Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New York State Route 32

Toolbox

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after working for some time, I feel that its a strong enough article to take a beating at FAC. Any & all comments are welcome, thanks! Mitch32contribs 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to consider myself a conominator, as I wrote most of the original route description and took most of the photos currently in use. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise, sources look good. Links all checked with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I checked the sourcing on the Peer Review, but I double checked them again for the FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, they could not be fixed, so I removed the link. Its a map, so it is a RS.Mitch32contribs 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't worry they weren't RS's, just that they were dead. Works! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments generally looks good, just some minor stuff to work on.

  • "its starting terminus is at NY 17 near Harriman, and its ending terminus is at NY 196" - more active tone... "it starts at... and ends at..." would sound better IMO.
  • "At Broadway, Newburgh's main street, also NY 17K, Route 32 turns east." - I found this sentence difficult to read, it's pretty choppy.
  • You refer to it as Route 32, NY 32, and "32"... be consistent.
    • That applies to other roads (eg. "While 32 officially remains concurrent with 299")
      • What about Route 32 vs. NY 32? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm following project standards, which say to use NY 32 outside 32 and Route 32 (Route 32 redundantly would look horrible).Mitch32contribs 10:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
          • As the person responsible for the route description, I've long insisted on being less monotonous and mixing that sort of thing up (also with "the road" and "the highway"). I don't see how switching back and forth between "NY 32" and "Route 32" causes confusion — the article is about NY Route 32, after all. I also think (and I'm in the minority here, I know) that occasionally using just "32" on third running reference, like most people do in casual conversation when giving directions, is OK and easier on the reader. It is very easy to write a boring description of a highway's route, particularly when you're not trying not to. Mixing up your main noun as long as it remains clear is one way to avoid it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Soon after which, it passes Kingston-Ulster Airport" - remove the "which", or merge that with the previous sentence... that phrase doesn't work in a new sentence...
  • "One hundred and seventy-four years after its creation" - why not just use 174?

And that's all I found; it mostly looks good to me (but then, reviewing isn't my strong suit...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - If there's anything else, just tell me.Mitch32contribs 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(delayed) Support. giggy (:O) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:787 at Route 32 in Albany, NY.jpg, Image:Routes 9 and 32 in Glens Falls.jpg and Image:Old alignment of NY 32.jpg have discrepancies in that they assert photos by Steve Alpert are public domain (a claim I didn't see on the website, by the way), but the license used is CC-by-sa 3.0. Where is support for the PD claim? Where is support for the CC claim? Which one, if any, is the actual license?
      • Here is the link for the attribution: [1]. I believe I read it correctly.Mitch32contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see the words "public domain" or "creative commons" on that page? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, do you know the correct license? Images are not my cup of tea. This can easily be solved with a fixed license.Mitch32contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • See MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate: Why are all of the shields in the infobox and "Major intersections" section necessary? Why, for example, do we need the redundancy of a 17 shield next to text of "NY 17"? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • As part of this, it follows US Roads standards. If you want to comment, bring it at WT:USRD.Mitch32contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This article is at FAC. I've brought the issue up here. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Only reason is that its done in every road article.Mitch32contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Which is true, it is. But no one mentioned this when New York State Route 174, nor Interstate 355 got promoted. It hasn't been an issue with British highways like A500 road, a GA, or M62 motorway (also featured). My take: We do this because a) the road shields are all PD and b) it's helpful when you're parsing text. The different shape of the NY state highway shield and the US highway shield register faster to some readers' brains than the corresponding text does. Is FAC really the right place to bring up what one project has adopted as a policy for itself as long as it doesn't contradict WP policy as a whole?

            Honestly, I don't find them redundant. If we just had shields, non-US readers would be confused as to the different shapes; if we just had text, nobody would read the junction list. My take. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

            • And you can't link the image to the article. Not yet, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Update: I have added two very recent images to the article, one of replaces one of the two images in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Catskill Point, in 1820, built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]" — Perhaps "In 1820, Catskill Point built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]"

Gary King (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is that little images in the infobox helpful? It is redundant. --Efe (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And in the columns Roads intersected and Notes under Major intersections? --Efe (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
They're put there for a reason. The reason is to give a better idea of what the road intersects. This is done in every single road article on Wiki, and if this gets changed, the whole project will be in havoc figuring out what to do. Also, I completely concur with Daniel Case. Why didn't these come up at my prior FAC's and USRD's 8 prior ones? Mitch32contribs 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
For example is this: I-87/Thruway. The words already explained what is intended. No use at all. --Efe (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That one, where it says to I-87/Thruway has actually been removed because it does not prove a real specific point.Mitch32contribs 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Really, I still don't see any importance of those little images. Like writing prose, those correspond flowery words. --Efe (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to worry about flowery prose or anything like that in the infobox. This has project wide consensus and I concur with Mitch and Daniel's reasoning above. I don't find them redundant; rather, quite useful. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Having the shields assists readers who would recognize the shield more than the text. In any event, this isn't the place to argue about it, as it's irrelevant to the quality of the article. As I've said before, FAC is a discussion to determine if an article meets the FA criterion, not about personal preference. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My take is that this is a non-issue. Nothing about the shield usage impacts upon FA criteria. It's a settled practice in the US, UK and Canadian roads articles. In showing the NY 32 article to a coworker and asking her opinion about the issue, her thought was that it gives information visually. To paraphrase her, "that way you know if it's a US Highway or an Interstate or whatever." Several recent FACs have promoted USRD articles recently without mention of the shields in the infobox (I-355, Chickasaw Turnpike, NY 174, I-70, I-15, M-35, NY 175) so for what it's worth, past precedent and project consensus sides with retaining them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, no worries. Maybe its just me who see it very unnecessary. --Efe (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - What a joy it is to read a well-written article on a road that I frequent. (Perhaps keep that in mind when counting my support) I also never thought that this much could be written about what amounts to a local road, and not a major interstate highway. Just a few minor suggestions.

  • Harriman to Newburgh: I am quite familiar with the five-lane intersection in Vails Gate, known as the Five Corners. It is complicated, but if I had to choose a word to describe it I would say congested. Here's a link for you.[2] The Five Corners name may be worth a mention, but that's your call.
I have had the experience of driving through this intersection on the way to work in the morning too. I guess we can call it congested, although most of the article would be better material for the main Vails Gate article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • New Paltz to Kingston: "1930 New York Times article detailing the 1930 renumbering" Two 1930s here. Try to adjust one of them.
  • "From Rosendale, NY 32 climbs up out of the Rondout valley" I'm not certain about this, but I believe valley should be capitalized.
I guess we could do that ... I got about 28,500 Ghits starting with the school district, so it does have some currency. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Designation: A block of references [3][16] is not after punctuation.
  • Suffixed routes: Refs here aren't after punctuation, although this may be intentional. Giants2008 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good article, compliments to the writers :) Mojska all you want 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)