Talk:New York State Route 32B

New York State Route 32B has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

New York State Route 32B is part of the State highways in Warren County, New York series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 22, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
August 10, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York Low‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	New York
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 32B/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
".2 mi (0.32 km)" looks like a rounding error.
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):
Is there at least a rough estimate of how long the initial length of the highway is? If it used to be fairly long (> 50 miles or so) the map is misleading me into thinking this was a tiny road.
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):
An image of the current route is preferred, but in this case not necessary due to the short length of the road.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Few questions, but otherwise good. —Rob (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All things clarified and/or fixed. Thanks!Mitch32^(UP) 10:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, but a couple of suggestions - the article could use an image, and a real map. If you have one of U.S. 4 in New York, crop it to the portion between Northumberland and Hudson Falls and use that instead - it's better than the misleading(ish) map. I'd probably drop the existing map altogether - I don't even know where in New York that is! :-) —Rob (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support merge. – T M F 07:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The routing of NY 911E was formerly part of NY 32B, and its history completely overlaps that of NY 32B. As such, NY 911E is already adequately covered in this article. – T M F 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge. 911E is just the state-maintained remnant of a former state route 32B. Since that route now has an article of its own, everything that one can say about 911E also applies to 32B. Separating 911E would only lead to redundancy in both route description and history. --Polaron | Talk 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. --JBC3 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I fully support this merger for the same reasons as Polaron. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go ahead with the merge tomorrow if no one objects during that time. – T M F 05:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.