Jump to content

Talk:California State Route 149

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleCalifornia State Route 149 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
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 29, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 17, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that about three-quarters of the Oroville-Chico Highway (now Route 149) in California's Sacramento Valley has been absorbed by realignments of Routes 70 and 99?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 149/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Needs some work.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Some sections are not references (e.g. last sentence in lead)
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Per above
    C. No original research:
    Last sentence in lead ("bottleneck")
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Need some images
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Per above
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Sorry, but this article needs a lot of work before GA. ~~ ĈĠ ( - Review!) Simple? 14:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What needs work? You didn't specify any prose issues, the lead does not have to be cited, and images aren't a requirement. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article can be quick-failed since it has an {{expand}}. However, this is an unacceptable review. CG, you need to be specific about the problems that the article has. The comments you made above are unacceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 149/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    In the History, it describes a past construction project in future tense.
    Done. --Rschen7754 10:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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):
    • In the route description, is it possible to mention how many lanes SR 149 is and whether or not it is a divided highway?
    • What kind of rural features does it pass? Farms? Woods?
    Not done; I think the article's specific enough. --Rschen7754 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the route description, indicate the termini are interchanges.
  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):
    An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will place the article on hold for some minor fixes. Dough4872 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need at least a few days. I just noticed that there are some dead links that need to be dealt with. --Rschen7754 22:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I tried to get the dead links resolved; one remains. Got everything else except for one that I disagree with. --Rschen7754 08:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once the remaining dead links are taken care of I will pass the article. Dough4872 19:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, according to the external links too these links are dead but they came up for me. Therefore, I will pass the article. Dough4872 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]