Talk:California State Route 149

GA Review

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)

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)

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)

GA Review

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)

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)

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?

   • It apparently is a divided highway; can't say much more than that. --Rschen7754 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Source found for lanes. --Rschen7754 08:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

   • 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)

   • In the route description, indicate the termini are interchanges.

   • Done. --Rschen7754 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Once the remaining dead links are taken care of I will pass the article. Dough4872 19:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)