Talk:New York State Route 195

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 195/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I happen to have a soft spot for road articles and I'm familiar with Mitchazenia's work, so why not? A first look seems to indicate it's pretty much right there. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is a nice light read, and already very well done. I imagine this will be a short review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose reads very well, although I have a couple of things to highlight, which I'll put below. Article appears to be compliant with the MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have one or two factual questions to which the answers seem unclear, but that's it. References are properly formatted, all appear to be reliable, and I don't see any potential OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Routing and history are usually the two major points to any road article, and this one hits both. Each is well covered and in-depth, but focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No POV issues detected.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edits from March indicates a good, stable article.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two images, both used well and with appropriate captions. Both are free images and are marked appropriately.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very nice. Very well done.

Some nitpicking notes

• "NY 11B was extended west to Potsdam by the following year.[13] NY 11B was rerouted c. 1938 to continue east from Nicholville to Malone while its former routing north of Nicholville was designated as NY 195.[1][2]" It's generally not a good idea to have two consecutive sentences start the same way; it tends to read choppy. Can one of these sentences be started another way?
• "NY 195 was first a piece of the former Route 30, a legislative route designated in 1908." Designated by who? The state of New York, a county, or federally? I can see there's a link in the below section to help readers, but I think it would be helpful to have in the lead as well.
• "After NY 2 and NY 2A were decommissioned in 1927 for US 11, leaving the route unnumbered for a few years." This is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence.

Looks great otherwise. Should be a couple of quick fixes and then ready for a pass. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

All done. Also no edits since March since it was at GAN since March. Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 02:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's part of why I wanted to do this one, honestly. I have one that's been the same way since April. In any case, we're all set to pass this article. Well done. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)