Talk:New York State Route 146B
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Rschen7754 in topic USRD GA audit
 | New York State Route 146B 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 30, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that New York State Route 146B was decommissioned after as little as 17 years after its initial designation? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wording question
editThe following sentence needs rewriting i think: "The entire lifetime of Route 146B was less than two decades, as it was decommissioned in 1964 after being commissioned at least seventeen years before." Being decommissioned in 1964, plus being at least 17 years old, does not necessarly imply that it was commissioned less than 20 years. Did you mean to say at most 17 years before? doncram (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The rewritten sentence now reads "Being assigned at least 17 years before, the entire lifetime of Route 146B was less than two decades, with the highway being decommissioned in 1964." However, that doesn't work either, logically. Also I see in the infobox that it is noted the route was created by 1947 or before, and decommissioned in 1964. By that, all you know is that it is at least 17 years old. It could be 18, 19, 20, 21, 30, or 100 years old. You could perhaps say, "Route 146B's entire lifetime might have been as short as two decades, as it is only known that it was built in 1947 or before, and it was decommissioned in 1964." However, why not just say what you know: "Route 146B, when it was decommissioned in 1964, had a lifetime of at least 17 years." doncram (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
USRD GA audit
editThis article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)