Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 28/archive1

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 not promoted 23:15, 30 April 2008.

New York State Route 28

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is ready. It meets most criteria, and it is very possible that this could be a big benefit to NYSR. The article went through a PR, without much results. However, I feel with more editors around, that FAC may prove to give more results than PR did. Thanks! ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Along the way, it intersects several major routes, including Interstate 88, U.S. Route 20, and the New York State Thruway twice (Interstate 87 in Kingston; Interstate 90 in Herkimer).— People how aren't roadgeeks aren't going to have any idea that the NYT is I 87 and I 90, so you might want to explain that better.
Needs Non-breaking spaces throughout.
Other than realignments in Kingston, Oneonta, and Oneida County, NY 28 has remained the same to this day.— Huh? If there have been realignments, then it hasn't stayed the same to this day.
- What that's attempting to convey is that the vast majority of the route (probably ~270 miles) has not been altered since 1930. – T M F 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although still four lanes wide, the route is no longer a limited-access highway as it has an at-grade intersection with Modica Lane, a local dead-end street, just west of where it passes over the Thruway.—You might want to explain what an at-grade intersection is.
I'd like to see the term "NY 28" used less.
- And your replacement would be? – T M F 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The route", "the highway", "it", etc. It just doesn't make the prose exciting or brilliant to have "NY 28" 3 times in the same sentence. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm fine with that as long as NY 28 doesn't become underused and the article doesn't become so inundated with pronouns or generic terms that the sentences they are used in become unclear. – T M F 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Within Shandaken, NY 28 heads north through the hamlets of Mount Tremper (where it meets the southern terminus of NY 212) and Phoenicia (situated at the junction between NY 28 and the southern end of NY 214).—The first set of parenthesis isn't need in my opinion.
After exiting Pine Hill, the route continues independently of a waterway for the first time as it passes the Belleayre Ski Center in Highmount on its way out of Catskill Park and into Delaware County.—The waterway bit is confusing.
In the first paragraph of the Delaware and Otsego Counties section, I count the term "NY 28" seven times in four sentences.

More later. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments
Now back in the town of Oneonta, NY 28 and I-88 continue along the northern bank of the Susquehanna toward the hamlet of Emmons, where the expressway interchanges with County Route 47 at exit 16.—If you have NY 28 and I-88, why is CR 47 spelled out?
The overlap between NY 28 and I-88 ends at exit 17 in Milford; however, NY 28 remains in close proximity to the Susquehanna River, which turns northward at the interchange.—This is redundant to the previous sentence which already says NY 28 and I-88 are concurrent, so you could just day "The overlap ends..."
Two blocks from the business district of the village, NY 28 intersects NY 80, which occupies Chestnut north of this point—It should probably say "occupies Chestnut Street".
At the time, NY 28 began at then-NY 9 in Colliersville and headed north on its current alignment to Cooperstown.—Do you mean "Former–NY 9"?
- No, it means then-NY 9 as in "it was NY 9 at the time". "Former NY 9" doesn't convey the same information. – T M F 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe so, but it still doesn't read very well. There's got to be another way of wording it. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree on both ends. – T M F 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree, as well. It doesn't make the sentence flow well. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It flows fine to me. – T M F 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See if you can get a copyeditor for the history section. The prose just isn't engaging.

Overall, there is good content, sufficient images, and it is well-sourced, but the writing seems to drag on, and can get slightly boring in some areas. I would ask for someone to copyedit it, or just go through and tweak the wording yourself. Good job so far, though. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Object The main image and infobox confuse me as follows:
Are the blues rivers or roads?

Limited-access roadways. – T M F 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who spen half my life in New York State, it seems to me that the NYSThruway is in green. Can this be labelled on the image? (I don't know if this is an unusual request for road map images)

It could, but nothing was labeled due to the scale of the map (most state-wide maps have no labels). – T M F 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is south end I-587 unlinked?~~

I-587 redirects to NY 28. – T M F 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If labelling the image is unorthodox, can you add a caption something like Red: Rt 28, Green: Thruway Blue: Rivers or St Rds.?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map task force developed a standard color usage with the intent of making captions unnecessary. If this is an issue, it should be brought up there. – T M F 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like something the average editor might understand. For the reader, however, it is not the same as road numerals in blue and red for interstates, or green, or black and white. I am not convinced every reader would know what the blue is. I would think many might see them as rivers. In my mind Interstate 355 is what a featured quality main image should look like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads Featured Articles

Interstate 355

New York State Route 174

Kansas Turnpike

Pulaski Skyway

New York State Route 28

See varying standards of local detail maps. Kansas has route numbers and legend. I-355 has all route numbers including that for the article. NY-174 has all but the one for the article. Pulaski looks like it needs work comparatively. You can see why I object to NY 28 being an FA and why I may nominate Pulaski for WP:FAR.

