Talk:New York State Route 162

New York State Route 162 was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 19, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	New York
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 162/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will review this article. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments below. There are two sentences whose coherency is unclear. The lead could be expanded, especially regarding the History section.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are only two references that I had access to, and these match the meaning of what is written. The others seem to be carefully included with precise information, and I have no reason to believe they may have been used inaccurately or with plagiarism.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article covers the geographic traits and the history of the route. ~~These seems to be a good amount of coverage to include.~~ It could also be an idea to consider mentioning notable destinations in the area that would lead someone to travel this route (see below)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral with no biases.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable. No edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Both of the images used are in Wikipedia Commons and have suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Mostly very good writing and thorough. A couple of small points:

"The origins of NY 162 date back to the late 1900s..." Should this read "early 1900s" or possibly "late 1800s"?
In the second paragraph of the Route description section, there is: "The scenery in Charlestown does not change from where it was in Carlisle, as NY 162 remains a two-lane rural road." This seems to equate "NY 162 remains a two-lane rural road" = "The scenery ... does not change". I wasn't sure how valid the equation of these two ideas is. Perhaps consider taking this sentence out altogether—if there is no change in the road, do you need to mention it? Or, if there is more significance there that I have missed, possibly consider rewording it to make it clearer.
The lead is a little bit sparse. I mean, it does summarize the very very biggest ideas in the article, but you could consider adding a few more details if you wanted. For example, the first part of the lead mentions landmarks at the beginning and end of the highway, but maybe another sentence mentioning some of the communities it runs through could be useful to the reader? Also, the History section is summed up by just one sentence and only incidentally mentions "an accident-prone stretch". But the History section goes into a fair amount of detail relative gravity of the highway's dangerousness over 60+ years, and earlier measures to deal with this danger. This seems like it could be useful to flesh out at least a little bit in the lead. Moisejp (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick drive by comment (since I might be roadtripping New York State next year) ... a concern about this is it seems to be quite short and full of jargon. The "Route description" doesn't seem to tell me anything I can't deduce from a map (which simply tells me "this is a shortcut between U20 and I90 in mid NY") , while the teasing bit in the lead about the Mohawk Valley, something which I might want to see as a tourist, is glossed over. There is no mention of Yatesville Falls State Forest Park or Rural Grove State Forest Park which seem to be close by (and possibly a key reason to actually travel on this route). The lead mentions the Sprakers Gorge, a teasing redlink, but this is not mentioned in the body. Now I'm not particularly against transport GAs (having done a few myself), but all in all, I'm confused as to what audience this article is intended for. Anyway, free advice, feel to use, discard or flame to a crisp at your leisure. ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 makes some valid points that I hadn't noticed or thought of. Sprakers Gorge is mentioned in the lead but not in the body. Also, as Ritchie suggests, would it be worthwhile to discuss, even briefly, some of the "touristy" or otherwise "important" destinations that might lead someone to travel this route? Are, as Ritchie mentions, Yatesville Falls State Forest Park or Rural Grove State Forest Park relevant? Moisejp (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given my time period right now, probably best we fail it. My bad on timing. Won't have a new computer for a while. Mitch32^{(The imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity.)} 03:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. It is unfortunate bad timing that you had to wait so long for this review, only to be reviewed when you are having computer issues. I wish you better luck the next time you nominate. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I've said before, I don't like the word "fail". I prefer the term "not listed". "Fail" implies "you're no good at writing a GA", which is poppycock. It just means "we can't get this to GA short term". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]