route_319/archive2&oldid=1208511350"