Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New York State Route 254

New York State Route 254

 * 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.

Closing as a demote. The interested parties have not made the effort to research the gaps in the article's coverage. The nomination has been open long enough without activity, so I'm closing it now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

review
 * Suggestion: Demote from A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: This article lacks any history on how NY 254 came to be, particularly the Warren Street/River Street portion. When I say "came to be", I mean things like when was it built, why was it built, etc. The part of NY 254 not on Warren and River Streets is a new facility, I know that, but by the A-Class level, the article should go into such details as to how much the arterial cost. The reason I'm bringing this back to ACR is that recent A-Class candidates have not been promoted for having similar issues.
 * Nominated by: –  T M F 03:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 14:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - I have some concerns before I will support keeping the article at A-class;
 * 1) All the missing history issued mentioned above should be added to the article.
 * 2) The hatnote about the county routes redirecting to the page is unnessecary.
 * 3) The lead needs to be expanded a little bit with more information about the route.
 * 4) Many of the sentences in the Route description are short and stubby.
 * 5) "The highway heads eastward, permitting speeds of 35 miles per hour" sounds awkward and metric conversions are needed for speed limits.
 * 6) "Route 254 then changes names to Quaker Road, increasing the speed limit to 40 miles per hour" also sounds awkward.
 * 7) "Then" should not continually be used in Route description.
 * 8) Should "County Route 47" and "County Route 70" be in italics?
 * 9) "followed by New York State Route 9L[5] — which leads toward Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport.": I think a comma would work better than a hyphen.
 * 10) "There, 254 curves to the southeast[5] and intersects with County Route 42 (Dix Avenue), then New York State Route 32, then County Route 79 (Boulevard)[6] and then NY 911E.": Add "Route" or "NY" in front of "254" and also rewrite to avoid monotonous listing of intersections.
 * 11) "The route passes into Washington County", change "passes" to "crosses".
 * 12) More information should be added to the route description describing the surroundings the route goes through.
 * 13) There should not be a standalone sentence from the rest of the route description paragraph. Also, is it nessecary to mention how many traffic lights there are along the route?
 * 14) "New York State Department Of Transportation has reserved the designation New York State Route 656 for what is now Route 911E, should the 0.2 mi (0.32 km) road be changed from a reference route to a touring route", add "The" at beginning of sentence.
 * 15) References 1, 16, and 17 need to be fixed as they are dead links. Dough4872 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments The article isn't bad, but does need a top to bottom copyedit. In addition to what Doug found (which I agree with), there are some other odd sentences such as:

"Route 254 is maintained by Warren County along its Quaker Road alignment,[4] for which purpose it is designated County Route 47 and County Route 70.[5][6]" Nothing wrong with this per-se, but it's a odd use of a possessive, and it's wordy. It reads more like somebody was trying to get the word count up on a class project, rather than a work of art being refined over time.

This article does cross one of my pet peeves with the USRD project, most of the sources to this article are maps. Although I recognize that for some routes, especially those built before modern record keeping methods were common, maps are the only thing available. Still, anytime more than half the sources are maps I get concerned as this tends to mean aspects of the route's history are missed. I'd advise to scour an area museum or period newspapers. I know this takes time, but for the articles I've taken through the GAC, ACR, and FAC process, that's where the good information is.Dave (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note for any review, I just rewrote the entire Route description.Mitch/HC32 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And now the lead.Mitch/HC32 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you addressed all of my above issues? Dough4872 (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of the article has changed, and btw, we may just close this ACR and put it at GA-class.Mitch/HC32 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I second this motion as the nominator. No one seems particularly interested in doing the hardcore research necessary to keep this article at A-Class, so it may be in the best interest of those who comment on the reviews here to demote this and move on since there's more issues to this article than the standard prose, grammar, etc. –  T M F 02:07, 1 July 2009 (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.