Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New York State Route 174

New York State Route 174

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class (open 7 days with 5 supports/4 net supports) —  master son T - C 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) review
 * Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: I feel like taking this to A-class but no further as I doubt it will survive as a FA, but who knows. For now, I'd like to get a better opinion on the article.
 * Nominated by: Mitch 32contribs 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Mostly done; I'd still like to see the background colors removed from the major intersections, and there's still some awkward wording. --NE2 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Background colors removed. Mitch 32contribs 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Route 174 is the second longest state-maintained road in the county behind New York State Route 173, at 16.70 miles (26.88 km) long." - Not all of NY 174 is state maintained; the part on Seneca Turnpike is county-maintained as part of CR 41.✅
 * Does that mean second-longest entirely within the county? --NE2 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is no longer mentioned, so I guess this is done. --NE2 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still issues with sources. You say that NY 174 overlapped NY 20N until 1962, but there are several issues. First, the 1961 map does not show NY 20N. Second, just because a 1960 map shows it and a 1961 map doesn't, that does not mean it was eliminated in 1961; it may have been eliminated in 1960 (or even earlier if the 1960 map was created in 1959, like Rand McNally does with their road atlases). There also seems to be prominent mention of the NY 20N and NY 321 overlaps - why is this? It seems like half the introduction isn't even about NY 174.✅
 * A 1961 map shows NY 20N still, so 1962 is the correct date, I just have yet to replace the ref. Mitch 32contribs 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You still don't know that 1962 is correct; it could have been in 1961 after your map was researched. There's enough to say early 1960s but no more. You don't really need any more, since this is pretty tangential to the actual topic of the article. --NE2 23:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I put circa in front of 1962 and replaced the ref. Mitch 32<sup style="color:red;">contribs 01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I again removed a few sentences about the Seneca Turnpike from the introduction. Since NY 174 only uses a few blocks of it, and only after a recent realignment, this does not contribute significantly to the history of NY 174. If this is restored, it will be another reason to oppose.
 * "At an unknown date" is too imprecise. I understand that you can't always get exact years, but a range such as mid-1960s or between 1958 and 1961 is better.✅
 * You don't have any maps between 1976 (which map is this? none of the referenced maps are from 1976) and 1989? Also the source for it being CR 83 is not a reliable source, but you can use the 1989 NYSDOT map for that.
 * Your reference for 1976 is a 1955 map? --NE2 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its mislabeled, 1976 photorevised of a 1955 map. <sup style="color:red;">Mitch <b style="color:red;">32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs 10:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The major intersections could do without the termini noted✅ or the background colors.❌
 * The route description doesn't say anything about the terrain it passes through. "Onondaga CR 177" should be "CR 177" - and why is this junction (and other county routes) mentioned here? If it's major enough to list, it should be in the junction list.✅✅
 * I think the preferred style in usage, and we can clarify it over at WT:USRD if needed, is to use the county name on first mention and CR on subsequent mentions. The exception would be if there are two CR 177s in two different counties, then the county name needs to be mentioned at all references to avoid ambiguity. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in 100% agreement with this. No need to get entirely repetitive with using the county name over and over if you don't need to. DanTheMan474 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you shouldn't be repeating the county name over and over, but I think NE2's issue is that you shouldn't even be using it the first time. New York's state highways are a special case since the official name is "New York State Route X", but to use New Jersey as an example, we almost never use the phrase "New Jersey Route 17" in article text, especially when the context is clear (see WP:USSH).  I agree with NE2 that the same rules should apply to county routes. --  K é iryn  talk 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "New York State Route 175 interchanges along with County Route 73" - it doesn't look like an interchange.✅
 * The prose still needs work. "It follows the shoreline of the lake and intersects at the northern end with County Route 124." "Route 174 turns along the West Seneca Turnpike as it heads through downtown Marcellus." "The highway became known as Route 174 in the 1930 New York State Route renumbering from Borodino to Camillus." "Route 174 heads northward most of its length except for a short distance in the villages of Marcellus and Camillus."✅
 * Not really done... it's still choppy and awkward. --NE2 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better but could probably be improved further. Several sentences in a row begin with "Route 174" in the history. --NE2 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC) --- I fixed it I believe. <sup style="color:red;">Mitch <b style="color:red;">32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs 11:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The north end isn't at the jughandle; it's at an intersection that includes one.✅
