Talk:New York State Route 120/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'll review this nomination over the next few days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- How can one verify that the homes on the ... stretch of affluent homes north of Purchase ... are really affluent? The paragraph offers only a map reference.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I assume that "c." in c. 1961 stands for "circa". You might consider using {{circa}} to avoid any misinterpretations of this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
"New York State Route 119A" should not be bolded in the lead per MOS:BOLD--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)- Is there a source available to indicate how heavy traffic the road normally carries?--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Overall, the article is in a fine shape. There is a minor issue regarding MoS which is not that difficult to fix, an issue about description of the route (or its surrounding) and a reference to back it up, and finally it would be nice to have info on traffic volume carried - not necessarily in vehicles per day, but some sort of indication would be nice. This is all outlined in the four items above, so I'll hold this review for a while until these issues are addressed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- The circa template is already used earlier in the paragraph, so there's not much sense in using it for that sentence as well. As for NY 119A, it's bolded as a redirect term, which is standard practice for road articles. Since hundreds of road articles at literally every assessment level (from FA down) do the same thing, this really isn't the right venue to discuss changing the practice. – TMF (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize that was a redirect. Right then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've made the argument in multiple GANs that traffic counts for a route that isn't a freeway is irrelevant, given the fact that they don't usually make that much impact. Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 03:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've also gone ahead and removed the use of affluence from the article. Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 04:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't realize that was a redirect. Right then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Contents of other GA reviews are entirely irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but don't get me wrong, I did not mean to say that a traffic count is needed - I simply wanted to know if there's a source that would say that the road carries heavy, average, low or hardly any traffic. Furthermore, I know that a GA need not cover every (even major) aspect of the road, just the main ones - and the traffic volume isn't one - hence it is not a dealbreaker for a GAR (per WP:GACR). I just pointed that out as a route for a possible, relatively simple improvement of the article, taking care to phrase the question in as neutral way as possible, asking simply if there was one such source. I'm sorry if that came off wrong.
- The missing reference OTOH is a problem - the use of "affluent" is removed now in one instance, but two other do remain - in areas describing the route in Purchase Street and between Mount Pleasant and Chappaqua. It would be ok to use such a modifier if it were backed up by a source saying something to the effect "residential section of Harrison is well-off" and a corresponding one for the other areas concerned - otherwise the two remaining sentences using of the modifier could be rephrased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've killed the other mentions. I am just not really a big fan of the idea with a non-freeway seeing this kind of thing for traffic counts. I don't want to go against my own beliefs and add them, if my partner, who's posted in this review already wants to, then he can. Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 15:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I said before, the traffic volume info need not be a traffic count - I'd add some sort of descriptive indication of volume, but that's not necessary right now. At any rate, the article is informative and makes fine reading. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've killed the other mentions. I am just not really a big fan of the idea with a non-freeway seeing this kind of thing for traffic counts. I don't want to go against my own beliefs and add them, if my partner, who's posted in this review already wants to, then he can. Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 15:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- The missing reference OTOH is a problem - the use of "affluent" is removed now in one instance, but two other do remain - in areas describing the route in Purchase Street and between Mount Pleasant and Chappaqua. It would be ok to use such a modifier if it were backed up by a source saying something to the effect "residential section of Harrison is well-off" and a corresponding one for the other areas concerned - otherwise the two remaining sentences using of the modifier could be rephrased.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)