Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New York State Route 319

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

New York State Route 319[edit]

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class

Nominator's comments: NY 319 is a decommissioned highway in Chenango County, New York. Originally this got passed as a pretty cruddy GA, but since then its been revamped pretty well and has the basic details to probably go for A-class.

Nominated by: Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 02:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred: 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I support this for A-class:

Can a MTF compliant map be added to the infobox?
That is in the works.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this Monday or Tuesday if someone doesn't do it before then. – T M F 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map is up at File:NY Route 319 map.svg. – T M F 07:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you request shields for CRs 4, 10, 10A, and 19 that can be used in the article?
Um, did we miss WP:USRD/S/R#Chenango County Routes 4, 10, 10A and 19?Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find the date the highway maintenance swap was approved?
This may be impossible, the only official date is when it took effect, which was July 84.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In last sentence of lead, indicate abbreviation for CR 10A.
Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"County Route 4, CR 10, and CR 19": use consistient abbreviations.
Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"residential neighborhoods and commercial establishments" sounds wordy.
Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are the boundary changes of Norwich really relevant to this article?
It is in the turnpike history, we are trying to find a way to condense it.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Been condensed to where necessary.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a contract was let" sounds awkward.
Contract letting is the official terms used in engineering.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)}
It's not just an engineering term - it's perfectly acceptable English. See the Merriam-Webster definition of let as a verb, specifically point #2. – T M F 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not need to link New York twice in same paragraph.
Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really notable for the road to get new signage.
Eh, it helps keeping the article up to date, which is often a complaint from the top tier.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding non-notable stuff is just as big of a problem. --Rs chen 7754 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider new signage to be that notable, TBH. For me, it falls along the lines of guardrail replacement or a standard pavement resurfacing, neither of which really matter 10 or 20 years out. – T M F 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 17:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "The project is estimated to be completed in late 2009 and early 2010". needs to be updated.
Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References 1 and 21 should be merged.
1 and 21 serve different purposes. 21 serves as a designation identifier.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 1 and 21 can be merged - both show the same map that proves NY 319 west of Norwich became CR 10A. I'll do this now. – T M F 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References 22 and 23 should be merged.
22 and 23 can't be merged due to link issues. Also, they are to separate entries, one is #1045650 and one is #1045660.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The images need ALT text per WP:ALT [1]. ---Dough 48 72 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will be fixed.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 04:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added by User:Juliancolton. – T M F 04:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My issues have been addressed. ---Dough 48 72 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Imzadi1979

Using the toolbox I added, the ALT text needs to be added for the map using the |map_alt= parameter. The dab links, and external links check out.
Done.Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image sourcing checks out as well.
References and their formatting check out. There are a few minor formatting gaffes, like stray ] in Ref 8 and the template-generated ISO date in Ref 11. Ref 22 should be un-wikilinked because Ref 21 has the same wikilinks.
Ref 8 fixed. I can't seem to fix 11. Refs 21 & 22 fixed, (I misread this as the URL).Mitch32^{(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!)} 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template used to generate ref 11 has been changed; however, it's anyone's guess as to whether or not the change will stick. – T M F 02:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review ~~is forthcoming. I apologize, we're having guests over for a dinner party here, so I can't do it at the moment. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)~~ looks good. There's a few minor stylistic concerns, so a copy edit never hurts, but it's not required for me to support article promotion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd suggest adding more context to the caption for the illustration in the RD. There's clearly something going on other than the road.~~–Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754

"The route began in Preston hamlet at an intersection with three county-maintained highways and proceeded eastward through the town of Preston to downtown Norwich, where it terminated at an intersection with NY 12." - the capitalization of hamlet gives me pause here.

Not sure that its incorrect, as "Preston Hamlet" would seem rather unusual.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence could probably be reworded to say "hamlet of Preston", but under no circumstances should hamlet be capitalized. – T M F 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ownership and maintenance of the state-maintained section of NY 319 was slated to be transferred from New York to Chenango County as part of a highway maintenance swap approved at an unknown time." - unknown time... can you clarify? As in they didn't know then? Or you don't know now?

TMF can probably go into this one in full, but as far as I know, the problem with this has been we know when NY 319 was to be decommissioned (when NY 23 was finished, July 1984), but there was no mention in state law when it was approved, which corresponds to unknown time.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's about right. If the legislature kept an all-encompassing archive of bills and laws, we could look up the date, but their online archive only goes back to 1995. – T M F 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it could be clarified or the ambiguous phrase removed that would be good. --Rs chen 7754 20:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"On December 14, 1907, a contract was let to improve a 4.86-mile (7.82 km) long portion of the former turnpike." - Contract was let?~~
"Unknown time" again.

See above.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hamlet (New York) is linked in sec 2.2 paragraph 2; it was already linked in the RD.~~

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with linking to a term once in each second-level section; in other words, once in the RD and once in the history. – T M F 13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The portion of the exchange describing the roads that would be transferred to Chenango County is written in New York State Highway Law as follows, with annotations in parentheses:" - would have been~~

It doesn't sound like its wrong grammatically because the swap occurred. "would have been" would represent it not happening.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The section header "Post-removal" sounds awkward.~~

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a support once the issues are resolved. --Rs chen 7754 07:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 10:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support issues resolved. --Rs chen 7754 14:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fredddie: I have two-and-a-half issues with this article.

"...the hamlet of Preston within the town of the same name..." sounds incredibly awkward. You could replace it with "...the hamlet of Preston, within the town of Preston, ..."
- To me, that introduces unnecessary redundancy. – T M F 03:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Is it even necessary to differentiate between the two? —Fredddie™ 05:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I took a look at where this exact sentence was, and I made some changes to tidy it up a bit. – T M F 07:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That reads much better now. Thanks. —Fredddie ™
The map doesn't give any context to where NY 319 was in the state of New York. I think it should be zoomed out, not state-wide, but wide enough to get a clue to where it was. I could point to the large cities of New York, but I couldn't point to where NY 319 was by looking at that map.
- IMO, if it was zoomed out any farther, the red "line" marking NY 319 would be a dot. – T M F 03:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In cases like this, I've created a wide map with the route circled for the infobox and then created a detailed map that's zoomed in closely for use in the route description. —Fredddie™ 05:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would something like the inset on the NY 421 map be sufficient? I'd rather not make two maps for a route, especially for one that ceased to exist over 25 years ago. – T M F 07:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, definitely. —Fredddie ™
        Inset added. – T M F 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

½. If it can't be done, that's fine; but the section about the Norwich and Preston Turnpike should have an older picture. The picture of a modern highway looks out of place.

The only non-modern day pic I've found ever working on this is the one now in the RD, the 1966 picture of NY 319's eastern terminus in Norwich.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 09:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it was a want, not a need. —Fredddie ™

Support. My issues have been addressed. —Fredddie ™ 21:33, 26 April 2010 (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.