Talk:New York State Route 63

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Good work! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I got everything. Thanks for the review. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement about the Geneseo-Batavia segment being the busiest appears to be unfounded; the AADT is fairly consistent throughout the route. Ditto for the statement about traffic turning west at US 20; heading north, the AADT for the segment immediately following US 20 is actually higher than the AADT for the segment preceding US 20. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All right - I think I've updated the GA review to be current with the current state of the article. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I got that last issue fixed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's still the "trucks in Greigsville" thing. The article appears to claim that trucks are traveling through Greigsville in spite of signs warning against this, and that it's a problem; but there's no source to back it up. Otherwise I did strike out that other problem. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Trucks are not an uncommon sight despite signage on 390 instructing them to use the Thruway for their entire trip." -- I personally think that needs to be cited... it's not obvious from Google Maps, which is the source given. If it's not a notable concern, the sentence should be removed; if it is a notable concern, a source should be found to back it up (i.e., local newspaper article). Same deal with "This section was widened to four lanes in the 1990s, one of the few concessions made by NYSDOT to its use as an intercity trunk road." &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. I can't find a source, so I just removed those two sentences. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I don't advocate complete removal of every sentence that doesn't have a source, but for sentences that take a specific position on an observable issue, I prefer sources. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)