Talk:New York State Route 9L

My GA Review of this article

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• I think 19 miles long is too long to be considered a "spur"
• Avoid starting sentences with numbers (e.g., 9N, 1 mile), even if name of a route.
• This sentence seems out of place and not sure why comma in middle: "The road starts off, intersecting with local roads in the city."
• "paralleling" --> "running parallel"
• "small hamlet" is redundant—just say "hamlet"
• Awkward sentence because "concurrent" also means something else: "The route comes to an end at a junction with US 9 and NY 9N, here concurrent, south of the village center."

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.

• No. Article relies mostly on one source.

  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• No. History section (and article, in general) is anemic compared to GA New York State Route 146 and FA New York State Route 174.

  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Good

  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, 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 constructive editing should be placed on hold.

• No prior issues

  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

• Thirteen images in good standing.

Conclusion

GAs can be short, but this article is lacking a lot of information and citations. I must fail this GAN this time but hope to see it again in the future. Best --Eustress (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 9L/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The article is very short, and some of the sentences need rewording.

• The prose uses alot of "starts off", that should be replaced with "begin" to satisfy word choice. Though the route description section is written very descriptively.

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Only five references? That does not verify much of the content, if more sources are available to source some of the prose, it will verify the article more, and will meet the GA criteria more.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   per above

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I feel this article should and can be expanded, is there not any more information on the history of this route? Is there any other current information on the route, besides the new bridge?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   An image of the route itself could be added to the article, though, if one is not available, it doesn't affect its' GAN, however, attempting to find one would help illustrate the article.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is relatively short, though, if the above concerns are addressed, it may pass, for now it does not meet the GA criteria to the fullest, however, I will give it time for the above concerns to be addressed. Notify me when the concerns are addressed. Best of wishes.

SRX^--LatinoHeat 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten most of it. Can you give it a lookover?^Mitch32^contribs 21:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It look's a bit better. Though I feel the lead could be expanded like the Borman Expressway, is their information like why the highway is named the 9L? Any other info of about the route?00:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)SRX^--LatinoHeat

Lead expanded. ^Mitch32^contribs 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed rapidly and fixed properly, making this article fit the criteria more, thus the article now passes this GAN, congratulations.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 13:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)