Talk:New York State Route 167/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 02:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking... SpinningSpark 02:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• "... to follow a new alignment to the west." The meaning is not clear.
• "... crossing the Otsego–Herkimer county line after just a half-mile." Not clear where the half-mile is measured from: leaving Richfield Springs or the intersection with US20?
• "...becoming more rural..." The road hasn't changed, perhaps, just the scenery it is passing through.
• "...at various points along the routing." Strange way to express this, routing is normally a verb.
• "... intersecting Albany Street...half of a one-way couplet...as a result, the two directions of NY 167 split..." Is it intersecting Albany Street, or following it? If the latter, "intersecting" is wrong, and if the former then it is not clear why a split is necessary. I think the article needs to say that the highway has turned on to Albany Street first and then explain about the one-way couplet.
• More to come... SpinningSpark 18:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's quite difficult to understand the intersection of NY 167 and NY 169 at Albany Street without drawing a diagram, perhaps one could be provided. Even then, I was not completely sure whether or not the two routes shared a road at some point.
• "The former alignment of Route 26..." What is an alignment? SpinningSpark 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• SpinningSpark 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay here. Finals have kept me busy. Alignment = routing of the designation. I worked on the alignment description, but the maps aren't my cup of tea, and I doubt its really necessary to provide the description. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 04:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The point about alignment is that it either needs to be wikilinked to somewhere where it is explained or else glossed within the article. There seems to be plenty of material out there [1][2], easily enough to write at least a stub article if you are interested.

The whole Albany Street paragraph is dense and difficult to understand. Of course, if I were reading the article for other than review, I would probably not care and just skip over it. But for review purposes it lacks clarity and thus fails GA#1a. I don't think it needs to have a properly projected and scaled map, just a simple topological diagram would do. I could knock out something in Inkscape quite easily if you provided a pencil sketch. I don't want to impose that on you if you don't think it is right for the article, but something needs to be done to make it clearer. SpinningSpark 07:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would I need to write it, engineering is not my thing, I mean, if we can write a non-stub, someone can do it. As for the Albany Street one, lemme see what I can contrive in terms of wording, because my art skills aren't worth fighting over. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Try this wording on the NY 167/NY 169 junction.Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 19:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've temporarily changed alignment to route, I would suggest asking the guys at WT:USRD to get the alignment article made, I'm not so comfortable writing myself. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 19:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical that alignment needs a link - I've seen it used in the newspaper several times without explanation. --Rschen7754 19:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that at least one article that has gone to FAC over the years has used the word "alignment", with no explanatory links, hover text, etc., and there's a good reason for that. It's standard English. Look "alignment" up in any dictionary worth its weight, and you'll find what you're looking for. – TMF (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As for NY 167 and NY 169, I reverted the changes to that section because I believe they made the section worse. I see nothing wrong with how it's currently presented, and I believe that any competent reader that reads that section will understand what's going on. If added clarification is needed for your benefit, like a closeup map, there is a KML of NY 167 that you can load in either Google or Bing Maps, or the WikiMiniAtlas tool at the top of the article. The WikiMiniAtlas also shows what I believe is NY 167's "relation" in OpenStreetMap.

Also, as to the question of whether or not NY 167 and NY 169 ever share a road, they do. However, it's not in downtown Little Falls - it's on the NY 5 arterial southeast of the city. The intersection between the two routes (or more accurately, one direction of each route) at Albany and South Ann streets is a tangential intersection: they meet, but never cross. This is uncommon, but certainly not unheard of. One of the more prominent examples in New York is probably the junction of NY 12D and NY 26 in Lewis County. – TMF (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly the first time I've come across this use of the word alignment in this sense, but perhaps it is more common in the US. In my opinion, the suggestion that one can load a Bing map if one does not understand the description in the article kind of defeats the purpose of the article in the first place. I think the best thing at this stage is that I withdraw as reviewer and request that someone else takes this one on. SpinningSpark 22:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As a second opinion, the map isn't an issue to me. The alignment is kinda iffy, since it's something that a lay reader could mostly understand, yet at the same time it's not the easiest thing to explain. In the context of the article I think I get what it's trying to say. Wizardman 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the original reviewer withdrew, I'll simply close the review myself since I didn't find any extra issues. Wizardman 03:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)