Talk:State Route 314 (New York–Vermont)/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * GA? Seriously? The history is full of holes, particularly relating to NY 314. –  T M F 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this article is not GA-quality, feel free to submit it for Good article reassessment. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Similar articles have been sent to GAR for similar reasons and were not demoted. It's sad what GA has become. –  T M F 18:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this could be sent to GAR since it is obviously missing half of the title in the history. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say so. Upon further review, the merging of these two articles is a very bad idea; VT 314 is actually a loop off US 2 with a connection to the ferry leading to NY 314, thus the impression that the title gives of one single, continuous roadway is incorrect. –  T M F 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I first started to read this article I assumed the two roadways formed a continuous line. After looking it up on a map, I noticed it resembled more of a sideways Y shape and edited the description to more accurately describe the layout. This was also the first article I've come across that included two states in a single article, and I was puzzled. I assumed it was because the individual roadways were not considered notable enough to stand on their own. So I looked up other examples and just assumed this type of thing was common, and moved on. Thats when I failed to notice half the history was missing, but I talked to Mitchazenia and he said he could add the missing info. I apologize for my mistake, and believe me I will be more careful in the future. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)