Talk:County Route 72 (Rockland County, New York)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCounty Route 72 (Rockland County, New York) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:County Route 72 (Rockland County, New York)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Establish context by mentioning the country (i.e. United States).
    • There are a lot of place names not wikilinked: Orange County, Sloatsburg etc.
    • I presume NY 17 is New York State Route 17? Always type out the first occurrence of abbreviations.
    • The history section seems a bit unfocused. The first paragraph seems to be about Sloatsburg, not the county route. Also, what sort of numbering or ownership scheme was in place before 1982? Or am I misundersanding the text, and it was numbered 1 prior to 1982? When did the road come into existence, when was it upgraded from a track to a road, when was it first asphalted/made two lanes etc? There is no mention of the infrastructure, just the numbering in the history.
If those existed I would tell you -Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 23:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. 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):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Placing article on hold until the issues have been resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Passing in good faith that there is no available history on the road in the above mentioned time span. Arsenikk (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USRD GA audit[edit]

This 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) 07:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]