Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 174

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted 19:38, 19 April 2008.

New York State Route 174[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is ready for the big time. The article went through a major expansion in March 2008, clearing up typos, missing information, and thoroughness of the article. Route 174, if passed, would be USRD's fifth FA. I am willing to clear up any complaints. Mitch32contribs 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://village.marcellusny.com/villagehistory/village_history.html is a marginal site to use. Yes, it's the village's site, but it doesn't give the sources that they used. The book that you use for the next reference (History of the TOwn of Marcellus) is probably a better choice.
  • Is http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nyononda/MARCELLU/BEAUMAR.HTM an extract from the book at the top? If it is, it is the wrong author, and needs to be formatted like a book with just an online link to the online version. Rootsweb is of varying reliablity, honestly. It's designed for genealogists and the first rule of genealogy is "Go to the original source" so you can't always depend on the reprints that are on Rootsweb sites. It's kind of like Wikipedia that way.
  • Pucker Street ref is missing publisher information. Format it like a book if you're using Google books for it.
All the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I fixed everything you listed.Mitch32contribs 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lead needs expansion to at least 2, maybe 3 parags. "long thoroughfare" is POV - just state the facts or cite other people's opinions, not your own (not important, but "thoroughfare" is an interesting choice of word) --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Very well written, accurite, well sourced, but the lead needs to be longer, IMO. Once the second paragraph in the lead is expanded to a full paragraph, I will support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that the lead has been expanded to two full paragraphs, I support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this article does pertain to the WP:LEAD guideline of 1-2 paragraphs for something <15,000 characters. The article is only 6200. Mitch32contribs 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Comments:[reply]
    • I checked your article organization against your WikiProject guideline and it looks good. Interestingly, Interstate 355 (another road FA) is backward. It seems to make more sense to have the History first and then the route description, doesn't it? So it's chronological?
Done - The two sections are reordered.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments below on this; the change might not be desirable. --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your image layout is bad; you don't want to "sandwich" text between two images. Try putting the one that actually shows the road in the text and nuking the other two. Photos of a lake and a barn don't add anything to the article.
Done - I removed the lake picture.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead, three sentences in a row begin with "Route 174".
Done. Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The roads used by Route 174..." sounds funny. Route 174 is a road; it doesn't use roads.
Done. Mitch32contribs 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... the lake narrows into the Nine Mile Creek, which parallels Route 174 for the rest of its length." The rest of the creek's length or the rest of the road's length?
Done. Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Route 175 turns to the right while Route 174 turns to the left..." Let's not use relative directions, please.
Done. Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The terrain after Marcellus is more residential and developed, while everything south of it is flat, undeveloped land." As this sentence is drifting off by itself, its purpose is unclear. What significance is it to the road? And why does it need three citations?
Done. It now has 2, this was added during the A-class review, which was to add some idea of the terrain about the article.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... intersecting several county routes along the way." You've been pretty granular in your description up to this point. Is there a reason you gloss over this part? I'm not saying you have to change it, I'm just wondering the reason.
Done - Removed.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose is good in the History section, but there are too many footnotes and it makes the section ugly. Why do some statements have two or three citations? Do the sources provide different types of information? --Laser brain (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That would be correct. It does look ugly, but much of the history was rewritten from me, so its not quite an issue I can solve.Mitch32contribs 11:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved,Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Follow up Dweller's comment, there are only so many words that can be used. Highway, route, road get boring after a while, so we get creative and "thoroughfare" comes up once in a while.
  • Follow up on Laser_brain's comments as follows:
    • Forgot to mention this earlier, but I object to re-ordering the article organization. The main emphasis of any highway article has typically been where is the highway now. Some highways like I-355 and Kansas Turnpike are mostly about the planning and construction, which also serve the function in the History of explaining where and why. Some like M-28 are more about where it is, in this case a 290-mile highway that runs almost end-to-end of one of Michigan's two peninsulas. Yes there is history to that one, but like NY 174, most readers are going to check it out for where it is, not where it was. Readers looking at I-355 are also looking into the controversies and planning of the highway. This is compounded by how recent the construction is.
    • But Route 174 as a designation uses more than one road. Not all state highway designations are overlaid on a single road. Sometimes they are applied to multiple roads, turn off them to another road, etc. The sentence could possibly be worded better, but that's the point it was trying to make.
    • Because some of the USRD editors hold fast that all county roads are of questionable notability even to be mentioned in a route description that tells where the highway designation intersects other roads. This was an issue brought up in the A-Class review for NY 174 and only settled to some editors' satisfaction by removing information and glossing over it.
