Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class review

New York State Route 174 edit

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 sonT - C 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) New York State Route 174 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review[reply]

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: Mitch32contribs 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Imzadi1979 (Part 1) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments — Here's my suggestions at first reading of the article.
  • Whole article: Pick a term between "overlap" or "concurrent". Which ever term is used, wikilink it on first mention in the lead. Currently you used concurent in the lead and Route descrption, but in the History and Major intersections you used overlap, which is wikilinked the first time in the History. For some consistancy, just use one term or something like "routes 174 and 175 overlap in a concurrency" and wikilink concurrency.  Done
  • Lead: The length needs its units wikilinked. This can be done using the lk=on attribute to the convert template.  Done
  • Infobox: The maint parameter isn't in use.  Done
    • NYSDOT isn't entirely correct: part of the route in Marcellus is county-maintained.[1] --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Route description
In the second paragraph, there is "Route 174 becomes concurrent..." I would change that to "Route 174 is concurrent..." IMHO, it flows a little better.  Done
Also in the second paragraph, "Routes 174 and 175 become concurrrent..." I would also change that to "are concurrent" but the word "routes" shouldn't be capitalized. Only capitalize when using route to name one highway, not two (except at the beginning of a sentence, of course.)  Done
In the third paragraph, it mentions "The at-grade road..." is the section along the Seneca Turnpike grade-separated? If it isn't, "at-grade" isn't necessary. If it is, then mention that the Seneca Turnpike isn't an at-grade road.  Done
Also in the third paragraph, the term "jughandle" needs to be wikilinked or explained for non-roadgeeks.  Done
Somewhere in the RD section, I'd like to see mention of the physical characteristics of the road. Is it all two-lane or four? Are any sections freeway/expressway? This kind of ties into the at-grade/grade-separated question I have above. Are any portions on the National Highway System? Maybe this could be a mini-lead paragraph ahead of the rest of the RD paragraphs?  Done
  • History: The second (of two) sentences in the first paragraph could be broken into two sentences so it would flow and read a little better. Otherwise this section looks fine on first reading.  Done
  • Major intersections: I would add "Southern terminus" and "Northern terminus" to the Notes column. Otherwise this section looks good.  Done
    • I disagree vehemently with this suggestion. Those are implied by the endpoints of the table, and are explicitly mentioned in the infobox. It's worth noting that NY 22, the other NY A-Class article, does not have these notes. To me, these notes are unnecessary and, to be honest, as I've seen them in NY I've been removing them. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall impression: The article looks good, and really it would only need some minor tweaks to get my support. I'll read through it again in a couple of days and see if my finer-tooth comb finds anything else.  Done --Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the following has been fixed.Mitch32contribs 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Background colors removed.Mitch32contribs 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "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.[2]  Done
      • Does that mean second-longest entirely within the county? --NE2 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is no longer mentioned, so I guess this is done. --NE2 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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.  Done
      • A 1961 map shows NY 20N still, so 1962 is the correct date, I just have yet to replace the ref.Mitch32contribs 23:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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.  Done
      • 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)[reply]
    • The major intersections could do without the termini noted  Done or the background colors.  Not done
    • 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.  Done  Done
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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. -- Kéiryn talk 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "New York State Route 175 interchanges along with County Route 73" - it doesn't look like an interchange.  Done
    • 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."  Done
      • Not really done... it's still choppy and awkward. --NE2 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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.Mitch32contribs 11:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The north end isn't at the jughandle; it's at an intersection that includes one.  Done
  • --NE2 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • If the plank road connected Marcellus and Camillus, did it actually use South Street? --NE2 03:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) ---[reply]
Route 174 originally used South Street, polaron may know the answer to if the plank road did.Mitch32contribs 11:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it apparently did not based on the Pucker Street book. I've clarified the wording. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed several of your "done" templates, since they were not done. --NE2 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I did so again. Don't edit my comments. --NE2 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm free to put done at the ends of comments. Mitch32contribs 10:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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.Mitch32contribs 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Imzadi1979 (Part 2) 00:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Review

I'm doing a second review for prose issues, not content.

  1. Lead
    1. Could you reference any other common abbreviations for the name, say NY 174? Maybe just the abbreviations in parentheses in the lead sentence?
    2. In the second paragraph, "The highway became known as ..." is choppy. Try this idea: "The highway was given the Route 174 designation between Borodino and Camillus in the 1930 New York State Route Renumbering."
  2. Route description
    1. It reads good to me, but it needs a description of the terrain in there, even if it's a sentence saying it's all fields/flat land or woods.
    2. Can a highway concurrency be alive to be "short-lived"?
  3. History
    1. "The highway was reassigned as Route 174 from Borodino to Camillus in the 1930 renumbering." Reads better than became known to me. "Becoming known" kind of implies to me that something was unknown before.
    2. The rest of the history reads well to me.
    3. The third paragraph could use some rearrangement to focus more on NY 174 than NY 321. You got my idea for it on IRC.
  4. Major intersections - looks good. I wouldn't change it.
  5. References - stylistically the only, very minor idea would be to {{reflist|2}} and see if this section looked better in two columns, or one. I'll rely on your best judgment for that. Either way, I wouldn't care what was decided.
It looks and reads good. Like my first review, a few small changes, and I support. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to me. Well written, well sourced, and seems accurite. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Polaron 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Lead
  1. There is too much emphasis on concurrencies in the lead. NY 20N was a tack-on designation and was not important in the history of NY 174. The NY 321 concurrency is also incidental as that was the main road to Camillus from the south. Sure, they should be mentioned in the main text but are not important enough for the lead.  Done
  2. Was all of NY 174 part of 1920s Route 26? The sentence in the lead "Route 174 was originally part of 1920s New York State Route 26..." makes it appear as if the whole route was part of old 26 when , in fact, the commonality is only that short stretch used by the original alignment of 321. So again, old 26 is not important in the history of NY 174 and should not be in the lead.  Done
  3. Is it really the second longest state road in the county? Aren't there longer routes that pass through the county? You should qualify this carefully if you want to include this statement here, especially with the presence of county-maintained segments.  Done
    • Route description - As currently written, it seems very dry and reads like a simple list of intersections. Except for one sentence, there is no description of the landscape or attractions along the way. I'm suprised there is no mention of the Ninemile Creek, which the route follows.  Done - Added a ton of things.
    • History - The content is generally ok save for a few grammatical nitpicks (which I will probably fix later). Although one thing that should be emphasized though is that the 20N designation was routed along already existing 174 rather than the other way around or even being a usual overlap. I know it's probably nearly impossible to find, but pre-state road history would be good.  Done  Done - I could not find history pre-1919. I did clarify the 20N though
--Polaron
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.  DoneDavemeistermoab (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

If you want a reference for the current NY 174 being almost exactly the old plank road, [3] should do the trick. [4] 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)[reply]

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.Mitch32contribs 11:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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#Citations_in_the_lead_of_an_article as I would like to draw a concensus on this.  — master sonT - C 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/New_York_State_Route_174&oldid=1148849411"