Talk:New York State Route 174/Archive 1

Failed GA
I failed this as a Good Article because the history is rather incomplete and badly referenced. For instance, you say that it overlapped 20N from the 1930s to the 1960s, but the sources only indicate that it had one in the late 1930s (assuming the 1938/39 map does show 20N). Reference 9 is badly formatted; the author is the USGS, not U of TX, and the year is 1961.

In addition, the route description is badly written: "Route 174 enters the town of Skaneateles." "The two roads go into Marcellus and split at 10.66 miles." "Route 174 heads to the northeast and U-turns onto West Genesee Street" - it's a sharp turn but not a U-turn.

I'm also not seeing how the Seneca Turnpike followed NY 174; didn't it pass east-west through Marcellus? --NE2 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the above still applies; please fix it. --NE2 15:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw the Camillus error and fixed it. Also this article is not in desperate need of attention. Also, most sources already exist. I am only missing one bit of history.Mitch32contribs 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't see how Route 174 uses any significant portion of the old turnpike; this is simply several blocks that it uses to get between a recent bypass and the old route. It's certainly worth mentioning in the route description, but elsewhere it seems misleading - implying that the route is historic because it was recently moved to use a few blocks of an old turnpike. You also haven't given a source for the removal of NY 20N in the 1960s; there's a map that shows it not existing in 1961, but nothing that says it was still there in 1960. The bit about Route 26 also looks incorrect; shows that only a short piece of NY 174 - Martisco to Camillus - was NY 26.
 * The route description definitely needs work; it's extremely awkward giving all the distances. --NE2 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Then fix it yourself. 96.227.10.97 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not that familiar with New York, and I'd probably get reverted if I removed the turnpike information from the intro. --NE2 13:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of suggestions: That's all I have for now. --Holderca1talk 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't use Route 174 over and over, I counted it being used 15 times not counting the first usage in bold. Use other words such as "the highway" or "it" or change the sentence structure to prevent every sentence beginning the same way.
 * You could do without the distances in the route description, these are provided in the table and break up the flow as they are now.
 * Based on evaluating the readability, the prose could probably be beefed up a bit by writing longer sentences to help the flow. Short sentences usually prevent good flow in an article.


 * To me, it's borderline GA. It's certainly a lot better than NJ 18 was when it was passed (twice).  (Although I realize that's a red herring, since that shouldn't have been passed.)  I'm not terribly familiar with the Seneca Turnpike issue, but it seems to me that the statement in the lead is correct as far as it goes.  If the article were to be improved, that info should be expanded and moved elsewhere, but just because it's a GA doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.  The same goes for issues with the historical designation.  The info is well cited, although it is possible some of those references are being misinterpreted.  The article doesn't have to be perfect, just "good".
 * That being said, here are my main two gripes with the article. The reason I'm posting this on WT:USRD too is because I've noticed it on several other articles as well.
 * The phrase "at 10.66 miles" doesn't seem to be gramatically correct to my ears. Every time I read it, I have to stare at it for a split second before I realize what it means.  "At milepost 10.66" would be a lot better, but I agree with Holderca1 when he says that these distances aren't needed in the route description section.
 * I realize that WP:USSH doesn't actually say anything about county routes, but to me, "Onandoga County Route 236" is in violation of this. All of NY 174 is in Onandoga County, and several of these mentions come a sentence or two after the county name was repeated, so context is clearly established.  Plus, we even use parenthetical disambiguation in the article title for county routes.  "Onandoga CR 236" is doubly wrong, since we should avoid using abbreviations in article text.
 * -- NORTH talk 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how USSH has any bearing on this, but I do agree that including the county name with the route is redundant if the county in question has already been identified. I have an issue with the last comment - there's nothing wrong with using abbreviations if it's clear to the reader what the abbreviation is short for (as in "NY x" in a New York state route article). It's also fine IMO to use CR if the full "County Road/Route" has been used at least once already in the section. Think about it from a reader's standpoint - having to read "New York State Route x" or "County Route x" over and over again can easily bore the reader. I had a discussion with User:Daniel Case on this issue (abbreviations vs. full names); it's in my talk page archives somewhere. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * USSH is the "guideline" that applies to not repeating the state name every time you mention a state route. It doesn't technically have any bearing, but I think common sense would allow the same guideline to apply to county routes as well.
 * As for the abbreviations, I think it's mostly personal preference. WP:MOS does say, "The use of abbreviations should be avoided when they would be confusing to the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal or lazy. For example, approx. for approximate[ly] should not be used in most articles, although it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data, or in a technical passage in which the term occurs many times."  However, that is quite vague.  IMHO, using CR is somewhat informal and lazy, but then again, the route description section is essentially a technical passage in which the term occurs many times.  Once I get my new computer, I'll start actually writing articles again instead of just randomly popping in, and I'll avoid abbreviations as much as possible in my articles.  However, I'm not going to berate people who do use them.  (I retract my comment calling it "doubly wrong"; it's just certainly not my preference.) -- NORTH talk 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of it is fixed. I'm not sure what else to throw in. Mitch32contribs 20:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the history; it still needs a source showing that Route 20N still existed in 1960. --NE2 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

GA
After copyediting the article a bit, I have passed it for GA. I would suggest that teh author uses more pronouns rather than reusing the title over and over again however. Also, the article would benefit from trying to make the sentences longer and better flowing. If possible, the cost of the roadworks would add value to the article.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the north end?
The map shows the north end at Genesee Street, but the text says it's at NY 5. --NE2 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NY 5 is the correct terminus, the map's a mistake then. I'll get it fixed ASAP.Mitch32contribs 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrain and land usage around the road
For those who want to incorporate such information into the article, this might be a useful source. It's an article about the watershed area of the Nine Mile Creek. --Polaron | Talk 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance of topic
How is this a featured article? There are countless better things to mention on the English Wikipedia front page. New York State Route 174? Really?!?! You're sinking that low? Tomorrow's article should be on pearl necklaces. At least that's informative. --Anon 9:15 (EST)
 * It being a featured article means it's as good as an article of this type can ever become, not that it's about an interesting subject. But I agree it is a dull article to be featured on the main page. 213.100.13.135 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't belittle someone's work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)