Jump to content

Talk:New York State Route 321

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNew York State Route 321 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.
Good topic starNew York State Route 321 is part of the New York State Route 20SY series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 24, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The writing should be much better. Almost every sentence in the lead and the route description begins with "Route 32...". Also, the lead could be trimmed down a little bit, as right now it is equal to over a third of the total article size. Additionally, some of the links are redirects
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Seems accurite, well sourced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Ditto.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Yep.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    An image of the actual road would be nice, but it's fine.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Everything seems fine except for the writing, which still has a while to go before being considered good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done according my recent edits.Mitch32contribs 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support merge. – TMF 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging 931F into this article as it is a former alignment that is relatively short and can be completely described here. --Polaron | Talk 12:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the merge as well. Most of the route description on 931F is filler, and the histories of 321 and 931F are heavily intertwined. – TMF 22:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects to the merge, I'll go ahead and perform it in the next few days. – TMF 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.