Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania Route 652/archive1


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009.

Pennsylvania Route 652

 * Nominator(s): Mitchazenia : Chat   3 years and counting... 10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after about, oh I don't know, eight months of work on the article, it is finally finished as far as I can go. It went through an A-class assessment from November 2008 to March 2009, covering every last detail issue the project, U.S. Roads could fine. The article, if it passes, would be Pennsylvania State Highways WikiProject's first Featured Article. Again, all comments are welcome. Mitchazenia : Chat   3 years and counting... 10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comments 
 * The article needs copyediting. Case in point, these sentences: "The population along the highway is not at a dense spectrum, with dwellings surrounding the highway at certain points." and "Route 652 has a consistent stretch of four bridges that puts the highway together"
 * Done. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The history mentions 4 bridges that sound somewhat notable, yet the route description says nothing about this. The Route description is frankly just a rehash of the major intersections table. The history section also needs to be wikified and cleaned up. I'm pretty sure wikipedia has an article about the Delaware River, yep blue link. My apologies, didn't notice that the article was linked in the lead, a better example would be the Narrowsburg-Darbytown Bridge. Dave (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, it is not a rehash. I always make sure that it doesn't just mention intersections in it. I can see easily that its not. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability: The article does a descent job of describing the highway, but does not tell me why I should care. There are only some hints, such as a mention of a Sproul Road Bill and that the road is only 10 miles long but has 4 descent size bridges (long bridges by 1920 standards). From those two implied, but never stated facts, I'm guessing this road was needed to make a better connection between two important commercial regions that previously required navigating significant obstacles. The article on the Delaware River is pretty well written and supports this. That article makes the case this this river is a pretty formidable obstacle. Tell that story, don't leave me to guess that by golly if the Pennsylvania legislature funded this highway than it's important for some reason or another. Dave (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can help me solve this one - As 1) the delaware river article sucks and 2) I can't find what you see at all. Also, you've overlooked that it is old U.S. Route 106. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.loc.gov is a good starting point for information about historical landmarks. By playing with search terms "Wayne County Pennsylvania" "Delaware River Pennsylvania" etc. I was able to pull up some "Historical American Engineering Records" for 2 or 3 landmarks I suspect are along this highway..Dave (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I usually don't include things like that in articles of my own. But we'll see. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As my concerns have gone mostly unaddressed and have been seconded by the next reviewer, I feel I must change my position to oppose until they are resolved. Mitch, the info is out there. I found a lot of historical info about these bridges on my own, and I know almost nothing about this area. Do the research. This article has potential, but it needs expanding.Dave (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Fix the 1 disambiguation link found with the dab finder tool.
 * External links check out fine with the link checker tool, as does the ref formatting with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)'
 * Done. Thanks. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: 881 words.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think this article is even close to FA standards. It does not have a professional standard of prose, I doubt it is comprehensive, and I have serious concerns with the structure and the sourcing.
 * I'm concerned about the level of sourcing in this article. Of the 19 sources listed, 12 are to maps (8 of the 12 published by Pennsylvania Dept of Highways, which in this case is a self-published source, as it is essentially sourcing its own  "child").  An addition 4 of the citation are to the USDoT National Bridge inventory (again, citing things they own).  To me, this is highly excessive.  Are there no newspaper articles that discuss this?  How can we tell whether the road is even important if it has barely been mentioned outside of state and federal databases or maps?
 * The article discusses only the alignment of the road (not surprising, considering most of the sources are maps). Is there anything of interest off the road?
 * A quick google books search showed me more information is readily available about the road. For example
 * discusses average daily traffic on the road in the 1960s
 * I don't have access, can't add anything from it. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what libraries are for :) Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you don't live in Pennsylvania. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interlibrary loan Karanacs (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Article needs a thorough copyedit. Wording is unclear and often ungrammatical and does not flow well.
 * Why is the history section out of chronological order? The first section is current alignment (1972-presnet), but it is mostly talking about things that happened very early. I would lose the subsections and reorder this section to be in chronological order.
 * When was the road built? What does the Sproul Road Bill have to do with anything (article is not clear)?  and legislatures can't "sign" bills - that is the governor's job
 * Checking - and clarified. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we really care about the bridge replacement costs? If there are no plans to replace them, that seems like trivia.
 * Done. I've heard rumors that the Narrowsburg-Darbytown may be replaced. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Text in the article is sourced incorrectly. Examples:
 * ' The population along the highway is not high, with dwellings surrounding the highway only at certain points and There is a small increase in the area population as the route continues northward.'' are sourced to Yahoo Maps. This information cannot be gotten from that reference.
 * In 1972, US 106 was decommissioned and replaced with the PA 652 designation between Indian Orchard and the Delaware River implies that the decommissioning took place in 1972. This is sourced to a map.  From the map, you cannot determine that the decommissioning took place that year.
 * PA 652 was first assigned in 1928  is referenced to a map. While it might have first appeared on a map in 1928, I don't think you can infer that that was the year it was assigned.
 * In 1946, PA 652 was transferred to the control of the local suburbs along its entire length, and control of the roads went to local highway departments - again, cited to a map. Doesn't seem like that is the type of information that should come from a map.


 * I solved some of it. Can I ask that the FAC either be suspended or be let up for more than the necessary time? I am looking into contacting the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's library, because there is literally no newspaper articles. Give me some time. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose&mdash;1a. Here are examples from the top that prove the entire article needs revision:
 * "Pennsylvania Route 652 (designated by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) as State Route 0652) is a 10.57-mile (17.01 km) long east–west state highway located in northeast Pennsylvania." To avoid "parenthesis within parenthesis", convert the outermost set to commas. "Located" is redundant.
 * "The western terminus of the route is at U.S. Route 6 in the Texas Township community of Indian Orchard, and the eastern terminus is at the New York-Pennsylvania border in Damascus Township, where Route 652 crosses the Narrowsburg–Darbytown Bridge and into New York, continuing as New York State Route 52 and Sullivan County Route 24." Sentence is a bit of a snake (4+ clauses); perhaps restructure into two sentences?
 * "The highway reaches New York over the Delaware River and is located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania." Why not just name the county in the lead sentence, where is already says "northeast Pennsylvania"?
 * "The state highway originated as United States Route 106 when U.S. Routes were first assigned in 1926." "The state highway" should be simplified to "The highway". Perhaps change "U.S. Routes" to simply "names"?
 * I'd rather see SR 652 spelled out to at least "Route 652", but that's just my opinion.
 * This is valid per WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Yikes, this is not. It would be if it was Pennsylvania State Route 652... --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Road articles are very difficult to word, and this is no exception. Keep copy-editing; you'll get closer to a crisp article with each pass. &mdash; Deckiller 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I have the time right now to list everything that could be changed; if I were to do that, I'd just copy-edit the article myself. I just listed these examples to show that further copy-editing from a third party is needed. User:Hoary and User:Tony1 are probably the best copy-editors on Wikipedia; maybe they can help? &mdash; Deckiller 20:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per above prose problems and per serious breaches of WP:USSH. No, USSH isn't in the FAC, but it would be bad form to promote an article that does not conform to the same standard that all USRD articles have to conform to after the ArbCom-imposed WP:SRNC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All SR stuff removed. Bull proposal that Pennsylvania got, and there was never a discussion for it. Stupidity. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose still stands. Three people complaining about the prose indicates serious prose problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.