Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:08, 21 February 2009 [1].

New York State Route 382[edit]

Nominator(s): Mitch32(Go Syracuse)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it does meet the FA criteria. Short as it is, the highway no longer exists, and is actually severed by the Southern Tier Expressway. I tried my best to get the information I could in. As usual, all comments are welcomed.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am a WikiCup 2009 competitor, but this is more for a FT I have been working on, which is a more important reason.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 04:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the notion of a FA on a "highway" just 1.3km long, but the prose would benefit from some tightening. As an example, the very first paragraph:

New York State Route 382 (NY 382) was a state highway in the town of Red House in Cattaraugus County, New York. The highway, 0.8 miles (1.3 km) in length, extended from NY 17 to the Red House entrance of Allegany State Park. The route was assigned in the 1930s and removed in the 1970 following the construction of Southern Tier Expressway's Interchange 19, whcih severed the highway. The NY 382 designation, now unused, is reserved by the New York State Department of Transportation as a future designation for NY 88. Maps and postcards showed the area of NY 382 and NY 17 as two local roads and a bridge over the Allegany River.

My first stab:

New York State Route 382 (NY 382) was a state highway in Red House in Cattaraugus County, New York. The highway, 0.8 miles (1.3 km) long, went from NY 17 to the Red House entrance of Allegany State Park. The name was assigned in the 1930s and removed in the 1970s after the building of Southern Tier Expressway's Interchange 19, which severed the highway. Now unused, the name is reserved by the New York State Department of Transportation as a future name for NY 88. Maps and postcards showed the area of NY 382 and NY 17 as two local roads and a bridge over the Allegany River.

