Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Pennsylvania Route 39


 * 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 Demote. Issues have not been addressed; review is stale. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 39
review
 * Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: This article was promoted to A-Class before the ACR process began; it should be reevaluated to ensure that it truly does meet A-Class status.
 * Nominated by: Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments —
 * The mileposts in the junction table should be updated. This is a case of false precision if these numbers are coming from a paper atlas that doesn't list them to the hundredth of a mile.
 * User:JohnnyAlbert10 used a computer program when he put that in - I think I have an updated source of that form somewhere. Mitchazenia : Chat   Trained for the pen 21:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Remileposted using PennDOT GIS data and Yahoo Maps (for two mileposts not provided by the GIS). –  T M F 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Communities box should be removed. All of them are mentioned in prose already, or should be.
 * Resolved. –  T M F 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do all of the bolded names have redirects in place? If not, the bolded needs to be removed.
 * Dunno if they have redirect to PA 39, but I debolded them all anyway. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The junction table shouldn't use colored lines without a key to the colors. In this case, a note at the top of the table would suffice to explain the grey shading.
 * It's probably better to just remove the "decomd" type altogether. –  T M F 04:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed as the "decomd" type is deprecated. –  T M F 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the prose; I've only skimmed the article this morning briefly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article has too many issues to remain at A-class
 * 1) The lead is too short and does not include historical information
 * Resolved - lead rewritten to include such. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The route description is hard to follow as it jumps around. It needs to be better organized.
 * Resolved - I completely rewrote the description. –  T M F 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) References need to be at the end of sentences
 * Resolved. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The third paragraph of the route description contains nonnotable information about the installation of a traffic light for a shopping center
 * 2) The route description appears to fail to describe the road itself but nonnotable events happening around the road like the aforementioned example. It should contain better information about what the road looks like, what environments it passes through, and what roads in intersects
 * 3) Much of the information mentioned in the route description appears to be outdated
 * 4) Additional citations are needed in the route description
 * Points four through seven resolved - I completely rewrote the description. –  T M F 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "most likely established in the 1930s"? sounds unsure of the exact establishment date
 * Resolved; I rewrote much of the history. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Grammatical fixes are needed in the History section
 * Resolved. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Recent development and future projects is unnessecary as it duplicates information in the Route description and too concerns nonnotable information
 * I deleted the fluff and reworked what was left into a relevant future section. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Dates need to be delinked
 * Resolved. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Major intersections table looks a little sloppy in including former routes
 * Resolved; only the most recent former routes (possible oxymoron) were retained. –  T M F 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it nessecary for kilometerposts to be listed in the Major intersections table?
 * I don't think so. Removed. –  T M F 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The links in References 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 26, 27, and 28 are broken
 * Mostly resolved. The links for refs 19 and 21 are still dead links, but that's because the articles are no longer available for free and neither is stored on the Internet Archive. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) References need to be properly formatted
 * Resolved. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Retrieval dates are not needed for external links Dough4872 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved. –  T M F 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this article and the suggestions above tomorrow. –  T M F 07:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

When I rewrote the history, I noticed that two fairly significant claims had no cited source. I marked both of them with a fact tag. They were added by User:Son in this diff, so perhaps he can provide a source. In the meantime, I invite everyone to reevaluate the article as it is now. –  T M F 12:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article looks a lot better, but I still have some concerns with it:
 * A little more descriptive information about the route should be added to the lead.
 * Somewhat done. I don't know what more could be added that wouldn't be considered too detailed for the lead. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How can an intersection with a flagpole in the center be considered unorthodox?
 * I don't see how it isn't. I don't know of any intersections in New York, save for traffic circles or roundabouts, that have something in the center of the intersection. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Using the term "unorthodox" sounds like a NPOV violation. Some people might think that it is not unusual (Even though I do). Dough4872 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "the vicinity of" is used twice in the same paragraph. Can one of them be changed?
 * Resolved. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "traversing Swatara Creek" sounds awkward.
 * I don't believe it is, but for the sake of progress I have changed the wording. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes a four-lane portion of PA 39 so significant?
 * I don't follow this comment. What the article is saying is that this part of the route is the first that is four lanes wide since the stretch near I-81. Really, though, the sole reason for that sentence was to work the mention of the four-lane stretch near I-81 in - I couldn't find a good way to work it into the part of the description with I-81 without disrupting its flow. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "circuitous fashion" sounds awkward.
 * Borough should be disambiguated to Borough (Pennsylvania).
 * Fixed, although you could have simply made that correction yourself. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can sources be found for the unsourced statements in the Legislative routes section? If not, that information might have to be removed as it would be unverifiable.
 * As I posted above, those interested in taking this ACR further than I am - which was just to give this article a fighting chance at remaining at A-Class - will have to contact User:Son - I have no idea where he got the information for those statements. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's going to be tough to find.  I'm not sure why I didn't put a citation with it in the first place.  However, I definitely remember seeing it in one of the legislative journals that included the Omnibus law.  If I can find said journal, it shouldn't be too hard to get a cite in. --Son (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Improvements section, the article mentions a widening by 1995 before a widening by 1990. This information should be in chronological order.
 * Not done for now: The reason I placed the improvements in that order was that the 1995 improvement that seems to be out of order is referring to an extension of the one before it. To me, if all of the 1990 widenings are discussed first and the 1995 extension follows them, it creates an awkward situation where the article focuses on one segment, goes on to another, then goes back to the first segment. I would consider splitting the section into three paragraphs - one for each area that was widened - if they weren't short one-liners. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is any more recent information available for the future section?
 * Some of the links in the references are still broken. Dough4872 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only aware of two that are still dead links; see my post above. –  T M F 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've performed all of the suggestions that I personally thought would benefit the article (which is about nine-tenths of them), so I'd say it's up to the initial reviewers to give it the thumbs up or thumbs down. –  T M F 13:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are still some issues that have not been resolved, most notably the citation needed tags in the history, my oppose still stands unless they can be fixed. Dough4872 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is no attempt made to address the remaining issues by May 22 (Friday), this article will be demoted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:40, 18 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.