Talk:California State Route 20/Archive 1

Archive 1

assessment

this article by wp proj calif standards is only start class. aside from the lists and template the content is barely over stub. to meet B class it needs expansion to address history, prehistory, ecology and other factors also more sources are needed. Anlace 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Comments below. Very comprehensive, and just a few issues. —Rob (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There seems to be a "Business Business 20" in the junction list. Also, I don't know what the prefixes mean, and it's not specified anywhere. (R, T)

   Where is the Business Business 20? I can't find it :P --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   In the junction list, Image:Business plate green.svg appears twice in both CA 20 lines, in both Firefox and IE. I wasn't sure if it was a browser bug, intentional, or what, but I suspect it's an accident. —Rob (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   Fixed. Looks like an error resulting from the conversion to {{jct}}. —Rob (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks - I can't see images so I couldn't tell. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   Eh? How does Wikipedia look on Lynx? —Rob (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   I can't access upload.wikimedia.org so I can't see Wikipedia images. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (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):

   This is in north-central CA, right? I had to peer at the map for a while to see. What is the Interregional Road System? It is currently a redlink. A few state routes are linked twice, or thrice. Perhaps some elevations would be handy? I would also evaluate the number of red links in the article.

   Clarified in lead. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   Clarified the regional system. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

   Removed extra links. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

   Probably with the removal of extra links, the red link number is appropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

   What do you mean by adding elevations? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

   It sounds like this route runs up and down a couple set of mountain ranges. If CA 20 doesn't run through any passes, then elevations wouldn't really be required, but I figured change in elevation would be helpful in describing the route further. —Rob (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2008 (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):

   At 211 miles, another picture may be helpful.

   Added one, hope the layout is ok. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

With the work that's been done, I've gone ahead and passed the article. I am leaving the comments for future improvement as well. —Rob (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think SR 20 goes through any passes, but I'll have to reconfirm that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I didn't see any when I followed it on topos. --NE2 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)