Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pennsylvania Route 39/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Pennsylvania Route 39[edit]

Currently, this article is an A-Class, good article. It is well documented and includes well written information about the route. It has a detailed intersection guide, and includes historical information. --Son 20:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Grammar problems:
  • There's a double space between Pennsylvania Route 39 and the abbreviation.
  • When becoming Hersheypark Drive, PA 39 runs opposite to its alignment before reaching the eastern terminus.—Routes do not run.
  • Grandview Road is not a major intersection by terms of WP:PASH.
  • The intersection of Hershey Road and Hersheypark Drive was upgraded in 2002 when the Giant Center opened, the Hersheypark parking lot was renovated, and the main entrance of the parking lot was moved off Hersheypark Drive.—ungrammatical.
  • [Other people will want to know] who maintains the road. The maint parameter of {{Infobox road}} takes care of that perfectly.
  • Any references to PennDOT must be placed in the publisher of {{cite web}}.
  • "west-east" sounds very awkward. Same with "north and south".
  • There must be an en-dash for things like "east-west".
  • Paragraphs must contain at least three sentences.
Comment. I'm an editor of a newspaper. Paragraphs do not necessarily need 3 sentences. --Son (formerly myselfalso) 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be other problems with this article, but this is what I have for now. (→zelzany - fish) 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, I think what vish was trying to say is that it's better to use {{cite map}} for any map related references like the PennDOT maps. -- JA10Talk • Contribs 22:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy-edits and fixed some citations. I will do some research to verify if the highway had a earlier history. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not good enough:
  • I see occurrences of "routes running". Routes don't run, nor do they travel.
  • A unique feature to Linglestown is the flag pole that is located in the middle of the road at the intersection of Mountain Road and PA 39.—ungrammatical.
  • Linglestown Road ends at the intersection with Jonestown Road, only feet from the I-81 interchange.—only feet? Please be more specific.
  • Why is Route 39 in the legislative route section in quotes? PennDOT sometimes refers to PA Routes as Route x, though not as much as PA x.
  • In that same section, there is a space between Pennsylvania and the period.
  • There are red links in the article. Please get rid of them.
  • Junction list problems:
  • Quadrant route shields aren't sized properly.
  • Why is the former route of PA 39 intersection still bolded? Does that intersection need to be glorified?
  • The North Progress Avenue intersection notes have some problems with font size and bolding.


  • Why don't I see any images in the category over at Commons? And even more, why are most of the images uploaded locally to Wikipedia?
Comment. How is this important to the article? --myselfalso 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important to just the article, but to other Wikimedia projects as well. What if I write an article about PA 39 in the Chinese Wikipedia? (→zelzany - review) 21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the image is available for articles about the route on other wikis has no relevance to whether or not this article is a featured article. If the image is uploaded locally, that's a problem with the image, not the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, I'll do it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the Other development on PA 39 section can be considered original research.
Comment. Still searching for 2 citations; one was a dead link. --myselfalso 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{cite map}} has some incorrect usages.
  • It is recommended that paragraphs have three sentences or more. At the very least, please do not have any paragraph have only one sentence. Even more, writing newspapers and encyclopedia articles need different styles of writing. Newspapers have one sentence in a paragraph sometimes, encyclopedia articles don't.
  • In regards to the format of this FAC, {{done}} tags are not to be placed anywhere, as I've heard that they clutter the page and give undue prominence to the tag rather than the objection. This article still needs a lot of work; good luck. (→zelzany - fish) 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose after several fixes I made to this article, I realized it can't pass until a major source for "PA 39 was established in 1936" can be cited. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to find the state law from 1936 that establishes it. --myselfalso 21:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff from pahighways.com said he got the source from the Official 1935 and 1937 state highways maps. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a link to those maps? --myselfalso 23:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll e-mail him about that, but I think he has those maps himself. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he could upload the maps to his site. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those maps would establish that the route was numbered between 1935 and 1937, not in 1936. --NE2 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just noticed a huge problem with the references/external links section. Please review the MOS to see what is wrong with those sections. (→zelzany - review) 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the links to use the cite web template; I also reversed the sections so external links is below the references as is in SR 1002. --Son 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, many fixes were made ever since I opposed. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more problems:
    • PA 39 is one of the few state routes to end on a non-numbered road.—original research
    • Consider organising the route description and history sections into subsections. (→O - RLY?) 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't split the route description section into subsections because of the on-screen rendering of the article. However, I did split the history section into four subsections. --Son 01:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.
    • Some of the wording is awkward: "When becoming Hersheypark Drive, PA 39 is routed opposite to its alignment before reaching the eastern terminus." "PA 39 intersects Hersheypark Drive at the parking lot for Hersheypark, as well as the Giant Center."
      • There's still a lot of awkward wording. If my other objections are fixed, I may have a go at it. --NE2 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are there so many non-breaking spaces in the text?
See the automated peer review on the talk page. --Son 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There should be a non-breaking space between a number and the unit of measurement", not after every number. By the way, please do not strike through my comments. Several of them that you struck through have not been resolved. --NE2 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Son 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't fixed. For the second time, please do not strike through my comments. --NE2 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any left, fix them. There shouldn't be, though. --Son 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There still were some; I fixed them. This is the third time I'm telling you not to strike through my objections. --NE2 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make a big deal about this and you're violating WP:OWN. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do "own" my comments on pages like this. Striking them out inappropriately can lead to the "FA director" thinking I have no more objections, when I still do. --NE2 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's still no excuse to make a big deal about this, if you think they didn't do your objection correct, simply comment below the striked text. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <del>...</del>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves. If you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text." The reason for this is that, had I not returned, it would have looked like my concerns were satisfied, when they were not. --NE2 01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history of Legislative Route 39 does not belong in the history, since in Pennsylvania the Legislative Routes and Traffic Routes were totally different systems. It's like having the history of US 30 in the article on PA 30. I removed it, so this is not an objection unless it's put back (which it was).