I've incidentally corrected two typos in that -- rather alarming in a first paragraph. Morenoodles (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the paragraph. Looks good :) - Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 13:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Remove |language=English from the references.
  • Surely you can find publisher info for ref #11. If not, just use the name of the website it's hosted on.
  • Sources look good otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am continuing my campaign of advocating for a minimum level of notability for featured articles. In my opinion a state highway that was less than a mile long and no longer exists is simply not important enough to have a featured article. I understand that the FA criteria don't explicitly demand a higher level of notability for FAs than for articles in general, so this is simply an expression of my personal opinion. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded reason to oppose. NY 382 is the only one of its kind and is notable in its own way. Your oppose is unactionable, so it can be null and voided I believe.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. The place to discuss criteria changes is Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria, not on individual nominations. --Laser brain (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the two above comments, this is a POINTy oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on people. While I disagree with Looie496, I think he makes a reasonable point (or "POINT") and does so politely. Actually I'm touched by his point, because it raises the mind-boggling possibility of an FA being sent to AfD for non-notability of subject matter. If that did happen, the AfD would surely fail, but it might be fun to watch. (And no, I am not a lover of what's dismissively referred to as drama.) Morenoodles (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but he/she could have brought the subject up as a discussion point instead of a reason to oppose. Anyway, it is non-actionable; opposes over subject matter do not factor into the consensus. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The bullets look tacky. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I removed them, as it's redundant to what's already in the text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::I also don't really like the heading structure - "The highway is designated" just looks weird (try "Designation"?) and "Post-designation" should probably be put under History. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 11:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE - Why should a route that WASN'T even a mile long be nominated as a FA? Plus the route has been defunct for almost 40 years. I also don't like that for years existed, you have a rough estimate of 1930s-1970s. Everything should be perfect if you want "Feature status"! And I must say that there are still tons of ACTIVE state route pages that need a lot of work. I don't understand why so much time is being placed into making a dead state route FA. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's this page called the "featured article criteria". I hear it's quite helpful when trying to determine if an article should be featured. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't notable enough in my opinion. I'd find it funny if the featured article today is Barack Obama and the featured article tomorrow is New York State Route 382. Doesn't make sense to me. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::::TFA is different than FA, last I checked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::::So, there are many people who have been dead for 40 years that have encyclopedia articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable enough" isn't part of the FA criteria. If it passes WP:N there's no reason why it can't become featured. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-actionable oppose. Opposes over subject matter will be discounted. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The prose could use improvement. For instance, The highway progressed eastward from the highway, and into a cut of several mountains, which were marked on the United States Geological Survey's topographical maps. It simply isn't possible to parse that sentence. Which highway progressed eastward from which highway? And what was marked on the USGS map, mountains or highways or both? Notability opposes are invalid, btw. Mitchazenia is on a productive campaign to raise the entire state highway system of New York to featured topic status, so of course that means an occasional minor article such as this one. Fellow editors should be encouraging such thoroughness in more subjects, not tossing arbitrary obstacles into the paths of hard workers. DurovaCharge! 21:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can make the argument that everything is notable from someone's perspective. My grandfather had over 1,000 people at his funeral. If I create a wiki page for him it would be taken down in a heartbeat. From what I read NY 382 linked NY 17 to a town with 38 residents! So more people knew my grandfather than probably knew about 382. It is a nice article, well written, but we need to have a stronger definition of what notable is. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of people at his funeral doesn't matter. Notability criteria for people involve accomplishments and people writing about them. That last one (written sources on the subject matter) also applies to roads. (WP:GNG) - Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are missing the point. All the sources in the article pertain to the state park or areas surrounding the road. One paragraph of the article depicts a postcard that just happens to have the road in the picture. The main picture in the infobox doesn't even show the road! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in arguing about this particular article here. If you feel that minor state routes should not have articles, feel free to take 8,000 or so to AFD. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid excuse. Also, how in anyway does this article compare to New York State Route 22 that is a featured article? --GroundhogTheater (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said this article should stay because other articles exist; please stop with the false accusations. What I said is that it's not a matter of deleting one article. There are thousands of state route articles on Wikipedia, and to change that, there needs to be extensive and project-wide discussion. Not a few comments at FAC or AFD. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Way to Elevation - Groundhog makes a good point, and I broke down the sources. All the sources in the article pertain to the state park or areas surrounding the road. Several are maps, and some of those maps aren't even from the state in which the road was located. And a few are from Google which any road can be found on. These two sources make no sense (#17 and #18). They say nothing about NY 382! Quantity does not equal quality! Article should not be elevated, it should be reduced to a blurb within the Allegany State Park page. If you want to put it on a main list of NY routes, that would be ok too. But for this to be featured? --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I edited this article but wasn't aware that it was a FAC until recently. This is an interesting article. I've reviewed the criteria and I support elevation to FA. Two opposes are mainly about the road being obscure. The FA criteria are all met ( see WP:FACR ). WP:FAC states that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it.". Nothing can be done about the subject matter short of AFD/deletion. The article has passed AFD as keep. Many FAs are not big name encyclopedia topics (like Canada, Osama bin Laden, or World War I might be). Good job, Mitch in writing the article! Chergles (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So just ignore the fact that the sources have nothing to do with the route. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification requested: A claim has been made that sources do not support the text cited to them. Is this true? If so, it cannot simply be ignored – the article cannot be promoted in its present state. If the claim is not true it should be withdrawn immediately. Can we have a proper response to the allegation? Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Seems to be necessary background information to me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Brian, these sources do not pertain to NY 382. They include maps from other states, from the state park in which the route does not run in, postcards of the town the route is in, and two bad links that BurpTheBaby outlined earlier. It may look like there are adqeuate sources because there are 18 sources, but they aren't good at all. I would recommend bringing in a neutral third-party to evaluate them. Rschen is a bit biased to the information being involved in the topic for so long. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

****Thank you for assuming good faith. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead - do units of measurement need to be linked? Not sure about this.
  • The link to Allegheny State Park is confusing as you cover the entire route in this article.
  • "At that time, NY 17 was an at-grade highway rather than the Southern Tier Expressway, as it is now." - seems like a weird way to phrase it
  • "The road which follows the alignment of NY 382, however, is now designated Bay Shore Road." - what? I thought it never went that far, at least how I read it...
  • Administration should not be capitalized.
  • History - how can something be both a town and community?
  • This is a US article - should use meters not metres.
  • Route 382 not route 382

I think that people have been too busy trying to bash the article on notability grounds that they are completely overlooking other aspects of the article. I found several prose errors. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1c) See comments below : Evaluating the sources looks like a job for Ealdgyth to me, but in her absemce I've taken a look myself. I have to say that what I have found, on an incomplete evaluation, confirms what Groundhog says.

