Talk:New York State Route 285/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I shall be performing a review of this article. Feel free to leave questions and comments. Strato|sphere 02:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   A. Prose quality

   • Your lead sentence might want to say "New York State Route 285 was a state highway that once connected New York State Route 69 in Pine Hill and Thompson Corners to the northeast...."

   • How about "...once connected New York State Route 69 with Thompson Corners to the northeast."

   • "The route was assigned by 1936 to the routing from NY 69 to Thompson Corners" - I assume you mean "The route was assigned in"?
   • If the route was not abandoned, you probably want to use renumbered, downgraded or redesignated rather than decommissioned
   • The history section needs a re-write minor fixin.

   • The first sentence: same alignment? relative to what?
   • The second & third sentences: The designation remained in use for the next 52 years until a maintenance swap between the Oneida County and the State of New York in 1988 returned control to the county.
   • Try "...from NY 69 to Thompson Corners, and remained as such for approximately the next 52 years."
   • "This was the only route to go into the county system" something like "This was the only route assumed into the county system in a trade for County Route 32" or something similar.
   • "took duties into" should be "assumed responsibility for"
   • Next to last sentence: The route, which no longer kept its NY 285 designation, is presently known as County Route 95

   • Are the "old Protestant cemetery" and "Saint Patrick's Cemetery" referring to the same thing?
   • Might want to link to Taberg article if it exists
   • "Route 285 went and passed a junkyard" needs to be described in a different manner and the parenthetical is kind of akward, but not a big deal
   • Does the spring it passed have a name?

   • Ok, might not be necessary to point out it doesn't have a name, but this sentence doesn't flow well. Read it out loud and you'll see what I mean, although I'm not sure what to do about it as it's describing a rather short piece of the roadway. Try something :)

   • "went and entered" needs to be changed to something more flow-ier
   • Look over the last paragraph of the route description, some tenses are mixed up. Also, "continues towards...in a straight direction" which direction?

   B. MoS compliant

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   A. References to sources

   • I assume the first reference, the touring reference PDF, is just down for the moment.

   B. Citations to reliable sources

   C. No original research

   • Do you have a reference for the maintenance swap mentioned in the opening paragraph?

   • Can you provide a sentence or two excerpt from section 341 regarding the jurisdictional transfer of 285, I was unable to find it.

   • Heh, I didn't mean to put it in the article, I just couldn't find it in the source to verify. It's up to you whether or not to leave it in.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   A. Major aspects

   B. Focused

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   A. Images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales

   B. Appropriate use with suitable captions

   • Are there any images available to use in this article? Or a map (which I assume there's a backlog at MTF)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail

   I'm going to put this review on hold to allow for sufficient time to edit and improve the article based on the recommendations put forth. Others are welcome to provide any additional input. Strato|sphere 04:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

   Looks good, passed it. Nice job.

All done except for the image. That I am trying to get from a friend for use in the article.Mitch32^(UP) 11:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Couple more outstanding issues to take a look at. I'm highly interested in finding the information in the law text regarding the route swap. Good job so far :) Strato|sphere 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, yet again.Mitch32^(UP) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The stuff above in the prose that isn't crossed out still needs to be addressed. When those are fixed I'll re-read the whole article and provide any other critique, if necessary. Strato|sphere 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Two of the three are done - and it is "by 1936", not "in 1936".Mitch32^(UP) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As in "the designation was applied sometime before 1936"? Strato|sphere 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Mitch32^(UP) 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)