      • Your recollection is correct; however, for the record, I completely disagree with removing detail just because said detail doesn't warrant an article. I also disagree with the notion that every road that gets mentioned in the description needs a junction list entry (something else that was brought up in the ACR). In New York, the junction list is only for highways that are part of the state highway, U.S. Route, or Interstate Highway systems, or for short roadways that connect the article route to a highway that falls in the aforementioned categories. Not really relevant to this FAC, but I just wanted to clear the air. – TMF 18:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usually, that's the case with references for highway histories. Outside of Wikipedia articles, there are few sources the devote space to the complete history of a single highway designation. Most of the few have been deemed unacceptable by WP. So we end up with multiple citations.
      • Correct. Also, some of those few sources (like Gribblenation's New York Routes) are often incomplete or incorrect, hence the deemed unacceptable. Since the primary sources (where primary = major, ≠ firsthand) we have for reroutings are maps, it is then necessary to use multiple maps to establish a range and thus necessary to use multiple footnotes. – TMF 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supported this for promotion to A-Class and I'm willing to support it for Feature Article after I review it again with a fresh set of eyes.Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new, reorganized version of the article with the History first has changed my comments into an Oppose for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further review and other issues cleared up with the other reviews, I support promotion of NY 174 to feature article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The newest source on the Senate bill has its page title in ALL CAPS when it should be in Title Case. Also, it would be nice if you could find the bill number and a possible link to the legislature's website with the bill. I know the Michigan State Legislature is online with full bill texts and statuses, but I don't know if New York does the same or similar. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if this should be in the article at all at the moment. Sure, it's been passed by the Senate, but if the bill doesn't pass the Assembly, it doesn't become law. If/when it's given the green light by the Assembly then by all means feel free to add it. – TMF 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pucker Street source needs to be replaced or verified. As listed at Trafford Publishing and their own website, TP is a self-publishing and print-on-demand company. This means it falls under WP:SPS. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding History v. Route description first

  • Having history first may seem better from a chronological point of view, but in most instances, it is more difficult to write that way (as most roads' History sections talk about changes made to the road compared to the present-day routing). Some articles, like Kansas Turnpike, have their history sections first, but that makes more sense for that article because all the history information in that article is about the planning and construction phases. Most highways' history sections involve many reroutings, extensions, and truncations. Lacking the context of having read the route description first, the history can be confusing. So, while having history first may appear at first glance to be better due to keeping an article chronologically in-order, and may even work well for some articles, for the majority of road articles, this isn't the case. So on NY 174 in particular, I would prefer putting the route description first and the history second. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes perfect sense; thanks for taking the time to explain. --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - the placement of the description vs. the history is a controversial topic, as you can see here. In the end, there was no visible consensus. – TMF 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Imzadi and the layout of images on the article - on my setup (Firefox @ 1680 x 1050) the image layout looks horrible. The top half of the article in particular is heavily unbalanced with all of the boxes and images set off to the right. – TMF 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both issues have been fixed. I adjusted the locations by making 2 go the left and 1 to the right. Also, Route description is now back in front of the history.Mitch32contribs 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight support Oppose for now. Changed to support, although it's very short, and because of that the prose isn't particularly "engaging", but it does suffice.

  • Lead, why is the length of the route in the lead, but not in the main body of the article? Main body also doesn't say that it goes through Onondaga county? I see that information in the infobox, but shouldn't information in the lead and infobox be in the article body?
    • Comment - Those would be very redundant. The mileage and county used to be in it, but were removed during the A-class review.Mitch32contribs 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is meant to be redundant to information in the article. It's the cheat sheet for the article. Some folks don't like infoboxes, and might not read it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give in. Both are added to the first sentence for a better idea.Mitch32contribs 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route description, the third paragraph is jarring, and is very short. May I suggest breaking it into two sentences, and putting those into the appropriate paragraphs earlier and later in the route description? Perhaps put "The land here is flat and undeveloped." right after the last sentence in the first paragraph, and then put "After Marcellus, the land around the route becomes more developed with residential areas becoming more common." right between the second and third sentence in the last pargraph. (That is between "... into the town of Camillus." and "In Bennets Corners..." Doing this would also help connect the last sentence of the current second paragraph with the first sentence of the current last paragraph, as right now the prose flow is interupted by the third paragraph.
    • Done - Not the way you suggested, but done.÷Mitch32contribs 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updated done - Again, not in the exact way, but I think it works for the time being.Mitch32contribs 01:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I noticed in the article is that while strange jargon terms are linked, it's not like the article is threatening to become too long. Might you be able to add small explanatory notes to the terms such as "jughandle", "reference route". Also, at-grade isn't wikilinked, but it is definitely jargon.
