Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 32

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

New York State Route 32

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after working for some time, I feel that its a strong enough article to take a beating at FAC. Any & all comments are welcome, thanks! ^Mitch32^contribs 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to consider myself a conominator, as I wrote most of the original route description and took most of the photos currently in use. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• These two sites dead link:
  • http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-glens-falls-1948.jpg
  • http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-glens-falls-1956.jpg

Otherwise, sources look good. Links all checked with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I checked the sourcing on the Peer Review, but I double checked them again for the FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, they could not be fixed, so I removed the link. Its a map, so it is a RS.^Mitch32^contribs 13:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't worry they weren't RS's, just that they were dead. Works! All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments generally looks good, just some minor stuff to work on.

• "its starting terminus is at NY 17 near Harriman, and its ending terminus is at NY 196" - more active tone... "it starts at... and ends at..." would sound better IMO.
• "At Broadway, Newburgh's main street, also NY 17K, Route 32 turns east." - I found this sentence difficult to read, it's pretty choppy.
• You refer to it as Route 32, NY 32, and "32"... be consistent.
  • That applies to other roads (eg. "While 32 officially remains concurrent with 299")
    • What about Route 32 vs. NY 32? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm following project standards, which say to use NY 32 outside 32 and Route 32 (Route 32 redundantly would look horrible).^Mitch32^contribs 10:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the person responsible for the route description, I've long insisted on being less monotonous and mixing that sort of thing up (also with "the road" and "the highway"). I don't see how switching back and forth between "NY 32" and "Route 32" causes confusion — the article is about NY Route 32, after all. I also think (and I'm in the minority here, I know) that occasionally using just "32" on third running reference, like most people do in casual conversation when giving directions, is OK and easier on the reader. It is very easy to write a boring description of a highway's route, particularly when you're not trying not to. Mixing up your main noun as long as it remains clear is one way to avoid it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Soon after which, it passes Kingston-Ulster Airport" - remove the "which", or merge that with the previous sentence... that phrase doesn't work in a new sentence...
• "One hundred and seventy-four years after its creation" - why not just use 174?

And that's all I found; it mostly looks good to me (but then, reviewing isn't my strong suit...). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - If there's anything else, just tell me.^Mitch32^contribs 10:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(delayed) Support. giggy _(:O) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:787 at Route 32 in Albany, NY.jpg, Image:Routes 9 and 32 in Glens Falls.jpg and Image:Old alignment of NY 32.jpg have discrepancies in that they assert photos by Steve Alpert are public domain (a claim I didn't see on the website, by the way), but the license used is CC-by-sa 3.0. Where is support for the PD claim? Where is support for the CC claim? Which one, if any, is the actual license?
    • Here is the link for the attribution: [1]. I believe I read it correctly.^Mitch32^contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see the words "public domain" or "creative commons" on that page? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, do you know the correct license? Images are not my cup of tea. This can easily be solved with a fixed license.^Mitch32^contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate: Why are all of the shields in the infobox and "Major intersections" section necessary? Why, for example, do we need the redundancy of a 17 shield next to text of "NY 17"? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As part of this, it follows US Roads standards. If you want to comment, bring it at WT:USRD.^Mitch32^contribs 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is at FAC. I've brought the issue up here. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only reason is that its done in every road article.^Mitch32^contribs 22:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is true, it is. But no one mentioned this when New York State Route 174, nor Interstate 355 got promoted. It hasn't been an issue with British highways like A500 road, a GA, or M62 motorway (also featured). My take: We do this because a) the road shields are all PD and b) it's helpful when you're parsing text. The different shape of the NY state highway shield and the US highway shield register faster to some readers' brains than the corresponding text does. Is FAC really the right place to bring up what one project has adopted as a policy for itself as long as it doesn't contradict WP policy as a whole?

