Talk:New York State Route 458

New York State Route 458 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 9, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

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 articles
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 458/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has a few problems but certainly could become a GA.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I don't really care for the prose all that much. All the ,'s make some sentences seem choppy and I think this could be written better. In the Route description section instead of constantly using NY 458 why not use Route 458 for some areas. It has already been established this is a New York State Route.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The major problem with the article is that Section 1 has absolutely no references. This should be an easy fix.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
There seems to be a few sentences where the article seems to go slightly off topic. For example: "The river, meanwhile, ends less than 1 mile (1.6 km) to the east at Meacham Lake." Is this really relevant?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are always nice! :)
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm going to give it 7 days to be improved. Good luck improving the article! --Kuzwa (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

I solved every issue but the images, which will have to wait at least a little while (not days, but as soon as possible). Otherwise, I hope everything comes to your liking.Mitch32^(UP) 16:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be totally critical on the images. They aren't "required" after all. Im just reviewing everything once more before I pass the article. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 5 is broken I believe so I've taken it out. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readded, but done differently.Mitch32^(UP) 16:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]