Jump to content

Talk:State Route 314 (New York–Vermont)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Well-written article. I had to make a few copyedits, so if I changed anything I shouldn't have, feel free to correct it. Article passed without objection. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
GA? Seriously? The history is full of holes, particularly relating to NY 314. – TMF 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel this article is not GA-quality, feel free to submit it for Good article reassessment. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles have been sent to GAR for similar reasons and were not demoted. It's sad what GA has become. – TMF 18:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be sent to GAR since it is obviously missing half of the title in the history. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. Upon further review, the merging of these two articles is a very bad idea; VT 314 is actually a loop off US 2 with a connection to the ferry leading to NY 314, thus the impression that the title gives of one single, continuous roadway is incorrect. – TMF 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I first started to read this article I assumed the two roadways formed a continuous line. After looking it up on a map, I noticed it resembled more of a sideways Y shape and edited the description to more accurately describe the layout. This was also the first article I've come across that included two states in a single article, and I was puzzled. I assumed it was because the individual roadways were not considered notable enough to stand on their own. So I looked up other examples and just assumed this type of thing was common, and moved on. Thats when I failed to notice half the history was missing, but I talked to Mitchazenia and he said he could add the missing info. I apologize for my mistake, and believe me I will be more careful in the future. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]