Talk:California State Route 70/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about California State Route 70. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

GA

It's been ten days since the review, should I close it and mark it as fail? C L — 19:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Failing. None of these issues have been addressed in the ten days the review was up. Consider fixing issues in a more timely manner next time - C L — 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 70/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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):
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Infobox

No issues

Lead

No issues

Route description

No issues

History

No issues

Major intersections

No issues

References

References 1, 2, 8 → Dead links according to this
Make sure you proofread this section, as there are many errors that I found. Make sure to:

Make sure access dates are specific, and do not include just the date and year as references did in this section
Make sure you the correct templates of {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} to properly format the references
Make sure everything complies with the items discussed at WP:REF

That is not part of the GAN criteria. --Rs chen 7754 22:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There isn't any part of the GAN criteria that requires any specificity nor consistency to the references, so long as the reviewer can verify the information. That isn't to say that specificity and consistency aren't good things, but they actually aren't required. Imzadi 1979 → 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you just referring to the use of WP:REF? If so, then I have noted what you both have said. However, there are three dead link issues that need to be addressed, and I know that it concerns the good article criteria. Thanks for bringing this up though; it is feedback like this that makes us better on Wikipedia. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I've found replacements for two; looking for the third. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
But see also WP:DEADREF. Links to sources don't actually have to work for the content to be verifiable, especially if the link only recently went dead. (Archive sites have a lag of up to around 18 months, so something that's dead today could be revived through the archive site in the future.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, everything should be good to go. --Rs chen 7754 23:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. I will give you the general seven days to fix these mistakes and/or address issues which you believe do not concern good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Since all of the issues have been addressed, I feel confident passing this article. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 23:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California State Route 70. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721033203/http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm to http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on California State Route 70. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)