Talk:New York State Route 120A/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll get around to reviewing this article in a day or two.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 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):
 * 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:
 * Everything seems fine to me, except one thing: The RJL specifies a concurrency of the 120 and 120A, referring to western and eastern terminuses of the concurrency. That alone would be fine, but every other reference to the road in terms of its orientation seems to be in north-south terms. I appreciate that the short section might be generally oriented east-west, but don't you feel that might be confusing to readers? Is there any way to clarify the situation?
 * 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:
 * Everything seems fine to me, except one thing: The RJL specifies a concurrency of the 120 and 120A, referring to western and eastern terminuses of the concurrency. That alone would be fine, but every other reference to the road in terms of its orientation seems to be in north-south terms. I appreciate that the short section might be generally oriented east-west, but don't you feel that might be confusing to readers? Is there any way to clarify the situation?
 * Everything seems fine to me, except one thing: The RJL specifies a concurrency of the 120 and 120A, referring to western and eastern terminuses of the concurrency. That alone would be fine, but every other reference to the road in terms of its orientation seems to be in north-south terms. I appreciate that the short section might be generally oriented east-west, but don't you feel that might be confusing to readers? Is there any way to clarify the situation?
 * Everything seems fine to me, except one thing: The RJL specifies a concurrency of the 120 and 120A, referring to western and eastern terminuses of the concurrency. That alone would be fine, but every other reference to the road in terms of its orientation seems to be in north-south terms. I appreciate that the short section might be generally oriented east-west, but don't you feel that might be confusing to readers? Is there any way to clarify the situation?


 * Furthermore, the concurrency is also marked with "(northbound)" in the notes column. Does that mean that the southbound 120A traffic uses a different route there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It just seems really hard to clarify that. I tried, but it doesn't seem easy to change given you already know that NY 120A is going east, therefore it would be west-east. I removed the northbound tags. Mitch 32 (The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 21:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've restored the northbound notes because NY 120 south never overlaps with NY 120A and thus the overlap only exists in the northbound direction.
 * I agree with Mitch that it's erroneous to refer to the endpoints of an overlap as northern/southern if the highway is physically running east-west over that stretch. –  T M F  (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An explanatory note then perhaps?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the need for one. –  T M F  (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then. After all, the prose explains the situation. Nice article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)