 * --NE2 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The history looks a lot better now. Could you find whether the road to Salina was built? If not, I don't know if it's worth mentioning. "The improvement of the road led to it becoming a stagecoach route in the middle of the 19th century." - what's "it"? Where's Cherry Street? --NE2 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cherry Street is now South Street. Regarding the "it", it's supposed to refer to the road. Saying "the improvement of the road led to the road becoming a..." seems more awkward. --Polaron | Talk 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow...I reread that several times and each time I think I inserted a "that" between "road" and "led", and additionally misread it further. --NE2 03:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the plank road connected Marcellus and Camillus, did it actually use South Street? --NE2 03:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) ---
 * Route 174 originally used South Street, polaron may know the answer to if the plank road did. <sup style="color:red;">Mitch <b style="color:red;">32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs 11:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it apparently did not based on the Pucker Street book. I've clarified the wording. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed several of your "done" templates, since they were not done. --NE2 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I did so again. Don't edit my comments. --NE2 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm free to put done at the ends of comments. <sup style="color:red;">Mitch <b style="color:red;">32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs 10:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No; that makes it appear that I'm saying they're done. In several cases, they were not actually done. --NE2 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't tell me what to freakin' do. And I've seen this done in PRs several dozen times. I'm allowed to do what I'm want. So stop or i'm bringing you to WP:AN. <sup style="color:red;">Mitch <b style="color:red;">32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Most of the picky issues fixed, and the article reads and flows better now than when I first read it. My biggest issues are fixed, so I say promote! Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. All is well. I wish it were longer, but for ~20 miles, what you have is good. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. Well written, well sourced, and seems accurite. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Article is structurally sound and content is mostly complete. There can still be minor improvements in some of the wording but that can be improved over time. --Polaron | Talk 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments Support
 * I think Polaron beat me to the comment I was going to make. According to the NGS map used, this route is following a river or creek of some kind. Yet the article makes no mention of this. That's the only problem I see, a lack of geographical context. Also, the history is only about the route, if any notable events are linked with this highway or the major geographical features, the article should mention them.✅Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The concerns I've addressed both above and via other review forums have been addressed to my satisfaction.Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a reference for the current NY 174 being almost exactly the old plank road, should do the trick. is an interesting map from 1907, showing the road from Marcellus to Camillus, and a bit just north of US 20, as a state road. --NE2 03:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure how you wanted the first one used, but I threw them in as references. Anyway, anything else that needs doing? I cleaned everything you listed. <sup style="color:red;">Mitch <b style="color:red;">32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs 11:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose the lead still does not give a concise overview of the article. Lead still only makes mentions of the route description; all parts of the article need to be summarised in the lead.  It also needs to be made verifiable by using inline citations like the rest of the article.  There is another recurring issue, however:
 * The road heads north, passing to the east of Hardscrabble Point, to an intersection with Elbert Road (County Route 131), where it turns east.—CR 131 turns east? This is something that I've nitpicked on in the past; please scope out any other grammatical errors of this sort and correct them.  In addition, I highly recommend a fresh copyedit of this article; I predict that this article is full of the aforementioned grammatical error(s). 哦，是吗？ (О кириллицей) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (GMT)
 * No, you seem to have a misconception about how an English sentence works. CR 131 there is a prepositional object of the phrase "an intersection with CR 131". This then is what is being referred to in the next phrase. Just because it is the last word of the phrase does not make it the subject of the next phrase. The subject of the entire sentence is "The road" and never changes. All references to "it" refer to "the road". --Polaron | Talk 22:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the citations in the lead - the article has citations in the body - they don't need to be redudantly cited per WP:LEAD - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads as I would like to draw a concensus on this. —  master son T - C 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.