Talk:New York State Route 63

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "The extra traffic has had a mixed effect on some of the communities in the stretch between Geneseo and Batavia." A very generic sentence, which isn't really appropriate for the lead. Please state the effects. Personal opinion: "Presently" shouldn't be used in the route description. "key junction"... maybe "major junction" instead? What are "major trouble routes"? "Many possibilities were mentioned," ... by whom? In general that paragraph is a bit awkward and should be rewritten. The future section has a three-phrase sentence that could stand to be split.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Are trucks specifically prohibited in Greigsville? If so, note that, otherwise cite an article about trucks running through Greigsville in spite of the signs. The 1990s widening needs to be cited. "Here at least some Buffalo-bound traffic will turn west." -- could use some AADT numbers to support this assertion. "The expressway would likely mimic the orientation of US 20A and NY 238. The expressway proposal also involved an interchange at or very close to Darien Lake Theme Park to alleviate congestion on NY 77 between the park and the Thruway in the summer." needs to be cited.

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:

   "...a busy middle section between Geneseo and Batavia, and the much less-traveled sections north and south of it." Needs to be quantified with numbers. "From Greigsville, 63 heads east through some open land with terrific views over the Genesee valley on clear does and into a brief corner of Wyoming County, where it turns to head due northwest, its direction for the next 30 miles." Loooong sentence, not NPOV and I think there's a typo there too.

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):

   Article does need more pictures, since the road is about 80 miles long.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good work! —Rob (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I got everything. Thanks for the review. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement about the Geneseo-Batavia segment being the busiest appears to be unfounded; the AADT is fairly consistent throughout the route. Ditto for the statement about traffic turning west at US 20; heading north, the AADT for the segment immediately following US 20 is actually higher than the AADT for the segment preceding US 20. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All right - I think I've updated the GA review to be current with the current state of the article. —Rob (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I got that last issue fixed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still the "trucks in Greigsville" thing. The article appears to claim that trucks are traveling through Greigsville in spite of signs warning against this, and that it's a problem; but there's no source to back it up. Otherwise I did strike out that other problem. —Rob (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Trucks are not an uncommon sight despite signage on 390 instructing them to use the Thruway for their entire trip." -- I personally think that needs to be cited... it's not obvious from Google Maps, which is the source given. If it's not a notable concern, the sentence should be removed; if it is a notable concern, a source should be found to back it up (i.e., local newspaper article). Same deal with "This section was widened to four lanes in the 1990s, one of the few concessions made by NYSDOT to its use as an intercity trunk road." —Rob (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I can't find a source, so I just removed those two sentences. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I don't advocate complete removal of every sentence that doesn't have a source, but for sentences that take a specific position on an observable issue, I prefer sources. —Rob (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)