Talk:Sagtikos State Parkway

Older versions of interchanges

The original configuration of the Pilgrim State Hospital/Suffolk CR 13 interchange can still be found here. And I still remember old road maps showing a northbound Exit S1 ramp to Long Island Motor Parkway. ----DanTD (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You get me a more reliable source and not one from your head, I'll reconsider adding it back. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 04:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If and when I ever find the maps where I saw that, I will. The source I've got for the Pilgrim State/Crooked Hill interchange doesn't have anything between 1953 and 1966, sadly. ----DanTD (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sagtikos State Parkway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks strong and close to ready for promotion; it's well-written and well-researched. Again, thanks for your work on it. I made a few minor changes as I went; take a look to make sure I didn't introduce any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I also have a few suggestions for the section "Roadway improvements" that I'd like your thoughts on:

• "Progress on the project has been stalled by disagreements" -- the tense "has been" suggests that this is an ongoing process; it would be helpful to note an "as of" here to avoid this statement going out of date if progress resumes.
• "claimed" should be rewritten here per WP:WTA (part of criterion 1b)
• "believed that the discrepancy stemmed from his belief " -- is it possible to rewrite this avoid the repetition of the believed/belief?
• "Wolkoff has refused " -- another point that seems like it might be out of date. The source here is from 2011--are we certain that Wolkoff is still refusing this?
• More broadly, I'm concerned about the sourcing in the Wolkoff section. The main sources here appear to be two op-eds and a piece from the Long Island Contractor's Association; the latter in particular seems unlikely to qualify as a reliable source. Is it possible to find some news reporting on this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The LICA source is actually just C/Ping a Newsday article, and I have clarified that. There has not been an article about Heartland Town Square since 2011, so I can't picture much update has been shown. Otherwise, I've gotten most of it. Also, damn it, you ruined my chance for 100 days at GAN.... :P Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, that actually may raise minor copyright issues. Are you certain that Newsday has given a copyright release for this article to LICA? It would be better to source this directly to the newspaper rather than relying on a reprint by an involved party in any case; we've got no guarantee that their reprint is accurate and complete. So I'm still a bit concerned about the sourcing here, especially since this covers the most controversial part of the article. (Admittedly a very local controversy, but still a controversy.) If you don't think any direct news coverage of this can be found, I'll get a second opinion on whether those op-eds can be counted as reliable sources for this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Or we could just remove it? Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 20:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That might be the best strategy. The labor dispute is just a blip in the parkway's history, and if we're having trouble finding coverage, I'm not sure it can be called a main aspect. I'm signing off for now, but will Google a bit later to see if there's more reliable-source coverage elsewhere. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed for now, however, the Google News archives having nothing after 2011. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On a more minor note, I'm not sure the sentence with "his work ethic related to transportation should be funded by the government" makes grammatical sense--could this be rephrased again? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	minor note on "work ethic" sentence; possible copyright issue with secondhand reprint of newspaper story
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See minor WP:WTA points above ("claimed", language likely to go out of date)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing in "Roadway improvements" section seems questionable
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I'm concerned that sourcing the discussion of Wolkoff only to his opponents (hostile newspaper editorials and a contractors' group) may not meet neutrality guidelines.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.

Okay, the shorter version seems to address the remaining concerns. Thanks again for the quick responses.