Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New York State Route 317

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Do not promote, stale nom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 317

[edit]

New York State Route 317 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
Nominator's comments: NY 317 is the newest touring route in Onondaga County, New York. It is also the first route assigned past 2000 in NY to be brought up to USRD's A-class review process. I am looking for a really good review. Its not the longest but what can you do. :)
Nominated by: Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 15:58, 10 April 2009
Resolved issues from Dave

Oppose

I can't fix that myself. Sorry. Templates are not a strong point for me.
  • There are prose issues that need to be addressed, such as overlinking (NYSDOT and Elbridge wikilinked twice in a short section).
Elbridge is a town and village and has two articles, they are linked to different ones. Why the towns are done like that is beyond me.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check again, they are linked to the same article. Dave (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the route description - I think its moot now.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 16:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article isn't comprehensive. Two examples, the route description is only a turn-by-turn feature description, lacking context for those that aren't familiar with the area. Similarly, the history section only focuses on the legislative history of the route, missing any other aspects of the route's history.
Its 3 miles long, what do you really expect of history.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the article to conform to A class standards before I vote support. 3 miles long is no excuse. If it's A class quality pass, if it's not fail. What is relevant is has the research been done for a comprehensive article, and has the prose been fine tuned enough to consider this a quality article. Frankly the answer on both counts is No at this time.Dave (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the newly revised WP:USRD/NT guidelines all road article should answer the question, "why was this road built in the first place"? The only answer to that I can gleam from this article is to connect point A to point B. IMO there should be more, why did point B need to be connected to point A? For example, after reading Interstate 15 in Arizona (I'm intentionally picking an article I had very little to do with) I understand that frankly Arizona could care less weather this road exists, but is such a vital connector for the states of Utah, Nevada and California that Utah was willing to give Arizona money to build it. I doubt the story of this route is as dramatic, but still there is a reason why it was built.
It was designated as replacement to NY 31C, which was flooded out in a 2002 storm. In 2003, they decommissioned NY 31C and replaced County Route 105, which paralleled 31C to the east, as NY 317. A fair trade of highways. That is why it exists. Its right there in the article. In fact, it makes up 3/4 of the history.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not blind. All you've told me that the state and county swapped highways, that does not answer why does the highway exist in the first place. I'm trying to help, no need to get belligerent.Dave (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. By the way, I am sorry about that. I am really ticked (at myself) and well, I let it out. I've retract the blind comment.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, from my experience articles with bold text outside of the lead section have had grief at FAC. My own opinion is that if it ain't notable enough to put in the lead, it ain't notable enough to bold, but I do recognize that others take a different stance on that issue.Dave (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I replaced CR 144 with a Wikilink.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there is an unresolved oppose, on April 24th (14 days after first comment) if the concerns have not been addressed and are not being addressed, this article will fail. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I pinged Dave about it Sunday. I am still waiting for a town historian to reply to my e-mail. So leave it open. I have addressed his other issues and I will not let you close it.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 10:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, Dave :) Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 15:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is improved. However, I still see a few areas where it could be improved more. The oppose remains because there are issues with the lead (unsourced material not expanded later on in the article), once that big one is fixed, the rest of my comments are suggestions. Specific prose issues:

  • "the alignments of old 31C and modern 317 are identical" Suggest less technical wording, maybe "the alignment of 31C was redesigned 317"?
  • similar for "to NY 31, where both North Main and NY 317 terminate." maybe "to the northern terminus of NY 317 and North Main at NY 31". Terminate, as a verb, implies NY 317 is a living thing.=-)
  • (where it met NY 5) -> –at NY 5– (misuse of paranthesis, plus "where it met" is common, but non-standard english)
  • was never repaired -> was not repaired (Never say never, next year some congressman could pork-barrel it back in)
  • The bridge is to not be replaced. -> suggest merging with the previous sentence and changing to, as the bridge was not repaired.
  • The last part of the history section has 2 very short paragraphs, combine into a single paragraph.
  • There's still some bolding in the history section. I don't know if that's right or wrong, I have my opinion. It will be interesting to see if that passes muster at FAC.

