Talk:New York State Route 348

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	New York State Route 348 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 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.
Topics	New York State routes
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Since you have an exact date of decommissioning, might as well use it in the lead. "Slosson Road came next," -- odd grammatical fragment, reword. Needed a non-breaking space but I put it in. "1980–present" needs an en-dash.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It would be good to note that Adirondack Northway is I-87 in the lead, and link to it. Did the road pass anything of historical notability, or did it serve an important purpose upon establishment?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Interesting question here - What would be the usual way of handling a decommissioned route (I know I reviewed one before and didn't bring it up there, but oh well) -- describing it in the past tense, or referring to it as the new route and describing it as the new route in the present tense? —Rob (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always used the past tense since it's a designation that no longer exists. – TMF 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be correct. Also, everything is complete. As for your question, 348 was in the North Country, and did not pass much of anything of interest.^Mitch32^contribs 21:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That paragraph still looked awkward, so I rewrote it. Looks good now, though. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)