Talk:California State Route 149

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California State Route 149 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

California State Route 149 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 25, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 29, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 17, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that about three-quarters of the Oroville-Chico Highway (now Route 149) in California's Sacramento Valley has been absorbed by realignments of Routes 70 and 99?

Current status: Good article

U.S. Roads: State highways / California Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. state highways

Locations

California

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in California may be able to help!

Article recognition:

	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in December 2014.

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

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Needs some work.

B. MoS compliance:
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")
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Sorry, but this article needs a lot of work before GA. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) ^Simple? 14:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the History, it describes a past construction project in future tense.
Done. --Rs chen 7754 10:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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. --Rs chen 7754 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source found for lanes. --Rs chen 7754 08:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of rural features does it pass? Farms? Woods?

Not done; I think the article's specific enough. --Rs chen 7754 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the route description, indicate the termini are interchanges.

Done. --Rs chen 7754 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will place the article on hold for some minor fixes. Dough 48 72 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Rs chen 7754 22:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried to get the dead links resolved; one remains. Got everything else except for one that I disagree with. --Rs chen 7754 08:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once the remaining dead links are taken care of I will pass the article. Dough 48 72 19:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, according to the external links too these links are dead but they came up for me. Therefore, I will pass the article. Dough 48 72 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]