Talk:New York State Route 321

New 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.

New 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
Date	Process	Result
May 18, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 24, 2008	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	New York
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA review edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

GA review (see here for criteria)

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
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Seems accurite, well sourced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Ditto.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yep.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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.
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.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Merge edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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. – T M F 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. – T M F 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. – T M F 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.

Add topic