Talk:Pennsylvania Route 321

Pennsylvania 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. Review: May 17, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Roads: State highways / Pennsylvania Mid‑importance 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  Pennsylvania   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. Article recognition:   This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in September 2017. A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in April 2017.

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvania Route 321/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the length of the article, I probably won't do this all in one go.

• The lead is too long, especially the third paragraph. --Rschen7754 16:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trimmed the lead a bit. Dough4872 00:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be a lot shorter than that, see articles of similar length like California State Route 52. --Rschen7754 01:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cut back the lead more. Dough4872 01:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the lead could be improved, but I think it's at GA quality now. If you plan to take this on further, I would recommend adjusting the lead to not list every single opening date etc., but to say that X portion was built in the late 1920s or whatever, and only list the major dates, and summarize the reasons for delays, etc. I also do tend to blur some of the subsequent changes to the road once it was entirely built. People can look in the main article if they want the complete timeline. --Rschen7754 05:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Pennsylvania Route 321 (PA 321) is an" ... an?

• Fixed. Dough4872 06:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "mid 1960s" -> mid-1960s? Ditto for further such uses.

• Fixed. Dough4872 06:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The RD is okay, more varied sentence structure would be nice for going on further. --Rschen7754 05:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• History - some of the sections are at about the limit of what the length should be. You may want to consider subdividing them, trimming some material, or reorganizing how they are arranged. You may want to hold off on this until I've finished the review because in fact, further parts of the review may help you do this.
• The PA 321 designation was approved on December 7, 1961 - by who?

• Added. Dough4872 01:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It took me a while to realize that the first 2 paragraphs are a summary of information that was further down in the article. If so, it needs to be tightened quite a bit, and the citations likely need to be removed. Also see my comments on writing summaries, not mentioning every specific date, etc. --Rschen7754 19:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trimmed and removed citations. Dough4872 01:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "get the rural areas 'out of the mud'" - the quotes should be expanded since the paraphrase is too close to the actual quote.

• Expanded quotes. Dough4872 01:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "to be relocated" - repeated

• Changed one instance. Dough4872 01:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "repairs were planned for 2 miles" - significant/notable repairs?

• Elaborated. Dough4872 01:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thinking the other direction; generally, we don't mention the road being repaved, for example. --Rschen7754 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "By May 1961"... a lot of 1961 in the sentences following, try to remove it and say "that year" or something like that. --Rschen7754 01:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed several instances. Dough4872 01:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "vanishing curb" - what is that? Though I'm not entirely convinced that the curbs are notable in the grand scheme of things.

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "no plans on building" - to build?

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "protest Governor William Scranton and the Pennsylvania General Assembly" - protest the entire governor?

• Fixed a bit, but the borough officials did protest the governor and legislature for the state not wanting to improve the roads in the area. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The construction of PA 59 to provide access to the dam provided a shortcut to US 6 between Warren and Smethport, along with the US 219 bypass through Lantz Corners to Wilcox, kept traffic heading to the dam away from Kane, and the state determined that they did not need to improve the highways in the Kane area" - this is a run-on sentence and needs work.

• Split sentence. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "district highway engineer Funk" - I think it's already been said he was an engineer.

• Remove unneeded mention. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "in an expedited"... what?

• Added missing word. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "He called for action to be taken to work on the 4 miles (6.4 km) to the north of Kane" - a few words could be dropped from this

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "On July 20, 1966, Representative Westerberg announced that a construction noticed" - notice? Also, same note about dropping the titles.

• Fixed both issues. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "good road access" - I would cut down on using bland words like "good".

• Removed. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "On October 11, a traffic check"... not notable.

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bids for improving Fraley Street in Kane were scheduled to be advertised on December 22" says nothing, though I think you're trying to work around the limited sources that you have. But it is safe to say that the bidding process began in December, which is a more notable statement.

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In addition, design for an interchange" ... a design?

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The alignment of PA 321 between Wilcox and Kane was planned to mostly be reconstruction" awkward and wordy. --Rschen7754 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I do plan to finish reviewing this at some point, real-life issues have greatly affected my activity. I'm fine with the changes made so far though. --Rschen7754 04:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The third history subsection is just too long. I will note the warning I made earlier about waiting to break stuff up, but this subsection is over two screens long. This will definitely need to be broken up or shortened. --Rschen7754 05:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Split the subsection along geographical lines. Dough4872 01:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The section of PA 321 between Kane and Kinzua was closed to through traffic in early 1963, though it started to see its heaviest traffic volumes ever. - doesn't really make sense, the traffic increased after it was closed?