          Honestly, I don't find them redundant. If we just had shields, non-US readers would be confused as to the different shapes; if we just had text, nobody would read the junction list. My take. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          • And you can't link the image to the article. Not yet, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: I have added two very recent images to the article, one of replaces one of the two images in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "Catskill Point, in 1820, built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]" — Perhaps "In 1820, Catskill Point built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck.[9]"

Gary King (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done - All done, man. Thanks!^Mitch32^contribs 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is that little images in the infobox helpful? It is redundant. --Efe (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in the columns Roads intersected and Notes under Major intersections? --Efe (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're put there for a reason. The reason is to give a better idea of what the road intersects. This is done in every single road article on Wiki, and if this gets changed, the whole project will be in havoc figuring out what to do. Also, I completely concur with Daniel Case. Why didn't these come up at my prior FAC's and USRD's 8 prior ones? ^Mitch32^contribs 10:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example is this: I-87/Thruway. The words already explained what is intended. No use at all. --Efe (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one, where it says to I-87/Thruway has actually been removed because it does not prove a real specific point.^Mitch32^contribs 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I still don't see any importance of those little images. Like writing prose, those correspond flowery words. --Efe (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to worry about flowery prose or anything like that in the infobox. This has project wide consensus and I concur with Mitch and Daniel's reasoning above. I don't find them redundant; rather, quite useful. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Having the shields assists readers who would recognize the shield more than the text. In any event, this isn't the place to argue about it, as it's irrelevant to the quality of the article. As I've said before, FAC is a discussion to determine if an article meets the FA criterion, not about personal preference. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that this is a non-issue. Nothing about the shield usage impacts upon FA criteria. It's a settled practice in the US, UK and Canadian roads articles. In showing the NY 32 article to a coworker and asking her opinion about the issue, her thought was that it gives information visually. To paraphrase her, "that way you know if it's a US Highway or an Interstate or whatever." Several recent FACs have promoted USRD articles recently without mention of the shields in the infobox (I-355, Chickasaw Turnpike, NY 174, I-70, I-15, M-35, NY 175) so for what it's worth, past precedent and project consensus sides with retaining them. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. Maybe its just me who see it very unnecessary. --Efe (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - What a joy it is to read a well-written article on a road that I frequent. (Perhaps keep that in mind when counting my support) I also never thought that this much could be written about what amounts to a local road, and not a major interstate highway. Just a few minor suggestions.

• Harriman to Newburgh: I am quite familiar with the five-lane intersection in Vails Gate, known as the Five Corners. It is complicated, but if I had to choose a word to describe it I would say congested. Here's a link for you.[2] The Five Corners name may be worth a mention, but that's your call.

I have had the experience of driving through this intersection on the way to work in the morning too. I guess we can call it congested, although most of the article would be better material for the main Vails Gate article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• New Paltz to Kingston: "1930 New York Times article detailing the 1930 renumbering" Two 1930s here. Try to adjust one of them.
• "From Rosendale, NY 32 climbs up out of the Rondout valley" I'm not certain about this, but I believe valley should be capitalized.

I guess we could do that ... I got about 28,500 Ghits starting with the school district, so it does have some currency. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Designation: A block of references [3][16] is not after punctuation.
• Suffixed routes: Refs here aren't after punctuation, although this may be intentional. Giants2008 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very good article, compliments to the writers :) Mojska ^{all you want} 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes: MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate needs to be dealt with (Project guidelines contradicts MoS). I've not encountered such a cluttered infobox on any other FAC; also, there is a commons link in the infobox (see WP:GTL, commons go in external links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the other road FACs? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per concerns originally noted:
  • Image:Routes 9 and 32 in Glens Falls.jpg and Image:Old alignment of NY 32.jpg are still being used. Assertion of public domain is patently false. Source explicitly requests/requires attribution. A public domain work, by definition, cannot require attribution. Further, site does not assert a license. The {{Attribution}} template is not appropriately applied, as the source makes no statement one way or another about derivative or commercial works. In the absence of the author indicating a specific license, these must be explicitly stated to be allowed if we are to apply one for him (i.e. the attribution license). This can be resolved by emailing the author and filing an OTRS ticket, per WP:COPYREQ.
  • Per MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate. What other articles do and implications of removing shields from this article thereon do not matter. This article is being evaluated against the FA criteria. Criterion 2 says "It follows the style guidelines", and links to MoS. MOS:FLAG states "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style". As the FA criteria are currently worded, MoS compliance is mandatory; MOS:FLAG is a part thereof. Further, the FA criteria require "professional standards of writing and presentation". The shields are redundant (shield design corresponds to the letter prefix) and are not reasonably expected to be meaningful (beyond what is already provided by text) to either Americans or foreigners. Shields reduce load time, are distracting, unprofessional and unnecessary. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, the shield pictures don't have to be there, but they are on the rest of the USRD FAs. Granted, me bringing that up does violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but what I am trying to say is, with all these FAs passed, it apparently does not affect the article's compliance with the FA criteria. The purpose those images serve is to allow the reader to quickly identify a route, so MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate does not apply here. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, maybe Elcobbola has a point. The intersection lists in the infoboxes are actually somewhat redundant, given that we have a full table further down where I think the use of the shields could be more easily defended. MOS:FLAG was written because people were (and still are) overusing those little flag icons. And I see the connection

