Wikipedia:Peer review/New York State Route 319/archive1

New York State Route 319

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is something I want to make perfect before I bring it to FAC. The highway, if it passes FAC, will become the first decommissioned state touring route to become an FA, so I would like a really strong review.

Thanks, Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this needs some work before it meets the FA criteria. My main concerns are the quality of the language (this is usually the hardest for most articles), some apparent contradictions within the article itself, and some comprehensiveness issues. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Lead

The article makes it clear that the route designation ended in July 1984, but the first sentence of the lead says New York State Route 319 (formerly and currently designated by the New York State Department of Transportation as NY 319)... The use of the word "currently" makes it sound as if the route is still officially in existence. I also think the whole phrase "formerly and currently designated by the New York State Department of Transportation as NY 319" is a bit too detailed for the lead sentence - the lead is a summary of the article, so why not just say something like "(also officially know as NY 319)"?
Shouldn't "Chenango county" be capitalized as "Chenango County"?
language terminated at an intersection with New York State Route 12 in the downtown regions. would read better as something like terminated at its downtown intersection with New York State Route 12. (region should be singular if it is kept in the sentence)
Problem sentence Route 319 had an influence on the history of turnpikes in the state of New York and the history of the towns it was located in—Norwich and Preston. First off the article doesn't really say that the turnpike influenced the history of turnpikes in New York, it more relates some of its history as a turnpike. So perhaps start it something like Route 319 began as a turnpike chartered by the state of New York in 1808 ... Second, since "town" has a very specific legal meaning in New York state, I would not refer to city as a town. Why not say something like this at the end instead and was important in the history of [the communities of] Norwich and Preston (not sure if you need the [the communities of] part).
ANother problem sentence. My understanding is that the layout and physical route / road are basically unchanged since 1984. What has changed is its designation as a state highway. So the use of the verb "replaced" in this sentence is unclear and seems to imply something else, plus the "it and was" makes no sense (typo?). When a nearby highway was constructed, the state turned over Route 319 to Chenango County it and was replaced by County Route 10A. So fix this as something like When a nearby highway was constructed, the state turned over Route 319 to Chenango County and its designation was changed to County Route 10A.

Route

Since Preston is officially a town, I would call it that (and not a hamlet), would also refer to the Norwich city limits (not town limits) as above.
What are "sharer turns"?

History

I would probably combine the history of the communities and the road. As it is the "History of Preston and Norwich" (the name goes against WP:HEAD by repeating History as a subsection of "History") goes all the way to 1930 then we go back to 1808 in the next section. Combining them would probably let you discuss how the road influenced the growth of the communities too.
In the "History of Preston and Norwich" section it first says that North Main Street became NY 319, then that West Main Street became NY 319. Which is it? If both, make this clearer.
My guess is that Norwich was settled and existed before its incorporation as a city, but reading now only that Norwich was incorporated in 1816, and that the turnpike etablished in 1808 was called the Norwich and Preston Turnpike seems a bit odd (how did they name it before Norwich existed?)
Criterion 1b is comprehensiveness - but we get no history of the turnpike between its founding in 1808 and its apparent conversion to a state highway in 1930. My guess is that it became a public road before 1930, but when? Just saying in 1931 that it was the formerly privately-maintained highway connecting the two locations doesn't say enough on the history and repeats things the article has already made very clear (the places at each end). There should be more history of the route (and places it served)
Problem sentence: turn it into what - the sentence does not say. The plan was to turn Route 319 (also state highways 598 and 598-a) upon the completion of a road near the Chenango-Cortland County border. I would also identify the new road being built more clearly (assume it is a state highway)
The block quote does not mention NY 319 by name - what is the reason for including it?

It does, just in a different way deemed by NYSDOT.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 20:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then the article needs to make this much clearer, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link is dead

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]