Talk:New York State Route 418

New York State Route 418 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.

New York State Route 418 is part of the State highways in Warren County, New York series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 18, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 11, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 22, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
August 10, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Good article

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

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.

Article recognition:

	This article was the Selected article of the New York Roads Portal in November 2015.

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~Needs a maintenance tag, and other WP:NYSR pre-GA checklist stuff. The link to which I don't have at the moment, sorry.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Some level of explanation about why the trail is called the "Dude Ranch Trail" is necessary. It's just not the sort of thing I'd expect to see in New York. The text describes it as a "memorial highway", but to what and for what is unknown.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Maybe eliminate the adjective "short" in the first sentence. While 3.5 mi is short, from experience it leaves to problems down the road, where I describe 135 mi as "long" and suddenly have to describe a 350 mi route.
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):
I have some quibbles with the image used in the article. It's two images in one, which is... somewhat awkward. What makes it even more awkward is that one is really bright and the other one is really dark. Either the levels need to be adjusted accordingly, or the best one should be picked out and used. Probably the one on the right, because the image on the left has a watermark on it.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried every news source possible to why the Dude Ranch Trail is named as such. Nothing says it. Also, I had to remove the picture, because my source for the photo doesn't allow editing. (Last I checked, an image is not important in a GA). Otherwise, the other thing I fixed.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick general Google search gives me two important links: [1] and [2]. The first tells me it's a National Scenic Byway, which means the trail is more likely tourist-oriented than anything. The second is a link to a Adirondack North County Association page, which I would consider a reliable source and reinforces the fact that the Dude Ranch Trail is tourist-oriented. This trail had an establishment date of some sort - it'd be nice to know what that was, so I'd do an exhaustive search on who made the trail and when first. —Rob (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used both links, thanks for that. Is that everything?^Mitch 32 ^contribs 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits don't quite cover my standard for "major aspects". You sort of have a decision to make. The Dude Ranch Trail, being a National Scenic Byway, is notable. It looks like it runs on SH 418, SH 1, SH 9N, and possibly U.S. 9, based on the map. So you probably should split it out into its own article.

Alternatively, this article can be where Dude Ranch Trail redirects. If you go this route (ha!), you'll have to provide more specifics on the trail, within reason. At the very least, an origin date. Optimally, and especially to be considered an FA, a complete summary of who wanted to establish the trail, when, how it happened, etc. —Rob (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to make it to the Dude Ranch Trail area until mid-July. But there, I will be able to get a pic of 1) Route 418, and 2) the Dude Ranch Trail. For now, I'm sort of short the information needed. It can eventually have its own article, but not yet.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 21:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trail should be in its own article, since very little of it is actually NY 418 - somewhere in the range of four out of the total 43 miles. – T M F 21:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, since the one map I used above really does a poor job with the designations, here's what comprises the trail, clockwise from Stony Creek: (Warren) CR 3, CR 2, NY 418, US 9, CR 35, NY 9N, CR 44, (Saratoga) CR 1, (Warren) CR 12. – T M F 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds correct. There's also the law ref in the article, which lists its routing.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like History sections are optional for WP:NYSR. I would recommend noting the earliest date of origin in the lead and removing the History section altogether, if you don't have any information on other major aspects of the route's history. —Rob (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I don't like the idea.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misunderstood that guideline. The reason it reads optional is that if someone is following the page to a "T" and sees that history is required, they don't create a section saying "The history of this route is unknown" or make up some stuff for the route. As the article is right now, if I was reviewing it, I'd fail it for lack of comprehensiveness - that is, no history whatsoever. – T M F 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't mind restoring the history, but now that Rob wants the Dude Ranch Trail thing, it becomes impossible to deal with. 1 sentence history still fails for comprehensiveness, and doesn't help me any way.^Mitch 32 ^contribs 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dude Ranch Trail article is the right thing to do. :-p That it happens to leave the article's history lacking is unfortunate, so we really ought to define what a comprehensive history section is. If it's a just a history of reroutes like we've been doing, it's not really fair to routes that haven't been rerouted at all in their entire history. —Rob (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Rob, about the Trail. Regarding comprehensive histories, I don't know if a static definition can really be made since it will vary so much by route. A good comparison can be made between NY 28 and NY 23A. Since NY 28 has had so many reroutings, that's what composes the bulk of its history; on the other hand, since NY 23A has remained the same since the mid-1920s (and is possibly the oldest route in New York that is unchanged), the history also contains other developments, namely the 2006 closure of the route due to flooding and landslides. If I had to give a "guideline" suggestion, it would probably be that for the less history a route has in terms of reroutings, the more it is necessary to find history through other means. – T M F 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review #2[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It'll pass, but just barely. There really isn't a whole lot of information, and the history is where it gets really skimpy on info. I can see from the past GA review that you've looked hard for more information, so if that's all there is then that's all there is.
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):
The only images are the map and the shield. It'll do, but an image would be nice.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

It's not the best article, and there are some issues, but for the sake of GA it passes. Good work. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Route 418. 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/20100715112245/http://www.firstwilderness.com/masterplan.php to http://www.firstwilderness.com/masterplan.php

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]