It was suggested in the DYK nomination "... that New York State Route 194 was the only victim in Lewis County of the 1980 state maintenance swaps?" up right now, and in one sentence in the article, that this road is somehow a "victim" of something. Could that be explained in the article? It is not obvious how a road can be a victim. The reference given seems to link to some general NYS website but it is not clear how to navigate to the specific support for the DYK assertion. And, is it the editor's colorful metaphor, or is the wording in some official New York State document or the wording of some commentator. If the word "victim" does not appear in a third-party source, then I think the DYK is misleading. This seems to me like a double mistake in the DYK vetting process; I don't think this should be on the wikipedia front page. doncram (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Reference 4 provides only a search screen, and i tried some searches with no luck finding a source. I guess from the rest of paragraph one, the way the route is supposed to be a victim is that it was decommissioned in 1980. That fact needs to be documented. If that is true, and it is also documented that 194 was the only Lewis County state route that was decommissioned then, then an alternative DYK "... that New York State Route 194 was the only state highway in Lewis County that was decommissioned in the 1980 state maintenance swaps?" or DYK "... that New York State Route 194 was the only state highway in Lewis County that was decommissioned in 1980?" would work better for me. Again, "victim" is a loaded term. I could imagine that becoming a county road would lead to improvements in maintenance of a road; whether "victim" or "lucky beneficiary" from the road's point of view (an odd idea) could possibly relate to the relative wealth of the county vs. the state average, say. doncram (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- The DYK wording was changed to say the route was the only state route in the county "removed", which is neutral and better in my view. Thanks for responding, mitch! doncram (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
