Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 319/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 00:32, 25 March 2009 [1].

---

New York State Route 319

Nominator(s): Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)}

I am nominating this for featured article because unlike the last article to come by of this type from me, New York State Route 382, this one is written better. I feel it meets all criteria, and I also got it recently copyedited for this FAC. Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Dabs and ref formatting is up to speed using the dabs checker tool and WP:REFTOOLS, respectively.
• Fix the dead external link, found using the checker tool in the toolbox.--₮RUCӨ 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Link fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• External links are also found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. I didn't read far before getting lost. This really needs attention from an effective copyeditor, as the prose is far from FA quality. The second paragraph of the lead is incomprehensible, honestly; the reader shouldn't be forced to move on just to get a basic understanding of the lead's content. It looks like you got some good advice in peer review but it's unclear how much of it you acted on. In some cases, the changes you seem to have made in response to PR comments were not improvements. Sample issues just from the lead and first section:
  • "This one case"?
  • "The route was commissioned by 1931" - We've just been told that the route was there before 1931. Confusing.
  • "The route remained for 53 years being decommissioned in July 1984 in a trade between the state and Chenango County." Aside from the grammatical oddities, it also makes little sense.
  • "the state turned over Route 319" So it's upside-down now?
  • "crossed into Norwich town limits"

--Laser brain (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting copyeditor, just solved your comments ;) - Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 20:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Related to the recent notability discussions at WT:USRD... this article *appears* notable since it was a former turnpike. I hope to do a review soon. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I'm unclear why you invited me back to look at the article since your copyeditor introduced several questions and requests for further revision in their inline comments. Did you review the changes? At any rate, I would recommend this be withdrawn for now to address those issues and the ones I listed below. It's quite a ways off, currently, and I don't recommend trying to push this through FAC at this time.
  • "The turnpike, along with local opposition" This doesn't provide any context for understanding, and the corresponding section of text isn't much help - there is only one sentence there about any opposition. It's also slightly misleading, as it suggests the opposition was to the road itself. It seems from reading on that the opposition was really about the privatization.
  • "Route 319 proceeded eastward into the city of Norwich and the designated terminated at an intersection ..." I don't understand the use of "designated" here. Is it supposed to be "designation"?
  • "The area was mountainous" It is no longer?
  • "... providing the village energy to light the streets in Norwich." I don't understand this phrase. Are you speaking of Preston or Norwich? Following your organization, it seems you are referring to Norwich.. but it's a city, not a village. If you substitute the object, you get "providing Norwich energy to light the streets in Norwich"?
  • "The turnpikes were intended to create companies which would build, maintain, and Toll the roads." Typically in American English, "companies that would build".
  • "farmers, merchants, and landowners often failed to maintain their part of the funds." Unclear. How were they maintaining funds?
  • "As a result, some of the turnpikes proposed were not constructed" As a result of what? This statement can't seem to be the result of what you've just stated.

--Laser brain (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed his comments. And its staying, I hate withdrawing because it lowers my spirits. And it shows how people hate my guts. I don't care if you block me for the comments, but its basically true. I finished those you just mentioned.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? I'm assuming you put your article up here for constructive criticism—I don't know anything about people hating your guts or blocking you. However, you have my feedback and it is certainly your choice to leave the nomination here. --Laser brain (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may give some context here. There are some frank discussions going on at WP:USRD about toughening the project standards. These have resulted in some of Mitch's GA nominations getting quickfailed, and some that previously passed being placed up for GAR for failing project notability guidelines, etc. Mitch, please don't take it personally. The intent is to improve the quality of the articles being produced by the project as a whole. IMO the bigger aim is to erase the stereotype that many wiki editors have the road articles are boring and dry. You're the poster child, yes, but that's because you are a GAC and FAC nominating machine. It's a project wide problem and I include myself at the criticisms I've lanced. Believe me, I want to gut U.S. Route 491 and start over, and just might. Although it passed FA, I now feel it's a terrible article given what it could be. You need to remember that for an article to truly be good, it needs to be perceived as good by both an expert on roads and someone who could otherwise care less about roads. The toughening of standards is a good thing, and if it means we all loose some brownie points, so be it.Dave (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Its that I am a bull writer - and I already rewrote this once. I don't want to rewrite it again.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My take on the above comment is I would be wasting my time to help with this article, as any suggestions will be dismissed. Frankly, it's hard for me to sympathize that you feel bad for being asked to re-write again where you've made a whopping 38 edits in the year the article has existed. My current nomination in this queue, I'm at 250 edits over a span of 3 years, including 3 major re-writes and dozens of section re-writes. I've got 47 article/talk edits on an article where I was only the GAC reviewer. I'm not bragging, I'm sure there are several in this forum that can top those stats several times over. (lets ask Sandygeorgia or Ealdgyth about their edit counts on articles they've worked on) Bottom line, complain all you want, but it will fall on deaf ears. Frankly, your not even close to putting in the time and effort into this article that most others in this queue have on their nomination. My apologies for sounding harsh, but I feel some tough love is in order at this point.Dave (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.