Talk:New York State Route 251

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York State Route 251/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  VC  00:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am putting this article on hold for now. There are several issues with the Lead, prose, and an image issue that need to be addressed before this article gets promoted.

• My major issues have all been addressed. The ones that were not changed as I recommended have been sufficiently defended so they can remain as is. This article is promoted.  VC  21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox:

• I would add a few more routes to the major junctions. I recommend the three other routes you mention in the Lead: NY 15, NY 65, and NY 64.
  • Only partially done; adding NY 15 violates NYSR's policy of not repeating locations in the infobox and the junction with NY 65 isn't major enough to list in the infobox. Additionally, adding all three routes would result in the entire junction list being listed in the infobox, save for only NY 15A, and I'm staunchly opposed to that.

Lead:

• I would rewrite the second paragraph of the Lead to be strictly chronological because the way it jumps around now is confusing. I would mention (a) what routes originally followed NY 251's current path; (b) when NY 251 was assigned and its original extent; and, (c) when and what part was truncated.
  •  Done paragraph completely rewritten.

• Within the second paragraph: "NY 251 originally extended north to Gates..." North from where to Gates? Scottsville should be mentioned here.
  • Moot point; see above.

Route description:

• The first paragraph of the Route description seems redundant with the Lead. The paragraph mentions the route's length with less precision, mentions it runs east-west (using the term "near-perfect", which is subjective), and the towns and counties it runs through. I would remove that paragraph because a mini-lead is not necessary when the section only has three paragraphs of details.
  •  Done, but I moved the part about only three miles of the route being in Ontario County to the lead since IMO that's a significant piece of information.

• "Midway through the town of Rush, NY 251 widens from two to four lanes and meets I-390 at exit 11 and NY 15 at junctions spaced just yards apart." I would explain the interchange in a little more detail, since it is more than a simple diamond. Also, the phrase "just yards apart" begs for quantification. I would either mention the distance of separation or change the wording to something like "meets NY 15 immediately to the east of the interchange."
  •  Done combined your suggestions into a couple of reworded sentences.

• "The intersection acts as a control point for both roads as the road name is different in all four directions." I would remove this sentence unless you intend to include NY 64's road names. The term "control point" is confusing.
  • It's a railroad term and I think it makes sense here, but I'm not particularly attached to the sentence. Trashed.

• There are several uses of "sparsely-populated areas" and similar terms. I would be a little more specific and mention that the route passes through farmland. Otherwise, it is not clear what the highway's surroundings are: is the area sparsely-populated because it passes through farmland or because it passes through a forest? Since there is little variation in the terrain, probably mentioning the farmland in the Lead, instead of or in addition to the term "rural," would be enough.
  • Well, it's not just farmland and it's not just forests, and describing precisely what it goes across gives a bit of undue weight to otherwise unremarkable areas in my opinion.

• "NY 251 crosses the Ontario Central Railroad..." Is this crossing at-grade or grade separated?
  • Clarified.

Wikilinks: Several articles are linked once per section, such as NY 383. That may constitute overlinking. This article is short enough that there probably do not need to be multiple links to the same article.

•  Not done I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, linking terms once per section complies with the spirit of the guideline, if not the letter of it.

Images:

• Chili is mentioned in the caption of the third image. There is no mention of Chili in the article. At minimum, Chili needs to be wikilinked in the caption. I would also mention either in the prose or in the caption that NY 251 once passed through Chili because some readers may not make the connection just by looking at the image and caption as it is now.
  • Added Chili to the history, eliminating the need for linking it in the caption. – TMF 09:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)