Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New York State Route 343

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result of discussion was promote to A-class with 4 net support votes and no oppose votes. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 343 (4 net support votes)

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: NY 343 has been a group project between User:Polaron, User:Juliancolton, and I. I feel this article is ready for A-class, but a good review wouldn't hurt. Any comments are welcome, so thanks!

Nominated by: ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. Okay, here's my concerns:

Map: This map is probably too far zoomed in to be appropriate for the infobox; experiment with a state- or county-level zoom to see how that looks. This map would probably be better off as a supplemental map in the route description page or a Commons gallery. Also, the background color doesn't match the MTF standard. Bonus points for using an inset, but it appears to have been rendered with QGIS's default projection, which stretches stuff out E–W. Try using a different projection like Lambert Conformal Conic. Are the long, straight lines roads or township lines?
- - Partly done;Map requested.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A new map has been uploaded image:NY 343 map2.png. The background color was yellow instead of the usual off white as I had added all the "towns" to the map. I removed the towns and stuck with the county name instead. I also adjusted the projection to Lambert. Due to a glitch with my data, I have to make the inset map for New England and not just NY. Hope this helps! 25or6to4 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The merge of CT-343 into this article is, erm, interesting. While I'd never do that sort of thing myself, I don't oppose it, but I believe that the switch between the NY and CT-343 portions needs to be treated more prominently, with an RD subheading at the least. Since this article covers both NY and CT-343, consider treating CT-343 on an equal level with NY-343 by moving the shield into the infobox. A retitle may be in order...perhaps "State Route 343 (New York-Connecticut)"? (Hey, he just suggested a P2 title! Kill him!) The map should also cover the route of CT-343.
- - Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Route description:
- While it's worth noting that Beekman Park is accessed via 343, is the fact that the park used to have a lake really important to NY 343? (Unless it was a major recreation destination that 343 was heavily used to access, in the manner of Oklahoma State Highway 9 and Lake Thunderbird, ditch the lake mention.)
  - Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The shield photo needs a better caption. Where is this shield located?
  - Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History:
- Too many links to Connecticut.
  - Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major intersections list: Needs shields.
- - Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 12:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is an interesting article. The history section is uncommonly good, with the well-researched predesignation history. Fixing the above issues shouldn't be too much of a problem, so I anticipate being able to support this article in the future. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, that's a good map. :o Wow. Since all my concerns are addressed: Support. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Overall very well done, I only have some minor suggestions, but at least one that must be fixed before I can vote support.

Almost the entire route description is sourced with google maps, including the paragraph containing this statement "(cosigned as U.S. Route 44 until 2008)". I don't think google maps is sufficient to source that. You would need a pre-2008 map and a post 2008 map, or an article or resolution mentioning the change.
- - Done.Mitch32^(UP) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
generalGeorge Washington. Though I've not seen it in the wikipedia MOS, I have seen other style guides that disapprove of this (two wikilinked terms next to each other) as it can give the appearance of one linked term. My preference to solve this is to de-link general. The term should be explained or linked on the article for George W. anyways.
- - Done.Mitch32^(UP) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speaking of which, it is implied this corridor was important during the revolutionary war. I would like to see more information on this, perhaps mention of a specific battle or something where this route played a part. But that's my taste, I wouldn't hold the nomination up for this.Dave (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Not Done. No information was found about the area.Mitch32^(UP) 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bait you with "oh yeah, and do this" but I found more issues, some serious.

Books are cited without an ISBN or OCLC code. Include one or the other.
- - Done. A few don't have either at all. So I added the ones that did.Mitch32^(UP) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mohawk.net source appears to be an WP:SPS. Please include justificaion on the reliability of this source.
- - Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some WP:Peacock Terms in the article "~~major~~ landmarks" Dave (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Done.Mitch32^(UP) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support concerns resolved to my satisfaction Dave (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — addressed my suggestions I mentioned on IRC with the junction table and lack of an infobox for CT 343. I support it's passage. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.