• It was closed to through traffic, but cars were still allowed to use the road. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Resurfaced - if it's asphalt on asphalt, not very significant. If it's the first time it was paved, maybe.

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• the section of the route from Kane to Red Bridge was waiting for action from the state to begin - who or what is doing the beginning?

• Clarified. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• By September 1964, construction on the section between Kane and Red Bridge was scheduled to begin in spring 1965.[56] On November 9, 1964, preliminary work on building PA 321 between Kane and Red Bridge was scheduled to get underway. - usually you can cut down on the slipping of the project timeline, you don't have to put every time it slips. Same for further on in the paragraph.

• Removed first sentence. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• started on October 2, 1965 and was ahead of schedule - so it was ahead of schedule on day 1? Could be more clear.

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• By May 1966, no action was taken - had been taken?

• Changed. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• between 4 miles (6.4 km) north of Kane and Red Bridge - surely there's some more concise way to say it for the second and third time this is repeated...

• Reworded multiple instances. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• By February 1967, there was no action on the sections through Kane and for 4 miles (6.4 km) to the north - not sure I see the significance here. I could change "February" to "January" and write the sentence again. What's so significant about that point? (are you trying to pinpoint a range of when action did start?)

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Kiasutha Recreational Area in the Allegheny National Forest was scheduled for a limited opening - the recreational area?

  Yes, the recreational area had a limited opening on June 1, 1967. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure the rest of the paragraph is significant, it could be said about many roads in regions with harsh winters.

• Removed. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Or the first two sentences of the next paragraph.

• Also removed. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving the bid date earlier in the month is not really significant either, just say December and combine the two cites.

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would cut down on the preliminary work info.

• Cut down. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• State Senator should not be capitalized.

• uncapitalized state. Senator should remained capitalized since its a formal title. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also cut down on advertising bids and focus on what that means in the big picture - that the bidding process would be starting soon.

• Cut down. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The low bidders... was - subject/verb agreement

• Fixed. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "following a contractor meeting" - I hope all road contractors meet before they start building roads, I don't think that's important to add.

• Removed. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the embankments for the cut north of Kane were seeded" - minor vegetation isn't really significant either, unless it extends to the level of environmental habitat mitigation or something like that.

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you could apply similar principles to sections 4 and 5 of the history before I look at it, it would speed things up. Again, sorry this is taking so long. --Rschen7754 06:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The road between Red Bridge and PA 59 was scheduled to be advertised in August and September of that year, with the section between the Elk County line and Kane also scheduled to be advertised soon" - you mean in terms of bidding? If so, see my past comments about advertising for bids.

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "by March 1966" repeated.

• Changed one instance. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "a walk inspection" - not sure this is the right term. --Rschen7754 02:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed unneeded adjective. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fifth subsection: Several residents turned out and critiqued the plans for the highway - were there any specific issues? Otherwise this should be trimmed.

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• would have required talking two properties - typo

• Fixed. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, the residential property at US 6 and Hacker Street received notice to be razed - there are some words missing

• Added missing word to make the sentence flow better. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• and felt the state found it - this dances around what you're trying to say. Use a more direct word instead of "felt".

• Changed. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• with concrete pouring was scheduled -> scheduled

• Fixed. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• incandescent street lights along Hacker Street with mercury vapor lights - links?

• Added links. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The trees are not that important.

• Removed. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sixth subsection:
• Repairs, including repaving, were to be made to the part of PA 321 between Wilcox and Kane in June 1962 - is this major?

• Removed. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• First-second paragraph: I suspect that there's some more intermediates that could be removed.

• Removed some. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• was taken "off the shelf" by February 1967 - by who? Also, quotes like this usually need to be attributed even though it is in quotes.

• Mentioned who. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The PDH scheduled a pre-hearing meeting with local officials from Kane and Wetmore Township on December 22, 1969 to discuss the PA 321 project south of Kane.[129] At this meeting, protests and petitions regarding properties to be affected by the project were discussed.[130] - if you don't have the list of complaints, probably best to drop this.

• Removed. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bid letting for the section between Wilcox and Kane was planned for October. - see past comments about bids

• Removed sentence. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• During summer 1972 - best to not use "summer" as it happens at different times in the world.

• Changed. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What about after 1975? Anything of note? It's okay if there isn't anything of note (and repavings are generally not of note), but I thought I would ask... anyway, this completes the review and I'm putting it on hold. --Rschen7754 03:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No major reroutings or construction projects since 1975. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Rschen, I have replied to all the above comments. Dough4872 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]