Wikipedia:Peer review/New York State Route 28/archive1

New York State Route 28[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel its almost ready for Featured Article status. It is part of my future Featured Topic and I need it well reviewed so I'm not mauled at FAC for it.

Thanks, ^Mitch 32 ^contribs 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Lead: Looks good at first glance.

Route description: A few phrasing issues. Near the eastern tip of the Ashokan Reservoir 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from US 209 in the town of Kingston, NY 28 intersects the eastern terminus of NY 28A." There's at least a comma missing in there if not a better way to phrase that sentence.

- Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"NY 28 proceeds along the reservoir to its western end in the Olive community of Boiceville, where NY 28A reconnects to NY 28." I know after hovering my cursor over Olive that it links to Olive, NY. I assume that the community of Boiceville is in Olive, NY, but someone else might assume there's olive groves there.

- Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Roughly 0.75 miles (1.21 km) north of I-88, NY 28 passes over NY 7 with no access between the two." If there's no access, and this is in the junction list lower in the article, I don't think it really needs to be mentioned in the prose. It feels extraneous to me.

- Done.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many mentions of other highways that terminate at NY 28. I'd prune through mentioning all of them in the prose. Some are less notable compared to others, and if they're all in the jct table, they don't all need to be in the RD? Ditto all the concurrencies.

History Looks good at first glance.

I'm sure I'll have more later. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Close the Peer Review. Per instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC, articles shouldn't be at both places simultaneously. It creates extra work to remind nominators to follow the instructions, and the open peer review will stall the bot when the FAC closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]