Talk:California State Route 70/GA2

GA Review

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I've found replacements for two; looking for the third. --Rs chen 7754 22:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]