Talk:Blue Ridge Road/GA1

GA Review

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

I am reviewing this article and expect to have comments Monday or Tuesday. --Polaron | Talk 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article is generally ok but some of the writing is unclear or awkward. I have copyedited the route description section but the lead and history should be as well. More specific issues are listed below this list.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Approximately when was Blue Ridge Road turned over to the county? Approximately when did 910K become a state road?

   C. No original research:

   Length is sourced to Yahoo Maps. I don't think the precision to the hundredth of a mile is attributable reliably to Yahoo Maps. Same for the junction list.

   There's a rounding error -- 18.48 should be 18.5 not 18.4

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Image is of a hamlet not directly on the road and is not appropriate for the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article is on hold pending required fixes. --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Prose issues

• Lead mentions "three items" but does not expound at all in the article what those three are. Better to remove this.
• Lead mentions "western extension of NY 73". Reword to clarify that this road was formerly part of NY 73 before it was truncated.

• This part is still unclear. If you're going to talk about three highways, you should add a sentence discussing the background information and list these three highways. However, that would be too off-topic for the lead. Suggest just saying "...is part of a former alignment of NY 73 prior to its truncation to X".

• Try to replace "short segment of highway" and "simple". Suggestion would be to say "short, state-maintained section of the road" and combine 2nd and first phrase of the 3rd sentences into one.

• The 2nd and first half of the 3rd sentence should be combined.

• Lengths in the context of the lead should be written as 18-mile or 0.72-mile.

  You should probably write out mileage to the tenth for consistency. Also, why was the 910K length removed?

• There is no need to bold words in the lead unless these are redirects to this article.
• Route description -- I have made changes to the route description and should be mostly ok. Please check to make sure I did not insert inaccurate statements or introduce new typographical errors.
• Try to reword the first sentence of History to avoid saying "the 1930 renumbering in January 1930".
• Second sentence of history: clarify that "the route" refers to the original alignment of NY 73.
• Second sentence of history: reword second phrase (which went southward...) to clarify that NY 73 joins US 9.

• 9 is the primary route here so a better phrasing would be NY 73 joins US 9. Anyway, this is a minor point and I can let this one by.

• Add a comma at the end of "at the time"
• What do you mean by second class highway? If there is no wikilink, you need to briefly describe what it means.
• Remove the length from the third sentence of History. Reword the sentence accordingly.

• The sentence is still confusing: "The route was...a state highway...and...was turned over to the county." When was it turned over to the county? Immediately after it became a state highway? A time phrase (even an indefinite one) needs to be inserted here otherwise it doesn't make sense.

• Don't use "truncated off". "Removed from" is a better phrasing.

• It's probably better to use one of either "removed" or "truncated" but not both.

• Don't use "the bit" -- "the section" may be a better way of saying this.
• "were given" should be "was given" and change "received" to "assigned" for grammatical consistency.

• "were assigned" should be "was assigned"

• Also, please check Infobox termini for accuracy.

All done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 21:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the western terminus to Newcomb, which is technically accurate, and fixed one sentence in the lead. With your fixes, that should take care of all the issues brought up so I'm passing the article. Congratulations. --Polaron | Talk 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)