    • Done. Not really, I did link at-grade, thanks for that.Mitch32contribs 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to force people to click through to other articles? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mitch32contribs 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point of wikilinks—instead of explaining a term on every article that includes it, you simply link the term where it is used. So, to answer your question, yes, I would force people to click the link if they want to know what it is. – TMF 22:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:JARGON does suggest that technical terms be explained the in the articles. Yes, it says to wikilink to an article if it exists, but it doesn't say "don't bother explaining if there is an article".
Even so, I still find it unnecessary at best and overkill at worst. – TMF 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I have to type some variation on "The archbishop went to Rome to recieve his pallium, the symbol of his authority as an archbishop." I agree, but we're here to write the articles for the readers, who don't always want to have to spend forever clicking to figure something out. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's not as bad when the description flows with the text around it as it does in your example above. The issue I'm having is that I can't figure out a way that the terms (reference route in particular) can be described in the same fashion without "interrupting" the prose around it. For example, the way it is in NY 174's history right now, it's a tack-on sentence to the end of the paragraph, whereas a concise definition that is part of the previous sentence would be preferable (to me anyway). – TMF 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps instead of "Route 321 has since been relocated to the west on a county road,[15] and Forward Road is now Route 931F, an unsigned reference route. A reference route is a minor state-maintained route." you could try something like "Since then, Route 321 was detached from 174 to a county road to the west. Forward Road became Route 93F, an unsigned reference route, or minor state-maintained road."? It's just a suggestion, of course. I've already changed to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second sentence of the the last paragraph of History is very twisty and could stand to be broken down into two sentences. Perhaps "After Route 5 was realigned onto the expressway that runs from Camillus to Fairmont, Route 174 was extended at its north end to the new Route 5 bypass in Camillus. The new alignment makes a sharp hook west along the former Route 5."
  • I seem to ask this of every road GA I do, but I'll ask it again. Does the road pass any historical sites/parks/anything of interest? Does it go through any historic downtowns? I see the bits about the land being more developed past Marcellus, but is that undeveloped land farmland, or woods or just waste? What are the normal crops? Is it hilly? Lots of creeks? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - half of this is impossible to put in. MoS for roads doesn't ask for crops along a route. Also, there is not 1 park, historical site, or really anything of interest along the way.Mitch32contribs 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err.. MOS for roads? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly the structure laid on the project pages.Mitch32contribs 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also point out the article only has 1100 or so words according to the readablity tool above. The readable prose is hovering around 12KB with Dr PDA's tool, and less from the readability tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, it's a somewhat short route that passes through sparsely developed areas for the most part so there isn't much to say—much different than, say, NY 5 or NY 22. – TMF 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that descriptions of the land around the route belong in the article, but I did gather this was through relatively boring areas. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything south of Marcellus village is completely rural (as classified by the Census Bureau). Between Marcellus and Camillus there is some urbanization but that is restricted to the immediate vicinity of road only. Looking at a satellite and topographic map, it appears that the undeveloped land around the road is mainly farmland but I can't be sure without an actual land use map. I don't know what crops grow in these farms. In terms of terrain, it essentially runs along the valley of the Nine Mile Creek so the entire route is mostly on low land. --Polaron | Talk 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crops? Land usage surrounding the highway? That's irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the road itself. That type of information would be better covered in the article for Onondaga County, New York. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven forbid that I suggest a way to make the article a bit more appealing and interesting. I'll try to remember that in the future. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not familiar with NY roads, and I have a mental block when it comes to directions (maps/pictures help me a lot!). By the end of the article I got bogged down a bit in the number of roads that were mentioned and how they all connected. I pulled up the large version of the map that is in the infobox, but it doesn't list all of the main roads mentioned. Can the image be modified to include labels for NY41, NY5 and rt 175? Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can look into it. However, I doubt it'll be done before the FAC ends. Although its a good idea.Mitch32contribs 16:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support—Shouldn't page numbers be provided for references that are put up as supporting specific claims in the main text? For example, refs 23 and 24. Please undot the captions—see MOS on that. TONY (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the periods for Mitchazenia since I peeked in and saw the comment. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Refs 23 and 24 since they were simply referring to the Seneca Turnpike, which has its own article and is already linked. The page numbers were added to the references on the Seneca Turnpike article. All the other book references already have page numbers. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well written and thoroughly referenced article and is a good example for other state route articles. My only objesction is the map could be better, a road sign for Route 174 would be very nice. The map isn't the easiest to read but I am colorblind, so. Any way. Full support. Dincher (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks like a well written article. Good job! GaryKing (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support —Please don't hold back the FAC for this, but it would be good, (for this reader at least), to include some information on the local geology and flora. What's the route built on? What species of trees line the route and so forth. It might lead to more engaging prose, the article is a bit dry in this regard. GrahamColmTalk 19:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_York_State_Route_174&oldid=1148851735"