        Perhaps we can just get rid of the infobox "major intersections" list (the criteria for which we've never really had consensus on — first it was "all interstates, freeways and US routes", then it was "to illustrate the progress of the highway through different regions" which I never got and is, indeed, somewhat redundant when you've already got a map. Taken with this "commonscat in infobox" thing, which again I never got and seemed to be unique to USRD, it's yet another illustration of the insularity of the USRD project as a whole that the ArbCom recently pointed out. I'll at least put that down at the end. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • I wouldn't mind seeing the intersections list in the infobox done away with, but I got the impression that Elcobbola was referring to the shields in the major intersection chart. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Addendum: I made all the edits to address these issues save for the shields at the bottom of the infobox, which come from the template code and would have to be remedied globally. As for the intersection list, I have always thought that for long roads that table should be spun off as a separate list article anyway (from NYSR, see U.S. Route 20 in New York in particular ... come on, that adds five extra pages to the printout that no one but road geeks really need) and maybe now would be a good time to start. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Firstly, thank you for addressing the images with licensing issues; that was my primary concern. Again, what other FAs do or have done is not germane, as they were not necessarily scrutinized for this issue. Each FA candidate needs to stand or fall on its own merit in regards to the criteria. I hope we can make steps towards, at least, compromise and implications, if any, on other road articles can be addressed in alternative, appropriate venues.

I am happy with the infobox; I realize there are technical limitations to the template and the remaining shields therein are not a concern. The "Major intersections" section does indeed remain problematic. I think there is validity to the idea that it is information overload (i.e. unnecessary detail) and the information may be better suited to its own list article (perhaps you could get two featured "articles" out of a split). As it is, however, there seems to be reasonable argument to be made that it violates WP:NOT#STATS. Are all of these intersections truly major and is their listing absolutely necessary to have a compressive understanding (remember, comprehensive is only the coverage of all major facts and details)? If not, would it be possible to select some that are more notable/important than others and cover them in a prose format? Alternatively, if all are indeed needed, would a (perhaps blank) shield for the first instance of a given road type (NY, CR, I) be sufficient? Other suggestions? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a precedent against separate articles for the junction tables. The use of junction tables has been proliferated across all of WP:HWY (especially see WP:ELG) and there would be a massive loss of data if they were removed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, exactly, would be lost by removing the intersection lists from all surface-road articles? (ELGs for limited-access routes are different; I can see keeping them). Per the discussion I've opened at WT:USRD, the only information unique to those tables within the article is the mileages, and frankly that's rather trivial. Almost all other information in those tables can easily be included in the prose route description. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, that suggestion was not per me; I'd support it, but I'll leave that to the road folks. The shields, however, need to be resolved. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be up for either of the following:
  • If a road is repeated in the major intersections chart, it does not need a shield the second time and after.
  • Remove the shields completely.
• Your decision would be useful, but go ahead and think. The definition of a "major road" is ones that are either, state-maintained roads, former state roads, U.S. Routes and Interstates. County Routes are usually not added.^Mitch32^contribs 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • For now, pending the lack of any consensus on removing the junction table entirely, I think we should just remove the shields. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Here is my take on the recent issues that popped up recently. It is my understanding that an infobox is a summary of the information contained in the article. If that understanding is correct, then the summarized list of junctions and the termini is appropriate to be included. As for the shields, there's a technical issue at work. The preferred method would be to display:

in Marquette

in an infobox but have the shields be clickable links to the articles. Since clicking the shield graphics brings up the image page and not an article, there's the redundancy. As to the value of the shields, they do provide a valuable reference point. Some of the roads articles use a state highway in another state as the terminal junction as the subject highway meets the state line. State highway markers are different in different states.

