Talk:New York State Route 287 (1970s)

New York State Route 287 (1970s) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 5, 2014. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 287 (1970s)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Yes, the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	It complies with the manual of style guidelines for layout, and words to watch.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	It contains a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline, there are no dead links either.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are no opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements. I am assuming good faith for most of the (off-line) sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	it contains no original research.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Yes, it addresses the main aspects of the topic (in the limited expectation of GA).	Pass
(b) (focused)	Yes, it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
There can't be many viewpoints on a state Route I guess, and I feel content is without bias.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Very stable. Only 3 edits by one user in past one year. No ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yes, the three images are on Wikimedia Commons, were uploaded by TwinsMetsFan, and are tagged with their copyright status.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Yes, images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	As per above check and the discussion below.

Discussion

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found it good on 7 counts and have passed them, will continue with the remaining 4 points (1a. prose 1b. mos 2b. citations to reliable sources 2c. original research) shortly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference of criteria 1b under lead secction, can this sentence be given a time(when?), I feel it is not very clear/evident: "The only areas of significant development along the route were centered around its west and east ends." --AmritasyaPutra^T 00:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Changed. Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have purged the sentence, which is OK. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I verify the content referenced to "New York State Highway Law § 341", I do not see the content in that linked page. --AmritasyaPutra^T 00:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the details of the citation title. Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't usually take talk page warnings of my GANs. Despite computer issues I still have, I do check. Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 17:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchazenia: I did not understand, could you handhold me — How do I verify the content referenced to "New York State Highway Law § 341". Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the NY statue site doesn't allow direct linking, you have to go HAY - Article 12 - 341. I have adjusted the title. Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 00:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]