Talk:California State Route 244

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 244/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There should not be bolding in the history section.
   • "(That part of I-80 was Interstate 880 until 1981.)" should not be in parentheses.

   • Both done. --Rschen7754 03:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Reference 1 is a SPS and should be replaced.

   • Done. --Rschen7754 02:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   • Citation needed for "(That part of I-80 was Interstate 880 until 1981.)"

   • Done. --Rschen7754 04:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   • References 1 and 2 need publishers and accessdates and references 5, 6, and 7 need accessdates.

   • Done except for reference 1. --Rschen7754 03:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

   • Reference 4 is a dead link.

   • Link removed. --Rschen7754 05:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Can Legislative Route 288 be mentioned in the lead and bolded?

   • Done. --Rschen7754 03:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

   • Can some details about the physical surroundings be added to the route description?

   • Not done, and will not be done. --Rschen7754 03:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

   • When was SR 244 built? This is not clearly mentioned in the history.

   • That's what the bridge dates are for... --Rschen7754 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

   • I would suggest rewording "The bridges along the route date from 1971, a year after the bridges on I-80 to the west" to "SR 244 was built in 1971, a year after the portion of I-80 to the west. Dough4872 03:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

   • Still no; that misrepresents the source. Theoretically, the bridges could have been built in a different year. It may be impossible to determine when exactly the road was built; the bridge dates are our best bet. --Rschen7754 03:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

   • You do not have a reliable source showing when the actual road was built? Dough4872 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

   • Would maps be any more accurate? --Rschen7754 03:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

   • Maps from the time period would work. Dough4872 03:36, 30 March 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 put the article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get to the rest of this as quickly as I can, but unfortunately the quarter has started again; it may take longer than 7 days. --Rschen7754 06:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Take your time, I will continue to hold the article. Dough4872 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything should be good to go. I apologize about the SPS; I should have caught that before nom'ing. --Rschen7754 04:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I will now pass the article. Dough4872 04:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)