Talk:California State Route 195/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Rschen7754, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Rschen7754, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. However, prior to its passage, I do have some comments and suggestions that should be addressed. Thank you for all your great work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines California State Route 195, establishes the route's necessary context, and explains why the route is otherwise notable.
• The info box for California State Route 195 is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• Both the California State Route shield has been released into the Public Domain and is therefore acceptable for use in this template. The map of State Route 195 in California has also been released into the Public Domain and is suitable for inclusion here.
• I would suggest including more content from the History section below into the lede, so that it is more comprehensive. You should mention that SR 195 was officially designated in the 1964 state highway renumbering.
  • Expanded. --Rschen7754 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Route description

• Consider also including information about the route's topography and location relative to the Salton Sea. I've attached two references for inline citations to the USGS topographic maps for this area. I've included the references for both quadrangles that cover SR 195 below:
  • Oasis Quadrangle, California (Map). 1 : 24,000. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey. 1965. OCLC 60315836.
  • Mecca Quadrangle, California – Riverside Co (Map). 1 : 24,000. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey. 1955. OCLC 52760952.
  • I've added some information, but there isn't much for a 7 mile route. --Rschen7754 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• While the maps are dated 1965 and 1955, they've been continually updated, although the topography of the area has remained the same so that was never changed despite shifting route designations.
• SR 86 should probably be rendered as State Route 86 (SR 86) in its first mention.
  • Usually it's best to have the full name for every type of route, rather than every route; on longer articles especially, this cuts down on the clutter. --Rschen7754 02:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

History

• Blythe, Oasis, and Salton Sea should all be wiki-linked in their first mentions in the prose, which is in the first paragraph of this section.
  • Did the first two, and mentioned Salton Sea earlier. --Rschen7754 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• If the western portion was known as Box Canyon Road, it should be rendered as such. It was probably used as the road's formal name. If the source states otherwise, then the way it is rendered in the article can remain as such.
  • It was not. --Rschen7754 02:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Wiki-link Indio, Banning, Idyllwild, and Mountain Center.
  • Done. --Rschen7754 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• For consistency's sake, US 60 and US 70 and US 99 should all be rendered as "U.S. Route XX (US XX)" in their first mentions in the prose. De-link the subsequent mention of US 60 in the fourth paragraph.
  • Removed the extra link; also see above. --Rschen7754 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Major intersections

• Use the USGS inline citation to cite that the entire route is in Riverside County. Some of the other California state highway maps cited in the text could also be used here so that it doesn't appear to be un-cited.
  • It's cited elsewhere in the article, so I don't feel a need to repeat it here. --Rschen7754 02:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• These map citations could also be used in the headers of each column in the table so that it also appears to be fully sourced.
  • See above; everything comes from the citations for the mileage, and most road GAs and FAs handle the citations this way. --Rschen7754 02:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• Locations are needed for the first two rows. Aren't they in Oasis if I'm mistaken?
  • If there is no definitive location ("near Oasis" isn't definitive) then it's best to not include one. --Rschen7754 02:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
  • All done, and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 03:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Alright, I'll pass this on to GA status. -- West Virginian (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)