Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/New York State Route 317


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Do not promote, stale nom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 317
review
 * Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: NY 317 is the newest touring route in Onondaga County, New York. It is also the first route assigned past 2000 in NY to be brought up to USRD's A-class review process. I am looking for a really good review. Its not the longest but what can you do. :)
 * Nominated by: Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 15:58, 10 April 2009



I can now support the article. However I still have one nitpick. Dave (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Onondaga County village of Elbridge" De-link "village of" so that you don't have two wikilinked terms touching (a frequent violation of the MOS, even in FA's). You can still have both terms linked, just have a word or two of separation =-).
 * Would you mind hiding your comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Linked text changed. –  T M F 06:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll support as well since I took care of the issues I saw with the article as part of my edits to make the fixes suggested above. It looks good to me ATM. –  T M F 06:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above. –CG 21:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * Route 317? not SR 317?
 * Standardize the date format in the citations.
 * Otherwise, there's not much to say about this. Not a bad article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Done for the second one. I locked up my back and can't focus too well. Also, other than a consistency problem, I don't see what's wrong for the first one.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 11:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the abbreviation has to be consistent throughout the article (which I don't necessarily agree with), it would be "NY 317" since that's NYSDOT's official abbreviation for the routes in their most visible documents (the TDR and route log). Personally, though, I don't see an issue with mixing "NY 317" with "Route 317" as it eliminates some of the monotony from using the same thing over and over again. Whether or not FAC folks feel the same way, I don't know, but that's how I see it. –  T M F 14:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support issues have been addressed. However, there probably still needs to be one more review before closing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I will support it for A-class:
 * 1) Can some more descriptibve information about the route be added to the lead? It mostly consists of historical information.
 * Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In sentence "The route heads northward from the central intersection, passing a small commercial lot to the west, and several residential homes to the north and west.", remove comma after "west".
 * Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Would NY 317 and Valley Drive be both considered "highways"?
 * Its a general term.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "turns north onto Main": add "Street" after "Main".
 * Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In sentence "This plank road was constructed in the 1850s in place of the Syracuse and Auburn Railroad and a small railroad from Skaneateles to Skaneateles Junction, two crude railroads that were in the area which had ended service in 1836 and 1850.", add "respectively" at the end.
 * Done.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In sentence "A bill (S6534, 2002) was introduced in the New York State Senate by State Senator John DeFrancisco[16] on March 18, 2002,[17] that would turn maintenance of Onondaga County Route 105, an alternate route between Jordan and Elbridge on the eastern bank of Skaneateles Creek, over to the New York State Department of Transportation and give Valley Drive to the town of Elbridge and the villages of Jordan and Elbridge.", remove comma after "March 18, 2002". Dough4872 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's gramatically correct to remove that comma. –  T M F 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to my comment above, I don't believe the Wikipedia MOS provides any guidance on this issue, but our article on commas indicates that placing a comma following full dates such as "March 18, 2002" is common practice. –  T M F 00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not done per above.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been addressed, so I will Support the article. Dough4872 (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: One glaring item that came to my attention tonight is that the article does not include when the plank road (was it still a plank road after the Skaneateles Railroad Company took it over? even that's not entirely clear to me) was turned over to the state. It was definitely prior to the 1910s; it became the easternmost part of legislative Route 20. Even if this ACR is closed without this being addressed, it absolutely has to be before a potential FAC nomination. –  T M F 01:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left notes on this topic on NY 317's talk page as suggestions for future improvement. –  T M F 01:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the recent additions to the article.
 * "which was designated as State Highway 486. Valley Drive was also State Highway 5080 (in Elbridge), and State Highway 5630 (in Jordan up to Clinton Street)." - I don't believe this helps the article in any way. It'd be the same thing if I said in NY 104's article that it is partly SH 6 or that NY 153 is partly SH 1337. Since no one but the New York legislature and hardcore NY roadgeeks know these designations exist, let alone what they mean, I don't think it's beneficial to have it in the article. The point of me including them in my notes was to establish a timeline for tracking down the point when the road was transferred to the state. They should be removed.
 * "The modern routing of NY 317 was originally the northern part of the Jordan and Skaneateles Plank Road." - 317 or 31C? Neither the article nor the linked sources are clear on this issue. Maps from the time period aren't clear either - both roads are shown on maps as early as 1871. And if the plank road became Jordan Road (317), then why did the state take over and improve Valley Drive? Either this question needs to be answered, or it needs to be verified that the plank road became Valley Drive (31C).
 * "In 1903, the railroad company was part of the People v. New York Central Railroad and Hudson Railroad, which was suing the board of railroad commissioners of the state of New York." - sued over what? Did the case relate to the plank road?
 * Does the fourth paragraph of the first history sub-section have any relevance to NY 31C/317? The case is dated as 1915, and by that point the railroad company is pretty much irrelevant to this article as Route 20 was created in the laws of 1908.
 * The whole first paragraph of the designation sub-section is choppy. For one thing, legislative Route 20 (note the lowercase "l", these routes were not called "Legislative Routes") needs to be given a greater level of prominence than it currently is.
 * The history itself reads like two self-contained sections - not two parts of one whole. There's no flow nor a connection between the two. It jumps from plank roads and railroad companies to state highways with no explanation as to how we got from point A (railroad company ownership) to point B (state ownership).
 * I talked to someone else that reviewed the history; and I believe they put it best: right now, it appears to the reader like a list of facts that doesn't really tell a story. If someone read the history from beginning to end, they're still going to have questions about the road's origins. By the A-Class level, that shouldn't be the case. An A-Class article should answer a reader's every question and should leave no room for interpretation or create a need for further research. This article currently has both issues. I cannot support this for A-Class as it is now, and truthfully, as it was before. I didn't realize how bad the gaps in the history were until I attempted to weave in the portion regarding Route 20 last night, and failed to do so without it sticking out. –  T M F 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for two reasons.
 * I should have brought this up when I initially reviewed the article but I was tired and didn't - the two subsections of the history have no connection. For the record, I did notice this when I reviewed the article the first time but didn't say anything about it.
 * I don't quite understand what the railroad stuff just added has to do with the article. It probably should be removed.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no attempt made to address these issues by Wednesday 5/27 the article will fail. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.