    • The lead map is captioned "Planned alignment of NY 382 shown in a 1923 map of Red House, New York". No such alignment is apparent from the map – where, exactly, is it indicated? The file description says nothing about Route 382: "This topographical map shows the Erie Railroad and Pennsylvania Railroad running through the town of Red House, New York".
    • Refs [2] and [13] are to the National Bridge Inventory. In what form is this inventory accessible? If published, publication details should be given, if on-line there should be a link.
    • Refs [4], [11] and [14] are other Wikipedia articles.
    • The relevance of the maps in [3] (Pennsylvania), [5] (Buffalo), [7] Pennsylvania again) and [8] (Alleghany State Park) are not immediately apparent. Were they added in response to the comment on the talkpage: "This article needs a map", or was relevance a factor in their selection?

The above were enough for me to conclude that this article is not properly referenced and fails criterion 1c. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was enough for me to conclude that this article meets criterion 1c. Refs 4, 11, and 14 are not WP articles. Someone has created a wikilink for those company names but the references themselves are scholarly references. That would be like saying "Smith, J, The Life and Times of Paris Hilton" and wikilinking Paris Hilton. I've also corrected the map caption to address any concerns. Chergles (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the first two. :) - The third one (Refs 4, 11 and 14), are actually maps, not other Wikipedia articles, the publisher of the map itself is wikilinked. As for the fourth (Refs 3, 5, 7 and 8) - They are used as relevance as a factor/reference in their respectable section. And the thing on the talk page is different then reference related.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources still don't pertain to the route at hand, and even if they did, they should be linked directly to the source. Merely linking another Wiki page is sloppy. Maybe that's fine for an article going for "B" level, but definitely not FA. As for the other maps, why are there sections on Pennsylvania when the route was in NY. This page is poorly cited, and a NEUTRAL observer in Brianboulton believes that as well. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the infobox "map" still doesn't show a planned 382 or anything to that effect. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed trying to be neutral, and fair. Let me comment on the responses to my earlier points.
  • The altered caption to the infobox map doesn't, in all honesty, help much. It says: "The alignment of which became NY 382 is on the far right near the actual community". Not the clearest of descriptions, and none of the various lines on the right, near the settlement of Red House, is identified as 382. So how can anyone identify it from this map?
  • The National Bridge Inventory references are now linked to an online page, presumably of this inventory. But both [2] and [13] are linked to the same page, which appears to describes a bridge built in 1970 with a completely different reference number. In the article we have the sentence: "Originally, the intersection of NY17 (ab-grade) and NY 382 had a 181 feet (55m) long continuous arch deck (built in 1940) which no longer exists[13]". None of these facts is evident from the linked source. So I cannot agree that my queries with these references have been "fixed".
  • I'm sorry I misunderstood the nature of refs 4, 11 and 14.
  • As to my querying the relevance of the maps in refs 3, 5, 7 and 8, I don't understand the reply given: "They are used as relevance as a factor/reference in their respectable section". So, I'm afraid, much of my scepticism about the sources remains. Brianboulton (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the caption completely. And as for the National bridge inventory, I screwed up 2 links, sorry - they have been fixed :) - As for the last one: They are being used as sources for the sentences and/or facts they are kept to. And to GroundhogTheater, all PennDOT and PennDOH maps over the years have marked New York routes along the southern tier of the state as well. I hope that clarifies that problem.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the caption away doesn't change the fact that the map doesn't show a constructed or future 382. And just because you updated your links doesn't mean that the sources aren't still inadequate for an article going for FA. I am having real trouble finding any real connection between the route and your sources. Links to other wiki pages is sloppy. And estimated creation date is sloppy. A map that doesn't show 382 is sloppy. The route description is 20% NY 382 and 80% Allegany Route 2. Which route is this page for? "FA" is the highest an article can go, so if you really think this page has reached the ceiling, then we're lowering the standards for FA across the board. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, "Featured article" is just an assessment class. No more important than B-Class. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed and this article does not belong there. It is not worthy of being deemed top level. Its not notable, based on the sources and sloppiness of the article. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FA isn't about what is "worthy". That's fine if you have concerns about sources, but opposes regarding the notability of a subject are completely baseless. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless in your opinion. The fact most sources pertain to the surrounding areas rather than the route itself can deem the route minimally notable. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a poor argument. The map from Pennsylvania covers NY 382. How does that make the route non-notable? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julian, I am opposing this article on the grounds of sources. I am not concerned here with notability issues or anything else. The concern is the lack of sources which specifically support information given in the article. And there is the matter of the infobox map, which gives no information about the location of NY 382 and as I see it, serves no purpose. I am actually worried about the lack of concern that some reviewers are showing about the sources issue. I will try and list all my concerns within the next couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References review: I've now looked at all the references to see the extent to which they support the information given in the article. The problem is, I haven't found one reference that specifically refers to the old route 382, enabling us to confirm that it existed where you say it existed. None of the maps I have seen show it (but see my comments on pdf maps). I am not suggesting that the references are themselves unreliable, just that they don't support this article. Then there is the question of the entirely non-informative map in the infobox. I'm sorry, as it stands the referencing does not meet the standard required by FA criterion 1c. The good faith of the nominator is not in question, and I will be pleased if my conclusions can be proved wrong.

