Talk:Heckscher State Parkway/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just a bit in the lead that needs some work.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Images:
 * File:Heckscher Pkwy Shield.svg says that the original uploader is the copyright holder - surely that's not the case? It's a replica, so the copyright would be in the person who first created it, not who created the replica. I would think it's either not copyrighted because it's a state employee or that it's with the state? Anyway, it needs clarification by someone much more versed in this sort of issues than I am.
 * Lead:
 * Who is Robert Moses? I know he's linked, but a bit of context (such as with the Rockefeller following) would help.
 * I'm assuming that the LITransportation Plan hasn't been implemented yet?
 * Per the MOS, information in the lead must be in the body of the article - but the distance isn't in the body of the text nor is that it's on Long Island. Picky, I know, but it's one of the more important things with writing a lead.
 * History:
 * As above with the lead, I assume the long range plan hasn't had anything done further on it?
 * One other bit - there is a nice portal bar that can put the various Wikiproject portals at the bottom of the article, if you're intersted. THis eliminates the need for See Also sections. Not required for GA status, just pointing it out. See Template:Portal bar.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You would assume right, the LITP 2000 has advanced about as far as the NJ FIT project has, nowhere. A lot of the proposals, which are tad ridiculous, have not come anywhere close to fruition. Got the missing stuff, and really, the shield is state produced like everything else, so I see nothing wrong with it. Mitch 32 (Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.) 21:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But state produced is not the same as fed gov produced. Some states reserve copyright to themselves... only the federal government releases (some) stuff that is produced by its employees into the public domain. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the New York State Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which lists this sign as number NYM5-1, and the supplement incorporates the provisions of the federal MUTCD by reference, which would include the page I-1 release of copyright on traffic control devices like this sign.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So the page for the image needs to be updated to reflect that information. As it is, right now it implies that the person who made the replica released the copyright, which isn't correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dd update it, before you posted. Mitch 32 (Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.) 14:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I'm in and out doing stuff around the yard. Will check all this stuff after I finish up, it shouldn't be a big issue with getting passed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You would assume right, the LITP 2000 has advanced about as far as the NJ FIT project has, nowhere. A lot of the proposals, which are tad ridiculous, have not come anywhere close to fruition. Got the missing stuff, and really, the shield is state produced like everything else, so I see nothing wrong with it. Mitch 32 (Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.) 21:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But state produced is not the same as fed gov produced. Some states reserve copyright to themselves... only the federal government releases (some) stuff that is produced by its employees into the public domain. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the New York State Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which lists this sign as number NYM5-1, and the supplement incorporates the provisions of the federal MUTCD by reference, which would include the page I-1 release of copyright on traffic control devices like this sign.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So the page for the image needs to be updated to reflect that information. As it is, right now it implies that the person who made the replica released the copyright, which isn't correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dd update it, before you posted. Mitch 32 (Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.) 14:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I'm in and out doing stuff around the yard. Will check all this stuff after I finish up, it shouldn't be a big issue with getting passed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good, passing now! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)