Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 73/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:35, 26 May 2009.

New York State Route 73

 * Nominator(s): 3 1/2 years of Mitch32 23:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article the article has spent 6 months since a failed FAC in November 2008. The article has greatly improved since then and I believe it should meet the FAC standards. As usual, I am open to all comments. (Note: Juliancolton is to copyedit the article tonight). 3 1/2 years of Mitch32 23:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am under the impression that every sentence should be cited in an article. The entire lead section which may very well be a bit too long, isnt cited at all, and should be regardless if the info in it is cited later in the article. I see too few citations in the rest of the article as well even if someone wants to say not EVERY sentence needs to be cited. Perhaps I just had a really hard-a** reviewer when Port of Albany-Rensselaer went up for GA but I couldnt get it to pass GA review without every sentence cited, so I'd like to hear why FA should be more lax than GA. If it was just the reviewer who I happened to get, then OK, but I would still want the lead to have citations and lots of them before this passes. That is just one problem from glancing over the article. I will do a complete checklist and thorough read through in the next day or two. I've noticed FA road articles that are not complete on their route description, no reason to make one more. A fundamental criteria for FA is that they are COMPLETE and COMPREHENSIVE, with very little and preferably nothing needing to be added. If there are gaps in a route description then its not complete and comprehensive and not FA material. I will be checking that some sections arent represented more than others for no reason.Camelbinky (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There aren't gaps. I am the main writer of these, and I write them like this. We don't need details of every building. That is unnecessary. We don't need every last detail, especially on a route in the middle of mountains basically. Underwood is under-developed, Keene is barely anything, and I described everything else.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 09:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no Wikipedia policy that states "every sentence should be cited" and the FA criteria specify that inline citations should be provided "where appropriate". Awadewit (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leads should rarely be cited. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried copyediting the article, but unfortunately, the prose is quite poor in some areas—to the extent where I don't feel comfortable changing it. The "construction" section, in particular, needs work. For example, I could 12 instances of the word "slated". Sorry, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The correct heading is "Future" not "Construction." Does NYSDOT number the proposed construction projects? "This is our first project, this is our second"...? How do Keene's highways connect to this? Also, this is a <30 mile route. It seems that there may possibly be a lot of fluff in the article. You have to sell us on why the article should be FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754, you need to point out what you think the fluff is. No nominator has to "sell" his/her FA - it is presumed that all articles can be FA. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection of section 2.1 with the rest of the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed now I believe.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it. I don't see the connection. Section 2.2 needs to be rewritten so that the connection to the topic at hand is apparent from the first sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying my best to get the early highways through the Adirondack High Peaks - which NY 73 does current-day. Maybe it needs a better rewording.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did my best. Look now.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding a very poorly worded sentence with three citations doesn't quite cut it. Using three citations makes it look like WP:SYNTH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved now - will try to give a full review later. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, my oppose still stands; the prose needs help, and in the history there is repetition of info between sections 2.1 and 2.2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More on the construction section.
 * My #1 concern in this section is the list-like style of prose. For example, you don't need to say "The next piece of construction...", etc. Try to avoid excessive wording. On that note (and I know you're not going to like this suggestion), it may be best to completely remove the specific construction projects, and condense the entire section into a paragraph or two. At the moment, it reads a bit like a database, rather than an encyclopedic article.
 * It is 23 feet (7.0 m) long and made entirely of concrete. - No steel reinforcements?
 * The final bridge that is listed to undergo construction is the Route 73 bridge over the Southern Fork of the Bouquet River in Keene. - Could simply be "Another bridge to undergo construction is over Southern Fork of the Bouquet River in Keene." I'm not really sure how it is the "final" bridge to undergo construction. Are they listed in chronological order? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OpposeCamelbinky (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain your opposition to the article in terms of the FA criteria. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you insist, dont complain if you dont agree, you asked me to explain my opinion. I still maintain it needs more citations, and irregardless of what others think wp:lead is clear that citations are put in lead sections, though not as strictly as other sections if the info being cited would be redundant. I dont know where someone else got their info that lead sections "should rarely be cited" it seems just the opposite, as wp:lead is clear that the rules on verifiability still apply to the lead. That is my only concern. Others can disagree and pass the article. I like the information in the article, I think it is well-written, I have researched and looked at each of the sources mentioned, everything seems factual. Which I wish more reviewers would spend time on fact-checking instead of "its well written and looks purdy, me passie article!". I could care less what the title of a section is, as long as the information in the article is factual. This is an encyclopedia right? Truth in factual information before pretty flowing prose.Camelbinky (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no official thing in there - it barely mentions direct referencing of the lead.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 10:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's "clear" in that lead lead sections require citations? To the contrary, it says "The need for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, concerning "there is no official thing in there" this is a direct copy-paste from wp:lead- The lead must conform to verifiability and other, relevant policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited, as should quotations. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
 * To be honest, I doubt anyone is going to challenge information about a road... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, double-citing (i.e., lead and body) is usually unnecessary except for statistics, quotes and potentially controversial BLP material. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. I fixed the one problem that was in the article, just noting this for future nominations so it can be fixed before nomination.
 * If a fact/etc is sourced in the main body of the article, it doesn't need to be cited in the lead, unless its unusually contentious. (Which I hardly see a road article rising to..)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - sorry. The prose is very poor and way below FA standard. The article is crying out for the help of a good copy-editor who is familiar with the subject. The content is there, but the article has grammatical errors, lacks flow, and is written in a most clumsy manner. Graham Colm Talk 09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.