Talk:Interstate 780/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Interstate 780. 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 |
Image:California State Route 740.svg
Either upload this image or use Interstate 710, please. I do not like red links (actually, I do, if it's spicy... yummy hot dog stuff - OFF-TOPIC on my part, sorry) --Geopgeop 15:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Routing in Benicia
- 1917: K, W 6th, J to 1st
- 1940: K, W 6th, J, W 3rd, L, E 4th, M to E 5th
- 1942, 1947: K, W 6th, J, 1st, L, E 4th, M to E 5th
- 1950, 1959: L to E 2nd
- 1968: freeway
--NE2 21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Additions as of Jan-Feb 2008
There's a lot of information which gives background to this freeway, so Barnstar to whoever contributed to it. However, there's a few things I see that need some work. In the route description, it talks about Cortola Parkway as soon as it begins. There should be something that hints the reader of why Cortola Pkwy is mentioned, because it sounds confusing since it's not part of 780 itself. It isn't until we read the history when it all comes together. I suggest we only describe the current routing of 780 between Lemon and 680.
Also a comment read "why are 1974 articles referring to the extension to SR 37, when that wasn't added legislatively until 1975? was Caltrans planning it beforehand?" I think the idea was agreed to locally in 74, but wasn't brought or approved by the State until 75. --wL<speak·check> 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Curtola is mentioned in the introduction. --NE2 12:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure if it's correct to refer to the numbers as "legislative routes" before 1935, which is when they were first codified in law. Before that, the numbers were often mentioned in laws, but the California Highway Commission actually chose the numbers. --NE2 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 780/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:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Very good. It meets the criteria and I am passing it. ~~ ĈĠ (☺ - Review!) Simple? 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
