Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class review
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 Demote. Unresolved issues, stale nomination. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) edit

State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
Nominator's comments: This article was promoted to A-Class before the ACR process began; it should be reevaluated to ensure that it truly does meet A-Class status.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 (T C) 02:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments —
    • The mileposts in the junction table should be updated. This is a case of false precision if these numbers are coming from a paper atlas that doesn't list them to the hundredth of a mile.
      • The mileposts in the junction table should be updated. This is a case of false precision if these numbers are coming from a paper atlas that doesn't list them to the hundredth of a mile.
User:JohnnyAlbert10 used a computer program when he put that in - I think I have an updated source of that form somewhere.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Communities box should be removed. All of them are mentioned in prose already.
    • Do all of the bolded names have redirects in place? If not, the bolded needs to be removed.
    • The various junctions in the infobox don't need to be referenced, just the length. I would also question referencing throughout the lead, since that information should be contained lower in the article with a reference.
    • The junction table shouldn't use colored lines without a key to the colors. In this case, a note at the top of the table would suffice to explain the grey shading.
    • I haven't read the prose; I've only skimmed the article this morning briefly. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns before I will support keeping the article at A-class
  1. Are references nessecary for the major intersections in the infobox?
  2. It would help if a SR 3014 QR shield could be added to the infobox
  3. References should not be in the lead
  4. The lead needs to be expanded, specifically with more historical information
  5. References should be at the end of sentences
  6. Dates should not be linked
  7. Can a better word be used in place of "via"?
    What's wrong with "via"? –Juliancolton | Talk 03:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The sentence "Allentown built that bridge in 1929" is very short
  9. Grammar fixes are needed throughout the article
  10. The sentence "Thus, in 1987, when the new Location Referencing System was adopted, only the portion of Tilghman Street and Union Boulevard between Church Street and PA 378 was assigned a new number—State Route 1002" sounds awkward
  11. Why is the information about the Main Street part of the route under the Tilghman Street heading?
  12. Additional references are needed in the route description
  13. "the Turnpike" sounds colliqual
  14. Are all the citations nessecary in the Major intersections table?
  15. Is it nessecary to list junctions with former routes in the Major intersections table?
  16. References need to be properly formatted
  17. The link for Reference 6 needs to be updated
    Hmm, works fine for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The URL for Reference 10 has moved but redirects
  19. It would be easier for the MapQuest references to be combined
  20. All the MapQuest references link to the same map of Fogelsville
  21. Retrieval dates are not needed for external links Dough4872 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not required, but they help. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody planning to work on this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still working on this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I can with regards to the prose/reference issues. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I suppose we're waiting on Imzadi and Dough then. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the concerns I have brought up have not been addressed yet, specifically points 11, 19, and 20, so I cannot yet support the article. Dough4872 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there plans to resolve these issues? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no attempts made to resolve the remaining issues by May 23 (Friday), then the article will be demoted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Demote.
    • Infobox issues:
      • There are three alternate names listed in the infobox. Per {{infobox road}}, if the entire highway is not known by one alternate name, the parameter should not be used.
      • The western terminus in the infobox gives preference to an unsigned designation, which in my opinion isn't right. It should read "Church Street (SR 3014)" or even just "Church Street".
      • References for the termini aren't needed if the termini are referenced in the article body.
    • Lead:
      • "State Route 1002 (SR 1002), locally known as Tilghman Street and Union Boulevard, is a major 13.7 mi (22.0 km) long[1] east-west road in the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton metropolitan area of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. The majority of the roadway is the former alignment of U.S. Route 22, maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as a Quadrant Route, and is not signed except on small white segment markers." - I think waiting until the end of the second sentence to mention that the highway is unsigned is a bad idea. Also, if the length is sourced later in the article, it's not necessary to source it here.
      • "Union Boulevard continues over Monocacy Creek, which forms the border between Lehigh and Northampton Counties, and ends in downtown Bethlehem." - this is fine for the route description, but probably unnecessary for a lead on an article about SR 1002 in Lehigh County, since that part of Union Boulevard isn't part of SR 1002.
      • "The highway attracts more than the average traffic for roads in the Lehigh Valley.[5] An average of 21,018 vehicles use it in South Whitehall Township and 21,706 in Allentown each day.[6]" - this information is not present anywhere in the article body, and this would be useful for the route description.
    • History and route description:
      • Non-breaking spaces are used incorrectly throughout the article. They're currently placed following abbreviated routes (after the "309" in "PA 309") when they should be placed in the middle of the abbreviation (that is, they should be the space in "PA 309").
      • "and soon the entire shortcut between Allentown and Harrisburg was designated Pennsylvania Route 43.[12]" - by when?
      • Street names should not be bolded.
      • The communities box is deprecated and should be removed.
      • Each paragraph of the description should be referenced. That is not currently the case.
      • "The designation continues as W. Union Boulevard" - spell out abbreviations.
      • Some lengths do not have metric conversions.
    • Junction list
      • Per recent changes to WP:ELG, vertical table-spanning cells must be replaced with a note above the table - see Pennsylvania Route 39.
      • The "decomd" type is deprecated. The type should be removed and the former designations should be moved to the notes column, without shields.
      • Like in the infobox, preference should be given to signed names (Church Street) rather than unsigned designations (SR 3014).
    • Other
      • Like others have said above, the former routes should not need references as long as said references exist in their articles.
      • I echo Dough's 11th, 19th, and 20th points - all are definitely issues.
      • Some references (particularly the maps) are incomplete. The titles given in the articles are not the titles of the maps. – TMF 00:30, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/State_Route_1002_(Lehigh_County,_Pennsylvania)&oldid=1138355724"