  • [1] is a Google-created map which shows a route 0.8 miles long between two plotted points. There is nothing on the map to show that this route is that of the former NY 382, thus it does not provide independent support for the article.
  • [2] goes to a web page from the National Bridge Inventory. The page gives details of a bridge built in 1970. It is not clear to me how this page supports the information in the infobox that cites it as its source.
  • [3] is a "Tourist Map of Pennsylvania" It's in PDF format which is a problem for me – my computer doesn't like PDF and gives me endless grief when I try to use it. So I'll make no comment on the PDF sources
  • [4] is a 1935 map of New York State. I have not seen this map, so I can't evaluate its usefulness. However, the use of other maps as "references" in the article doesn't fill me with confidence about this one.
  • [5] is a very small-scale map of upstate New York. I have no idea how this map is supposed to support the specific statements cited to it.
  • [6] is a map entitled Official Description of Touring Routes in NY State (pdf).
  • [7] is another tourist map for Pennsylvania (pdf).
  • [8] is a Yahoo-created map of a route in Allegany State Park, that has no obvious relevance to this article
  • [9] is a web page: "Allegany State Park Red House Area" published by NYS Office of Parks. It supports the sentence cited to it, about the location of Pitt Cottage on ASP Route 2. But I wonder how relevant of such information is, to an article about NY 382? Could be construed as padding.
  • [10} A printed source which I am unable to comment on.
  • [11] - this should be combined with [12], since the Syracuse State University photographs are found there.
  • [12] Neither the map nor the postcard are helpful, though the postcard is charming. The map is the same as the one in the infobox, already commented on.
  • [13} is another page from the National Bridge Inventory. Once again, no reference in the source to 382. How does the source confirm that it is referring to a bridge that used to exist at the inersection of NY17 and NY382?
  • [14] is a 1974 map of New York and New Jersey which I have not seen – see comments re [4] above
  • [15] Various route descriptions, NYS Dept of Transport (pdf).
  • [16] NYS Route 17 designations 1-86 (pdf).
  • [17] is a web page from NYS Dept of Transportation giving details of future works. I'm not able from this information to confirm that this work is relevant to the old 382
  • [18] Similar comment to {17] above.

