Talk:New York State Route 458/GA1

GA Review
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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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! :)
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. Mitch 32(UP) 16:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


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


 * Readded, but done differently. Mitch 32(UP) 16:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)