I've seen military articles though that use as many (or more) actual flags in the infobox to illustrate the nations/states on each side of a war or a battle. Given this usage, if the shield objection on highway articles is upheld, then I suggest WP:MILHIST needs to be contacted on their usage of flags in infoboxes.

As a secondary argument, I will say that MOS:FLAG doesn't exactly apply here. MOS:FLAG deals mostly with flag graphics. As to its application to other graphics, shield graphics should only be in use in the infobox and junction/exit lists, not the prose. It's the opinion of this editor that the graphics are not just "window dressing". They do provide a graphical/visual point of reference. In discussing this issue with a coworker who does not edit Wikipedia, nor is she a "roadgeek", her expressed opinion was that it helps emphasize the difference between Interstates, US Highways, state highways, and in the rare, notable cases used, county highways. If a non-editor who does read finds utility in including them, then I argue others do as well. If nothing else, this is about making the best encyclopedia for the readers. WP:IAR does state: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (emphasis in original) If MOS:FLAG is preventing highway articles from providing the best information to the end-user, then we should apply IAR.

As to the issues discussed about the commons cat in the infobox, {{infobox road}} is used by more than US articles. It is not a purely WP:USRD template. A simple change to the template can be made if needed and I don't honestly care either way. If it streamlines the infobox and complies better, I say pull it from the template.

That's just my three cents on the issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked some MilHist coordinators to weigh in here (the MilHist infoboxes, to my eye, aren't nearly as cluttered). Pulling Commons from the infobox shouldn't present a big problem (should it)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section of MOS:FLAG states "Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration" (emphasis mine); it is absolutely relevant in word and spirit. I've raised the issue because I feel the shields -- in their current use and quantity -- are a detriment to the article for aforementioned reasons; IAR, therefore, is not applicable, as retention of the shields is not necessary to improve or maintain Wikipedia. What other projects or articles do is irrelevant; we are discussing this article. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Elcobbola, I did remove the shields from NY 32's Major intersections chart, if that's not enough, tell me what else there is to do.^Mitch32^contribs 14:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve the merge issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just contacted Daniel Case in request remove the tag as there is precedent against the proposed merge.^Mitch32^contribs 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - The tag has been removed. Anything else?^Mitch32^contribs 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You meant split, not merge, but I'd like to know (although this may not be the place) what the precedent was. The only time I recall it being discussed was by JA10 and myself re U.S. Route 9 in New York; I cited the fact that in the rivers and bridges projects we've routinely split off the "List of crossings of ..." articles for what I see as similar reasons, and he said that was worth considering with the long junction list (diff later, when I can find it). Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Transportation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. As I've said, this discussion has led me to think that the intersection lists are superfluous to begin with and that articles about surface roads could do without them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would be willing to throw out other people's thousands of hours of work and the added information that the lists provide? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, that would include some of my own work. Second, we've discarded lots of things that people have worked hard on because they didn't fit with policy, or a changed policy, in the past many times before (ask a lot of fair-use images no longer permitted, or look through deleted articles and read the many "X in popular culture" articles.). Third, see WP:EFFORT. Fourth, as I said before the information in the intersection lists is arguably either redundant to what is or could be included in the route description or is trivial and indiscriminate and doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fifth, there are plenty of external roadfan websites that do provide or aspire to provide the information those lists contain that we either could link to or already do (in the instant case, see here). Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this issue is that we are writing an encyclopaedia for the readers. The guidelines are only there to live up to or exceed the readers' expectations; us editors do not need to be too insular to those guidelines, as they do mention that exceptions exist. If casual readers that do not have the MOS memorised word-for-word makes a comment about keeping the shields (for example), then that comment is something to think about. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (GMT)

