Talk:New York State Route 252

New York State Route 252 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: July 23, 2013. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / New York Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	New York
	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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 252/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

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.^[1]

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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(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.^[6]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Route 252. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226185515/http://www.mpnnow.com/news/x380000275/Pittsford-intersection-set-for-changes to http://www.mpnnow.com/news/x380000275/Pittsford-intersection-set-for-changes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]