Further on Image Objection In addition to

Interstate 355, see

New York State Route 174. Note,

Pulaski Skyway is a three year and three month old FA and I am considering FARing it just to get them to work on the image. Can you give me a contact at the maps team so I don't have to do anything that crazy. I don't know how

Kansas Turnpike got by without a local detail map, but the maps team should get on this too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Kansas Turnpike has the local detail map in a less conventional location in the article. I just moved it to be like the other two FAs. We still need to do something about the Pulaski Skyway map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to post at WT:USRD/MTF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my post in a template:

You would FAR Pulaski Skyway just because you think the map is substandard? That seems a bit POINTish to me. (FWIW, it was improved up to current FA standards by another editor a couple of months ago, negating the three-year argument.)

I also find the fact that you're opposing this solely on the map disturbing. – T M F 09:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to support this as WPs finest when I am confused looking at it without explanation by the author. If I asked someone who does not know your task force standards to interpret the map who is not from NY, there is a good chance they will see a bunch of rivers and not know where the NYS Thruway is upon inspection. That is what I want resolved before promotion. I think the article is pretty good otherwise. I have written an FA and a couple of GAs in the roads/streets group that need maps so I know this is a tough request given the timeframe of an FAC candidacy. However, you should have gone throught the complete WP:PR before bringing it here and someone there should have pointed out this problem. Coming here before the PR process is complete can lead to this type of issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, the only reason ones like the Pulaski Skyway, I-355, and NY 174 have local detail maps is because they're shorter than the rest and need to be zoomed in farther. NY 28 is 200+ miles, meaning it can be zoomed out to show the whole. And for your problem with colors, its something to bring up at the Maps Task Force page.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 10:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take no issue with the scale. My issue is with shielding and legend consistency. For the reader these are where the confusion will be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Okay, I'm out to sea here. Is a photo of an exit considered a Primary Source or a Secondary source? I'm inclined to think it's reliable, but ... I've never seen this done before. At the very least, the ref probably needs the photographer as the publisher/author.
- For the statement that it's supporting, I don't see how anything else can be used. – T M F 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but is a non published picture a reliable source, that's the question. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if a photo of the exact sign that's being discussed in the article isn't a reliable source, then the RS policy needs to be reworked IMO. – T M F 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that I'm not sure that a non-published photo doesn't fall under the Primary source and OR guidelines. This phot is from a website that I'm not sure would pass RS. How do we know that this photo is of the spot that it is supposedly representing? It's one thing to use a photo to illustrate an article, but another to use it as a source for information in the article. Please note that I'm NOT saying that the photo isn't of wht it says it is, it's just that trying to verify that is going to be very difficult. The reason that we try to use published sources is so that others can go in and verify the information easily. What makes THIS site reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are probably four or five BGS for exit 19, and I doubt any of them have I-587 on them. In other words, the exact sign that's snapped isn't important because all of the advance and exit signage for the exit probably say the same thing. But see below since if this one statement is this big of an issue, it should probably just be tossed. – T M F 05:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Perhaps this could be used as the ref there instead? --Holderca1^talk 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could just be removed since it's not vital at all to the article. The only reason it's there to begin with is that it was part of the I-587 article when I merged it into NY 28. (FWIW, I don't believe that Google direction link would work because there's no guarantee what text it gives matches guide signs.)

The Thruway Authority has a PDF list of all the interchanges in the system, but again, there's no guarantee what text that's there matches guide signs. Based on personal experience, the listings for exits 39 through 50 definitely match signs, but exit 38 doesn't as the BGS has CR 57 while the list doesn't mention any routes. So take it for what you will, I suppose. – T M F 05:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: [1] displays exit 38 as "CR 57 - Liverpool, Syracuse", but I wonder if Google would still show CR 57 if they didn't have a county route data set. – T M F 06:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 14 "Anderson Steve, Colonel Chandler Drive" is lacking publisher information. Also, what makes this site a RS?
- It probably isn't for FAC purposes, but I didn't foresee anyone taking this to FAC when I used that reference. – T M F 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been worked on? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, contains no history of the route prior to 1924. – T M F 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Peer review should be closed prior to FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The peer review should be completed before bringing the article here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After three reminders, I've closed the peer review. Per instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, articles shouldn't be listed at both places, and an open peer review stalls GimmeBot when the FAC closes. TonyTheTiger, please don't place comments above the opening blurb; place them chronologically so you don't stall Rick Block's script. I've moved this comment twice. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator requested withdrawal: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 30 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.