For the present my oppose has to stand. Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this later. I did look up reference 8 and it DOES support the text. Chergles (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it, not every source has to relate DIRECTLY to NY 382. If you have complaints, they can go to WT:USRD as other FAs have done this and it is fine.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source #8 is a yahoo map that can be made of just about any street in the US. I'm gonna plot my home address and then make a featured article out about it. And Mitchazenia, not all sources have to directly pertain to the route, but at the very least a couple should. I think a majority should, otherwise you are losing what the page should be about and that is the route. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on references
  • [1] is used only to source the length. I am assuming that the routing has simply been transposed from what [4] shows. An explanation to that effect might be useful.
  • [2] shows that the bridge for NY 17 was built in 1970. This would require that the physical roadway of NY 382 be removed/destroyed. Since it is an indirect reference, an explanation in the text and in the citation would be useful.
  • While [5] is a small-scale map, it does have sufficient detail to show that the road formerly used by NY 382 and where the paved section ends. [7] also shows where NY 382 goes although the exact end point is not clear in this map.
  • [8] simply references the alignment of ASP Route 2. Its relevance is that it used to be part of NY 382 but this is now the current designation.
  • [13] may be problematic as this refers to a bridge carrying ASP Route 1 over Red House Brook. This needs to be looked into.
  • [6] and [14] are used to show that the route existed in 1970 but not in 1974.
  • [17] and [18] are related to NY 382 as these are planned construction work in the area where NY 382 used to be. This allows readers to find out what happened/will happen to the area.
  • All the other references which were not commented on do pertain to the facts they are being used for as a citation. --Polaron | Talk 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated comments on sources: The replacement infobox image is a big improvement on its uninformative predecessor. However, most of my concerns about the quality and relevance of the sources remain. I am not going to go through the list yet again, but here are a few examples of my outstanding concerns:
    • Self-plotted routes on Google or Yahoo maps cannot be offered as independent sources of information. If anything, they are OR. If, say, the Google map on which your route is plotted had indicated that the route in question was that of 382 then, fine. But it doesn't, and the Yahoo map without your plotted route is likewise uninformative.
    • Map [5] is a small scale map of upstate New York. The source link takes me to the map. I am unfamiliar with the geography of upstate New York - what am I supposed to do with this map? Where do I even begin to start looking for the relevant area? This is the equivalent of citing a small fact to an unindexed book with no chapter headings or page numbers. Sources are supposed to enable readers to check facts, not send them on a clueless hunt for infomation.
    • I have yet to see any comment on [12], which doesn't seem to support anything in the article specifically. It might be OK as an external link providing a period flavour, but it does not seem to be a useful source.
    • I hadn't previously investigated the PDF sources, for reasons explained, but I thought I had better look at at least one. I tried [15]; what I got was a link to an error message from the NYS Department of Transport, asking "were you looking for something?". I had to smile. Please check this link to see where it takes you.
  • I have mentioned these as examples of outstanding source concerns. I appreciate that efforts are being made to address the sources problem, along with other issues, but for the present I cannot withdraw my opposition to the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have solved all of those examples, but the first one - Yahoo and Google have been accepted in all FAs for highways, they are defined sources and are allowed.