Talk:New York State Route 96/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: –Grondemar 03:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working I will post the review shortly. –Grondemar 03:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good, comprehensive article. It needs just a few tweaks to achieve good article status:

~~The first paragraph under Route description: the word "Maintained" is used in virtually every sentence. Is there another word that could be used here, for variety?~~

Not really since maintenance and maintained are the two best words.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 00:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. –Grondemar 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to mention somewhere that NY 17 is becoming I-86 shortly; I had to look through those article to determine if the intersection of NY 96 and NY 17 had yet been redesignated as I-86. This is made doubly confusing by the map in the infobox, which shows the Southern Tier Expressway as I-86 on both sides of the intersection with NY 96 but doesn't even sign NY 17.

The thing marks the two segments of Interstate 86, which is currently the situation.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 00:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then the map should show a NY 17 somewhere on the highway as well? –Grondemar 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be fixed in a few minutes, but I'm no good at working on the maps.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's silly to add a marker that will have to be removed eventually, but whatever, I've added it. – T M F 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The NY 17 shield can always be removed when the State of New York finally finishes the road. –Grondemar 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario County: Is there a historical reason for the cloverleaf between NY 96 and NY 14? Often I've found the reason for an overbuilt intersection is because a highway was once intended to be there, but was canceled.

Not sure if that's significant enough to be handled in the Route description.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 00:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without some information on the intersection being provided here, we will never know. If you could provide a little background here on the talk page, we can decide whether it belongs in the article or not. –Grondemar 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know the project, if and when the one who nominated this (and my NY research partner) comes back, he could probably answer.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On this and the map issue: there's no rush. We can wait until TwinsMetsFan is available to comment. –Grondemar 22:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt anyone will ever find the reason, if one exists. Based on topo maps, it was converted into an interchange at some point between the early 1950s and the late 1970s, meaning finding any coverage of the conversion is highly unlikely. If I had to guess, I'd say the interchange was built because 1) NY 96 runs across significantly higher terrain than NY 14 does and 2) the state once thought that the number of travelers heading from the Thruway to NY 96 south would eventually overwhelm that part of NY 14. I say NY 96 south here because this is roughly the point where NY 96 stops paralleling the Thruway and makes its southern turn into the Finger Lakes region. Based on what I've seen over the years, the latter situation isn't happening anytime soon. – T M F 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. –Grondemar 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 9: Is "tourguide" misspelled, or is that the actual name of the map?~~

Actual name.Mitch32^{(Erie Railroad Information Hog)} 00:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. –Grondemar 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's source code:

{{cite map |title=New York and New Jersey Tourgide<!--sic--> Map |publisher=Gulf Oil Company |cartography=Rand McNally and Company |year=1960}}

- note the sic. – T M F 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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):
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:
This GA review is placed on hold pending the addressing of the above concerns.

Thank you. –Grondemar 04:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all my concerns addressed, I will pass this good article nomination at this time. Congratulations! –Grondemar 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]