General issues:

  • The lead mentions the road is related to an old railroad. Good, this helps establish why the road exists. However, this is only mentioned in the lead, need to expand a little more in the history section (when was the railroad built, torn down, successful or not, etc.) The lead should not have content that is not explained further in the body of the article.
  • Similarly, the lead discusses the former alignment of NY 317 more than the history section. For example, "The NY 317 designation had not been used since 1980 when its previous alignment along County Route 144 in Rensselaer County was removed from the state highway system." Is unsourced and never supported in the history section. If I were writing this article I'd just say something like "The NY 317 designation was previously used for a road in Renssalaer County" in the lead. I'd move the rest of the content to the history section. For the record, the only map used for the text is a 1965 map, which does obviously not support that the route was in use until 1980. If you're only source is a 1965 map, the only thing you can say is "the old alignment was in use at least until 1965".
    • This article shouldn't discuss the former alignment of NY 317 at all. What should be done is a dablink for the former routing should be added and all mentions of the former NY 317 should be removed. If anyone wants to make an article or redirect for the old 317 later on, the information that was in this article will be in the revision history. – TMF 22:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an addendum, what is present about old 317 in this article is incorrect; the route in Rensselaer County was removed sometime in the 1970s (between 1970 and 1977 to be specific). – TMF 03:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead is pretty technical. I'd prefer to leave most of the numbers (dates etc.) for the history section. For example, I'd shorten the content about the flood in the lead to something like. "Heavy flooding in 2002 destroyed many roads in this area. Route 317 was formed as part of an exchange to place the remaining through roads in the area under state control; and give the remnants of the damaged roads to the county. Then move all the dates and county designations in the history section. I wouldn't bold them, as IMO, county roads aren't that notable. Again this is how I would do it, not saying that's how it has to be done.

Dave (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can understand removing some of the dates; however, by taking out all of them it makes the lead fairly vague. At the very least, the date NY 317 was assigned should be retained.
    • As for the county routes, I agree. I wouldn't even bother linking them; the overwhelming majority are non-notable per WP:USRD/NT. – TMF 22:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with everything, again :

I can now support the article. However I still have one nitpick.

  • "Onondaga County village of Elbridge" De-link "village of" so that you don't have two wikilinked terms touching (a frequent violation of the MOS, even in FA's). You can still have both terms linked, just have a word or two of separation =-).

