Talk:New York State Route 178/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Quality of article is good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Article complies with MoS.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   See comment section below. Good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comment section below. Good.

   C. No original research:

   See comment section below. Good.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article covers all major aspects of the topic.

   B. Focused:

   Article remains on topic throughout.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   All images are tagged correctly.

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

   Images are provided and contain suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Second opinion needed. Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• One problem I see here is how reference number 4 can describe everything that is being mentioned from it is supposed to support. I need a second opinion on this.--Dom497 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

I have never used Bing maps in this way, but regularly use Ordnance Survey (UK) maps in a similar fashion. Such usage is covered by Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles. Care is needed to ensure that the map is only used to draw the sort of conclusions that it was intended for, but in this case, it has been used to describe geographical features, which is exactly the purpose for which the map was produced. I cannot see any attempt to deduce dates, etc, for any of the features, and therefore its use in this instance is a correct use of such resources. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Add some references to the table to support the info there.

Once a second opinion from another user comes in, I will see from there if the article should be passed, failed, or put on hold.--Dom497 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The table doesn't need more sources than the one it has, which already mentions everything in the table. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly standard practice to use one of the three major online mapping services (Bing, Google or Yahoo! Maps) as a source for the route description section of a highway article. Unlike paper maps, these services contain a wide variety of viewing scales, detail levels and aerial/satellite photography that can be used to cite the physical landscape along the highway. The services also list landmarks, businesses and other details to allow those facts to be included. While I normally prefer to see the citation to an online map paired with a paper map product, such as the appropriate state DOT or tourism bureau map or the appropriate page/inset from a Rand McNally atlas, such a pairing isn't actually needed.

As for the citations in the junction list table, the NYSDOT Report lists the mileage between those intersections (simple arithmetic is not OR), the county where the highway is located, and other pertinent details that verify all of the information for those four intersections. Articles with this level of citation have passed WP:FAC without issue (see Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles). Imzadi 1979 → 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your opinions! After reading yout opinions, I have decided to pass the article!--Dom497 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)