Talk:New York State Route 252/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk · contribs) 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 00:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

The article is very clean. Just a couple of items to note:

• You have a lot of duplicative links. Per WP:LINK you only need to link an item once in the lead and once (perhaps twice in a long article) in the body. I did a couple of fixes but you should check this throughout.

Under the gray rules that I learned (and which has been asked and gotten me GAs before), you can use the same link twice as long as its not twice in the same header.Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 01:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• This sentence was a bit confusing: Work on the last four phases began on March 29, 2010,[23] and was expected to be fully completed in November 2011. Has the work completed or not? Is there an update since Nov 2011? If so that should be added.

Working on it. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 01:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are two dead links, refs 5 and 22. They should be fixed.
• Ref 19 appears to be a TV news report. Is there anything in print to substantiate this report? Perhaps public records of the construction? Nothing says the ref has to be in print, but there's no way to verify it and then we run into reliability issues.

Links to 5 and 22 removed. However, 22 (now 21), is like 19 (now 18), television stations post their articles on their website. They just tend to remove them from their site, like most news sources. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 01:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall

In my opinion the only items that would run against the GA Criteria are the outdated sentence on completion of the road work (3a) in that it should be up to date from 11/11, the dead refs and the news report (2b), I'm willing to work with you on the new report as that may be the only mention of the road work readily available and it isn't a critical part of the article. It would be good to get those links fixed up though and it doesn't appear as though that should be too hard. In my opinion this article is very close. Just a couple tweaks and I can easily pass it.

I will hold the article pending fixes. Good luck! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 00:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just of note, like everyone else, please don't post those auto messages on my talk. I don't like them. ;) Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 01:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on the changes. A bot runs the auto messages, is there a way to turn them off? If not then you'll likely get one when this passes. Sorry in advance. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 01:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All finished. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The article looks to meet all the GA criteria and I will happily pass it to GA. Good luck! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)