Talk:Texas State Highway 151
Latest comment: 4 years ago by ToThAc in topic GA Reassessment
![]() | Texas State Highway 151 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Texas State Highway 151 be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Alamo Ranch Parkway
editIs Alamo Ranch Parkway planned as SH 151? --NE2 13:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- It was, but according to a 2018 post on the official TxDOT SA District blog, extending 151 over Alamo Ranch Parkway is not currently in the plans. -happy5214 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
edit- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Texas State Highway 151/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I'm not very convinced of the article's GA status.
- For starters, the article contains an {{update}} tag. Still looks valid to me, especially since most of the info on the page dates back to 2005 and doesn't take into account the reconfiguration of the intersection at Loop 1604, which is hard to explain without finding an appropriate source.
- Another thing that irks me is that the article's "route description" is confusing to read. It often delves into irrelevant detail about businesses operating along the route (some of which don't even operate directly on the route, at least not anymore), and also features information that would be better suited in either the history section or a "future" section. Again, the same problem about outdated info persists here, for the very same observations as was mentioned in the first bullet point.
Therefore, under quick fail criterion 3, I'm hereby de-listing this article from GA status immediately. ToThAc (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)