The article currently has an uncluttered infobox and the split tag has been removed; has anyone pinged Elcobbola to see if he is satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) There seem to be two issues that people are bringing up here: 1) the shields and 2) the major intersections section. The shields may not be that useful, and in truth we may actually gain something over removing them as there are editors that edit war over shields. (not naming names, but I think we all know who...) However, the major intersections section gives the reader a general idea of how far exits / junctions are apart on the route. Sure, you could weave it into the prose, but the information would not be nearly as accessible. Many people are visual and need to see the table. So in summary, I would be willing to support removing the shields in the sense of compromise, but in no way would I support the removal of the major intersections section as I see no good reason to throw out hours of people's work. You have not effectively shown how this is indiscriminate information. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to at least eliminating the shields, for exactly the reason you mentioned (And yes, I know exactly what and whom you're referring to. This might be a better solution to that issue than anything the ArbCom came up with). Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MilHist group has guidelines on flags and their article infoboxes aren't as cluttered as this one was (IMO), so differences/similarities may be worth examining at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally think the volume of shields is an eyesore—untidy and intrusive. Sorry, guys, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Weighing in late with my opinion here, but oh well. :-) In general, your average traveler identifies routes first by either name or number. Most people don't know the practical difference between "the 101" and "the 5", so the shield helps identify what the route is (U.S. Route vs. Interstate) besides the fact one is linked to US 101 and the other, I-5. The short form of my argument is; the images do happen to serve an important purpose - assistance in identification. —Rob (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Some paragraphs in the history section are not focused. Dabby (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to specific examples? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History - Old roads section. Not focused enough. Dabby (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • How is it not focused enough? At a FAC you need to be pretty specific so that we know you're not making up problems with the article and so that we know you know what you are postulating. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is specific - that whole section needs to focus on the route, not the stuff happening around it. If you wanted to be even more specific, I would say that the article should not make reference to the business growth and expansion just because the route was built. Dabby (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the effects of the route - which is what an encyclopedia is about - an encyclopedia is supposed to be connected. This is what differentiates an encyclopedia from a dictionary. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1820, Catskill Point built a short causeway to an island named Bomptjes Hoeck." How is this related to the NY 32? It isn't even close to the southern terminus of the route. Even an encyclopedia like Wikipedia wouldn't be that broad. Dabby (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not related at all... if you take it out of context. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, exactly? Dabby (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Dabby, that sentence has been removed.^Mitch32^contribs 10:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dabby, do you have any more concerns about the Old roads section? I see some repetitive phrasing, and am concerned that informal phrasing like "closed its doors" when speaking of a road may be lost on readers for whom English isn't a first language.

• Route 32 was once made up of several privately-owned turnpikes that stretched throughout New York. A stretch from Catskill to Cairo was once part of the Susquehanna Turnpike. ... The turnpike closed its doors after 1899. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple sentences are not transitionally smooth. For example, "The turnpike closed its doors after 1899. In 1974, the turnpike was added to the National Register of Historic Places." It talks about the occurrence of "closing its doors" in 1899, then goes straight to 1974. Anything we can do to smooth out those two sentences? Dabby (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it should swing better to your liking.^Mitch32^contribs 22:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I cannot support this article for promotion at this time. End users may or may not immediately grasp the various abbreviations in use for the different classes or types of highways in the US or other countries. Removing the shields has eliminated a visual clue akin to the accepted usage of flag icons in other articles and until restored I oppose promotion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the following:
  • 1A: article is indeed well-written. Roads tend to be seen as mundane objects; despite this inherent obstacle, article maintains reader interest (i.e. is engaging). B: Although not an area of personal expertise, information reasonably expected to exist and warrant inclusion appears to be present and covered in sufficient detail. C: Article is reliably sourced. D) No neutrality concerns. E) No stability concerns (split proposal removed - and not really germane to this criterion anyway)
  • 2: Lead, structure and citations appear to all be in compliance with the criterion. Removal of the shields has brought MOS compliance, enhanced visual appeal (i.e. "professional standards of ... presentation") and enhanced readability. I find the Major intersections much more legible and functional. Icons, like multiple citations, ^[1][2][3][4] disrupt the flow and, more importantly here, accessibility. Readers knowledgeable about the meaning of the shields in the first place seem reasonably expected to understand the abbreviations.
  • 3: No image concerns.
  • 4: Article is of appropriate length. Major intersections section has prima facie appearance of excessive detail. However, comment above "defining" major roads establishes some degree of relevance and necessity to maintain comprehensiveness. This section is relevant, well-organized and its length does not interfere with the readability of the article. Ultimately, it seems an entirely reasonable supplement (i.e. no criterion 4 violation). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, concerns addressed. Great work! --Laser brain (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, 1a. The prose is just OK in parts, very choppy and not engaging. I found lots of problems early on. Attention from a solid copy-editor is needed.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.