    • The decommissioning of PA 894 needs a source. So do the years in "1970s to present", and many of the details in the route description, for which the main references are to several maps. For example: "Truck stops were built around the exit, and the area is heavily utilized by trucks. West Hanover Township plans to upgrade the interchange to incorporate traffic lights at both lanes of travel on and off of I-81, as well as traffic lights at the truck stops." "A shopping center, anchored by a supermarket was built in 2005."
I believe it is already sourced at the end of those paragraphs. It is certainly mentioned within other sources throughout the article.
Which source shows that West Hanover plans to upgrade the interchange? Which source shows that the shopping center was built in 2005? --NE2 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All have been fixed. --Son 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see; where are the sources for those? There are also other similar statements; you should go through it and make sure everything is referenced. --NE2 21:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the interchange upgrade is Source [24]. The shopping center is Source [25]. --Son 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably reference those sources in both places. But why is that described twice? Maybe the current and future projects should be merged into the description, since they are essentially part of the road as it is now. --NE2 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is too much focus on the present; what changes of comparable importance to those listed in "Current and future projects" happened in the past?
The focus on the present/future will quickly become part of the history of the road. Though the statement I am about to make is Original Research, in the case of PA 39 (which I've lived along side since 1995) the expansion is very significant, as there isn't too much to the history of the road; it was mostly farmland in the east, and mining in the west. It wasn't until the 70s that the west began to develop and it wasn't until the 00s that the east began to develop. I, at some point, plan on adding in a traffic study of PA 39 (and PA 743) that occurred some years ago. --Son 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not know if this works: "At the parking lots of Hersheypark and the Giant Center, PA 39 intersects Hersheypark Drive." because you can't intersect a road at a parking lot. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 07:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you fixed that. Yes, it should have said "Near the parking lots..." instead of "At the parking lots...". --Son 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A little more copy-editting needed.
  • "PA 39 passes through Linglestown, which is a village that has a committee which is part of the governance of Lower Paxton Township, which it is located in." - needs rephrasing to avoid the repetitive use of "which"
  • "has become some what built up" - "some what" should be one word
  • "There are two major sections of the road:"– sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything
  • "east-west" needs an en dash
  • "and the parking lot was restructured. [8]" – remove the space before the citation
  • "because of warehouses built in 2003 and 2004. [24]" – remove the space before the citation. Epbr123 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of the copy-edits you requested. Is there anything else to fix? -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Epbr123 20:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for elaborating. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a and 2 (MOS breaches). The whole text needs a massage; find someone else to do it.
    • It's disruptive to have to hit the link to learn what "AADT" stands for. Spell it out on first occurrence.
    • "demarcating the center of Linglestown"—why use a plain word when an ugly one will do: "marking"? Same for "utilizing" --> "using". "Prior to" --> "Before". This is a persistent issue throughout the text.
    • "Fall"—no cap, and breaches MOSNUM on seasons.
    • "four mile stretch"—hyphen the first two words; MOS.
    • "Hershey Road was at one time mostly farm land,"—Avoid vague chronological references: look it up and tell us the period. That's what WP is for.
    • Provide metric equivalents (MOS), including in the table. (BTW, why is "Dauphin" awkwardly spread through the whole table? Remove it and tell us that it's all in Dauphin. That's basic.)
That's something to bring up at WP:PASH and WP:USRD, which determines the standards for the major intersections table. --Son 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a list - and its used to reference the location the exit is at, nothing more - the list is there to augment the article by itself - its layout is helps the reader picture the general location which is why the county and city are there. Also the exit lists need to be the same - they are standardized per WP:ELG (Manual of Style) master sonT - C 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:ELG explicitly permits removing the county column when the route is in one county. This is pretty much common sense too; the sentence "The entire route is in Dauphin County." could be added above the table. --NE2 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not strike through a reviewers' comments. Read the instructions. Has this been remedied? Comments are only struck by the person who wrote them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A shopping center, anchored by a supermarket was built in 2005"—Where is another comma required? Or better, switch the phrases around so that the sentences requires only one comma.
    • This is fussy, but why write "retrieved on", when "on" is idle?
There is only one instance I could change this; the rest were built into the cite templates. I'd suggest taking that up with them. --Son 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would take an admin to change the structure of {{cite web}} for example, so we can't do anything about that because it would mess up *alot* of articles in wikipedia, even millions that use it. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony 12:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the fixes. --Son 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It explicitly says in the instructions 'not to cross out reviewers' points. Uncross my text, please. You made just those corrections? But they were examples of why the WHOLE text needs attention. Who's doing the rest of it? Tony 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him several times not to strike through mine, and he simply ignored me. It's an uphill battle... --NE2 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's stop striking one's comments unless they've been adressed. Just leave a note under it. (→O - RLY?) 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see WP:MOSNUM on the use of non-breaking hard spaces in compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space. Throughout the Highways and Roads WikiProjects, we find terms like US 322 and US 422 which can be separated by wrap to the next line. The template {{nowrap}} is an alternate to non-breaking hard spaces. This should be fixed throughout by using either nowrap or nbsp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pennsylvania_Route_39/archive1&oldid=1109082944"