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to indicate how you have solved the problem with regard to [5]. On [15], now [14], I finally tracked down the information cited to it, but it took ages, because you don't provide any navigational aid to this site, not even a page number. Things like that are important in a prospective FA. I'm holding fire for the moment on your assertion that self-plotted routes on Google maps are allowed as independent sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding self-plotted routes, the routing is derived from other published maps. The Yahoo and Google Maps links are being utilized to source the length of the route. Regarding [5]. I'm not sure what the concern is as it clearly shows the route in question and is being used appropriately. --Polaron | Talk 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained very precisely what the concern is about [5]. Please read what I have said above as to how one is supposed to find route 382 on this map, without any information as to where to start looking. In its present form the source is not acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would adding the approximate map grid be sufficient? The grids are in 15 arcminute increments so it still isn't very precise. --Polaron | Talk 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section reference has already been added by Mitchazenia and I just did some formatting to better fit the cite template. I hope this satisifes the Ref [5] concerns. --Polaron | Talk 03:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've located the route. The northern coordinate is 42°06' not 42° which is the bottom edge of the map. Would it not be possible to crop this section from the general map? Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Aside from the inadequate sources, a point that was brought up that wasn't addressed was about the route description. Just eyeballing it seems like 75% of the route description is about a different route. I understand the routes are linked, but you shouldn't have the majority of the section pertain to something different than the actual topic. It's like the source issue. You shouldn't have 75-80% of your sources be on something different. A professor would rip you apart if you did that on a school paper. I agree other things need to be mentioned, like Red House, like a brief snippet on Allegheny 2, but not to the extent where it bleeds over the actual topic of the article. And if other "FA"s do it, they shouldn't pass either. I like the writer's passion for the topic, so don't take this as a personal hit, but take the advice and try and make the best article. As Brian said a few posts ago, I hope you can beef up the page and get this done! But I do have to oppose at the moment. --New Zealand UWMSports (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This complaint seems to be one of TMI too much information. The FA criteria don't really address the issue. Article length has guidelines but not TMI.
In WP, we don't want to merely copy news articles or encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia really excels when information is taken from articles that are hard to search or find. For example, with the crash of 1549, there may be a rare fact reported about the Airbus A320. If that fact is put in to the Airbus A320 article, WP really becomes good. So having small facts taken from articles with a main subject of something different is not bad. It is potentially good. Chergles (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed his point Chergles. He needs to reply for me to be absolutely certain that's what he meant, but here's what I took. There is nothing wrong with extra information or addressing something else. But extra information should not dilute the original topic, and it does here. Say I write a book about Phil Jackson and spend 80% of the book talking about Michael Jordan. People could say the book is really about Jordan. As important as Jordan was to Jackson's career, the book shouldn't be 80% MJ. Same here. The article shouldn't be 80% Allegany Route 2 and just 20% about the route in question. People could say that it is an attempt by the authors to stretch out content. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! --New Zealand UWMSports (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. The article now complies with the complaint about ASP Route 2 being too long. It is now 3 lines long on my computer screen. Note that the original complaint wasn't quite right. The article was not 80% about ASP Route 2. Chergles (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original complaint was right. And the route description is still +50% Allegany Route 2. Unacceptable. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys use this, File:NY382Map.JPG as the infobox map. --New Zealand UWMSports (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without going into great detail, because alot of what happened is based on a private matter at home (a few admins have been filled in with more detail), I do want to apologize for my brother-in-law's actions over the last couple weeks and anything that might have happened months ago. Please disregard any points he may have made in this discussion that no one has found applicable to NY 382. I take full responsibility for being stupid and not paying closer attention to his online activity. Please understand though that he has a mental illness that causes more problems than some out of bounds editing on Wikipedia. I extend an apology to User:Mitchazenia for his actions hurting this article's FA discussion, and also to User:Rschen7754 for his comments to you. I'm sure there are others that deserve and apology, and if I find out anything else, I definitely pass one along to you.

