Talk:Pennsylvania Route 39

message: The article is well-written with plenty of sources, broad in its coverage, and well-illustrated. I'd say it meets our good article criteria; good job! Krimpet (talk/review) 06:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: ::I hope the chances of PA 39 are better than PA 145's were. PA 145 got hit hard during the FAC. -- JA10 T · C 20:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PR]]

message: If an article is a GA, but is the FA for a WikiProject, does that make the article an A-class?  --myselfalso 15:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes an A-class then? --myselfalso 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends.  But a benchmark would be something of State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)'s quality. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: A system hasn't been developed yet to determine this. Ideally, someone would bring a GA to the USRD reassessment page, where it would be looked at by multiple editors to determine if it is A-class. Hmm...I should probably propose that idea... --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class? 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I realise it's had some problems on FA- and A-level reviews, but 1. most of the objections have been addressed, and 2. GA criteria are less strict. The two  tags are still of some concern though, and should ideally be addressed as soon as possible. Lampman (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: I started with the lead, but I am not satisfied with my results so far. I think what should be mentioned in the lead is an overview of the route, that the history of the route's designation is relatively unknown, and that PA 39 had been a designation used in northeastern PA in the early 1920s, which is why all of PA 39's child routes are in the area between Williamsport and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to go into so much detail about the Legislative Route history in the lead. 
--hmich176 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend working on the lead last. This is because it needs to summarize the body, and any changes to the body will affect the lead. (Also you'll need to double check the length conversion; using  or  turns the length into an adjective, but you're not using the length as an adjective in that sentence.) Imzadi 1979 →  08:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll definitely fix that. That was a copy/paste job. I started with the lead in this case because the body's already been pretty well revised. I don't think substantial change is necessary to the body, except there should be more information about the designation's child routes being orphaned. --hmich176 08:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I've worked on the history subsection, reorganizing and downsizing. I reduced the amount of information about the Linglestown roundabout and merged the rest in with the article about Linglestown, PA. 
--hmich176 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further history 

message: I would like to bring this article to FA status, ultimately. Since the designation of the route has a murky history, I'm concerned this would dissuade reviewers from elevating the article's status, even if it were perfectly written. I recently changed the infobox designation year to 1938 based on what I've seen on a variety of maps. Previously, it was mid-1930s, which was a sticking point for some reviewers. Given there isn't a hard designation date other than what we see on maps, I would think this might discourage some. 
--hmich176 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you have to go with the sources you have; I think you're expecting a bit too much in some respects. Imzadi 1979 →  08:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You should start with a goal of bringing this article to GA status. Once you do that, you will be familiar enough with the content and sources that you will have a much better idea of how feasible and difficult it would be to achieve FA status.  VC  14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind me. This article is already a GA! I generally agree with Imzadi1979 about assessing your capability of bringing this to FA by assessing your collection of sources.  VC  14:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest using any newspaper databases that you may have - you can check your local library, or sometimes other local libraries. --Rschen7754 22:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal of revision 

message: If you have any comments you'd like to add, feel free to post them under any section above. Any additional comments you can leave below.
--hmich176 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied above, copying your signatures so people know you started the comments in each section. Imzadi 1979 →  08:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise looking at other reasonably complete Pennsylvania articles and see what methodology was used for sourcing, format, etc. That will give you a good idea of what's available. If all you have are map sources, you can use the word circa to denote that the years given are not exact. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, using circa is a good idea. From comparing with other articles, PA 39 seems to be a unique case that there's not a lot of information available. --hmich176 08:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional comments