Talk:Sagtikos State Parkway/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks strong and close to ready for promotion; it's well-written and well-researched. Again, thanks for your work on it. I made a few minor changes as I went; take a look to make sure I didn't introduce any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I also have a few suggestions for the section "Roadway improvements" that I'd like your thoughts on:


 * "Progress on the project has been stalled by disagreements" -- the tense "has been" suggests that this is an ongoing process; it would be helpful to note an "as of" here to avoid this statement going out of date if progress resumes.
 * "claimed" should be rewritten here per WP:WTA (part of criterion 1b)
 * "believed that the discrepancy stemmed from his belief " -- is it possible to rewrite this avoid the repetition of the believed/belief?
 * "Wolkoff has refused " -- another point that seems like it might be out of date. The source here is from 2011--are we certain that Wolkoff is still refusing this?
 * More broadly, I'm concerned about the sourcing in the Wolkoff section. The main sources here appear to be two op-eds and a piece from the Long Island Contractor's Association; the latter in particular seems unlikely to qualify as a reliable source. Is it possible to find some news reporting on this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The LICA source is actually just C/Ping a Newsday article, and I have clarified that. There has not been an article about Heartland Town Square since 2011, so I can't picture much update has been shown. Otherwise, I've gotten most of it. Also, damn it, you ruined my chance for 100 days at GAN.... :P Mitch 32 (It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)  23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, that actually may raise minor copyright issues. Are you certain that Newsday has given a copyright release for this article to LICA? It would be better to source this directly to the newspaper rather than relying on a reprint by an involved party in any case; we've got no guarantee that their reprint is accurate and complete. So I'm still a bit concerned about the sourcing here, especially since this covers the most controversial part of the article. (Admittedly a very local controversy, but still a controversy.) If you don't think any direct news coverage of this can be found, I'll get a second opinion on whether those op-eds can be counted as reliable sources for this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or we could just remove it? Mitch 32 (It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be the best strategy. The labor dispute is just a blip in the parkway's history, and if we're having trouble finding coverage, I'm not sure it can be called a main aspect. I'm signing off for now, but will Google a bit later to see if there's more reliable-source coverage elsewhere. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed for now, however, the Google News archives having nothing after 2011. Mitch 32 (It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On a more minor note, I'm not sure the sentence with "his work ethic related to transportation should be funded by the government" makes grammatical sense--could this be rephrased again? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Mitch 32 (It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.) 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

 * Okay, the shorter version seems to address the remaining concerns. Thanks again for the quick responses.