Dave (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind hiding your comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked text changed. – TMF 06:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Done for the second one. I locked up my back and can't focus too well. Also, other than a consistency problem, I don't see what's wrong for the first one.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 11:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the abbreviation has to be consistent throughout the article (which I don't necessarily agree with), it would be "NY 317" since that's NYSDOT's official abbreviation for the routes in their most visible documents (the TDR and route log). Personally, though, I don't see an issue with mixing "NY 317" with "Route 317" as it eliminates some of the monotony from using the same thing over and over again. Whether or not FAC folks feel the same way, I don't know, but that's how I see it. – TMF 14:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support issues have been addressed. However, there probably still needs to be one more review before closing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I will support it for A-class:
  1. Can some more descriptibve information about the route be added to the lead? It mostly consists of historical information.
    Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In sentence "The route heads northward from the central intersection, passing a small commercial lot to the west, and several residential homes to the north and west.", remove comma after "west".
    Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would NY 317 and Valley Drive be both considered "highways"?
    Its a general term.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "turns north onto Main": add "Street" after "Main".
    Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In sentence "This plank road was constructed in the 1850s in place of the Syracuse and Auburn Railroad and a small railroad from Skaneateles to Skaneateles Junction, two crude railroads that were in the area which had ended service in 1836 and 1850.", add "respectively" at the end.
    Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In sentence "A bill (S6534, 2002) was introduced in the New York State Senate by State Senator John DeFrancisco[16] on March 18, 2002,[17] that would turn maintenance of Onondaga County Route 105, an alternate route between Jordan and Elbridge on the eastern bank of Skaneateles Creek, over to the New York State Department of Transportation and give Valley Drive to the town of Elbridge and the villages of Jordan and Elbridge.", remove comma after "March 18, 2002". Dough4872 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe it's gramatically correct to remove that comma. – TMF 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a follow-up to my comment above, I don't believe the Wikipedia MOS provides any guidance on this issue, but our article on commas indicates that placing a comma following full dates such as "March 18, 2002" is common practice. – TMF 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done per above.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, so I will Support the article. Dough4872 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One glaring item that came to my attention tonight is that the article does not include when the plank road (was it still a plank road after the Skaneateles Railroad Company took it over? even that's not entirely clear to me) was turned over to the state. It was definitely prior to the 1910s; it became the easternmost part of legislative Route 20. Even if this ACR is closed without this being addressed, it absolutely has to be before a potential FAC nomination. – TMF 01:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the recent additions to the article.
    • "which was designated as State Highway 486. Valley Drive was also State Highway 5080 (in Elbridge), and State Highway 5630 (in Jordan up to Clinton Street)." - I don't believe this helps the article in any way. It'd be the same thing if I said in NY 104's article that it is partly SH 6 or that NY 153 is partly SH 1337. Since no one but the New York legislature and hardcore NY roadgeeks know these designations exist, let alone what they mean, I don't think it's beneficial to have it in the article. The point of me including them in my notes was to establish a timeline for tracking down the point when the road was transferred to the state. They should be removed.
    • "The modern routing of NY 317 was originally the northern part of the Jordan and Skaneateles Plank Road." - 317 or 31C? Neither the article nor the linked sources are clear on this issue. Maps from the time period aren't clear either - both roads are shown on maps as early as 1871. And if the plank road became Jordan Road (317), then why did the state take over and improve Valley Drive? Either this question needs to be answered, or it needs to be verified that the plank road became Valley Drive (31C).
    • "In 1903, the railroad company was part of the People v. New York Central Railroad and Hudson Railroad, which was suing the board of railroad commissioners of the state of New York." - sued over what? Did the case relate to the plank road?
    • Does the fourth paragraph of the first history sub-section have any relevance to NY 31C/317? The case is dated as 1915, and by that point the railroad company is pretty much irrelevant to this article as Route 20 was created in the laws of 1908.
    • The whole first paragraph of the designation sub-section is choppy. For one thing, legislative Route 20 (note the lowercase "l", these routes were not called "Legislative Routes") needs to be given a greater level of prominence than it currently is.
    • The history itself reads like two self-contained sections - not two parts of one whole. There's no flow nor a connection between the two. It jumps from plank roads and railroad companies to state highways with no explanation as to how we got from point A (railroad company ownership) to point B (state ownership).
  • I talked to someone else that reviewed the history; and I believe they put it best: right now, it appears to the reader like a list of facts that doesn't really tell a story. If someone read the history from beginning to end, they're still going to have questions about the road's origins. By the A-Class level, that shouldn't be the case. An A-Class article should answer a reader's every question and should leave no room for interpretation or create a need for further research. This article currently has both issues. I cannot support this for A-Class as it is now, and truthfully, as it was before. I didn't realize how bad the gaps in the history were until I attempted to weave in the portion regarding Route 20 last night, and failed to do so without it sticking out. – TMF 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for two reasons.

  • I should have brought this up when I initially reviewed the article but I was tired and didn't - the two subsections of the history have no connection. For the record, I did notice this when I reviewed the article the first time but didn't say anything about it.
  • I don't quite understand what the railroad stuff just added has to do with the article. It probably should be removed.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no attempt made to address these issues by Wednesday 5/27 the article will fail. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/New_York_State_Route_317&oldid=1138355745"