Personally, I am here in good faith and have been actively working on NY route pages for over 2 years. I created pages for Rockland County Routes and been helping to construct articles for NY State Routes. I have also uploaded a ton of various pictures from my travels and have assigned them to their appropriate pages.

If you have further questions, feel free to drop a comment on my talk page or hit the email function. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. The opposing editors have been blocked as socks based on Rlevse check and Airtuna08, who reports that the blocked users have mental illness, has been unblocked even though originally named as a sock. Very strange situation. This doesn't change the fact that I plan to continually improve the article even if FA status is granted. Chergles (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in view of the above, and the somewhat unusual circumstances that have affected this FAC, I am striking the oppose which I gave earlier on grounds of inadequate sources. Various steps have been taken to improve the sources since I registered the oppose, and the non-informative infobox map has been replaced. I still have reservations about the sources. I believe that all the small-scale maps need accurate coordinates to enable their use, and ref [6], which takes us to a 49-page website, needs the page number of the entry being cited. I hope that these matters will be attended to. I have other sources concerns, too; an independent sources reviewer needs to make a judgement. My view is that this nom ought to be restarted, as it is very difficult to assess its current state. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose for now by karanacs.

  • I'm concerned that the bulk of the sources for this article are essentially primary sources. NY Department of Transportation, US Dept of Transportation, and PA Depart of Highways. These are government entities which essentially oversee all or part of the roads. There next most popular sources are maps, which provide nothing but a picture of a route description. That leaves very little that can be sourced to independent sources beyond the route itself. Are there no newspaper articles that discuss any parts of the content of this article, even recent history? Surely it was reported SOMEWHERE when the road lost its designation?
  • What effect, if any, did the road's creation have on the town of Red House?
  • What effect, if any, did the road's de-designation have on the town of Red House?
  • Sources are not formatted consistently. Some things are italicized that should not be. Some terms are alternately abbreviated or spelled out. The refs need to be cleaned up.
  • There should not be subsections in the Route Description section - they contain a combined 10 sentences.
  • The prose doesn't flow that well. For example, the last sentence of NY 382 subsection is "The road continues as a state park service road." The next section begins "Allegany State Park Route 2, the continuation of former New York Route 382, begins at the entrance of Allegany State Park. " that is a very awkward transition.
  • When you plan to use abbreviations for terms, the first time the term is spelled out, put the abbreviation in parantheses next to it. Otherwise people might be confused when they suddenly run across the abbreviation.
  • The article says that The town and community of Red House, New York was important in the creation of New York Route 382 and New York Route 17 but it doesn't say how.
    • So this section just disappeared? Was it not important? If it wasn't, the picture of the Stone Tower needs to go. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name of Red House was derived from a house on the banks of the Allegheny River, which, as noted, was painted red. " - as noted by whom?
  • "surrounding the remains." - this wording seems a bit odd; the road still exists, just not with this designation, so "remains" seems to be a poor choice
  • " plan started to develop " - who/what is developing this plan?
  • Can the State park route really be considered an intersection? It is a continuation of the road, not a cross street.

Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved just about everything. This was a very minor highway, and no one really reports the decommissioning of highways unless it is really major. Anyway, as for the italics, the templates are the problem (Citation templates). I hope everything meets your standard now.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the templates are doing bad things to the references, then ditch the templates. The oppose stands because the prose and the sources are not up to FA quality yet and there are MOS issues. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For now. - the prose is poor in places and generally far from engaging. Examples:

  • The route passes adjacent to some 2,200 feet (670 m) above sea level mountains, towards the city of Salamanca. - "The route passes mountains which are 2,200 feet above sea level."
  • In the winter of 2007 and 2008, a plan started to develop by the New York State Department of Transportation to replace a bridge over the Allegheny River on Old Route 17 near the former remains in Red House. - "In the winter of 2007 and 2008 the New York State Department of Transportation started to develop a plan to replace..."
  • the highway traversed eastward through a cut of several mountains - ????
  • When Exit 19 was built in 1970,[2] the roadway was severed from the interior of Allegany State Park. ??

The blurred picture in the information box is a poor show. Graham Colm Talk 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. All the reasons for the oppose have been addressed. The photo comment presents a conflicting problem because it was placed at the suggestion of another editor to replace a clear map. The highway is very old so clear maps are difficult to attain and allowance should be made in this respect. Chergles (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this point, the "clear" map that was replaced did not actually show the route. A slightly blurred picture that does indicate the route is better than a clear map that doesn't. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-drawn the map, is this accurate and better?
Graham Colm Talk 16:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost, need Allegheny respelled first :) -Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean - Allegheny for the River, Allegany for the park.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shows how blurred the other one was :-) Is this better? (You will probably have to flush your cache). Graham Colm Talk 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image needs a source for its information, otherwise it could be argued that it's original research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Julian, with respect, I get your point, but the source is the original map which I have simply copied—this is not original research. To go off on a tangent, it's high time Wikipedians recognised the difference between research and original research. The former is finding what has been discovered; the latter is discovering. The best articles on Wikipedia have been thoroughly researched. Graham Colm Talk 23:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_York_State_Route_382/archive1&oldid=1227538453"