Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 805/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Interstate 805

Nominator(s): Rs chen 7754 04:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been quite a few months since I've been here, but here we are. This article is a GA and just passed HWY's ACR, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. This is an Interstate Highway in San Diego, and one of the city's most important highways. Rs chen 7754 04:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel it is well-written and meets all the FA criteria. Dough 48 72 04:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Image review - I also reviewed this article at ACR, and believe it meets the criteria. I also did an image review at ACR (I would still advise adding alt text for accessibility, but understand it is not actually included in the FA criteria). - Evad37 [talk] 04:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support You have two dead links in the article per the link checker tool. --Admr Boltz 16:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the link addresses just changed slightly, [2] and [3] seem to be the new link locations. - Evad37 [talk] 16:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's incredibly annoying, because it means that the links across all California articles need to be changed. :/ I've fixed this article for now. --Rs chen 7754 19:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - On reference 10, the data appears to be from 2012, but your date in your reference shows 2005–2006. I think once this is cleared up I am in favor of supporting the article. It is well written and referenced. --Admr Boltz 19:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed, seems to be an artifact from my combining refs. --Rs chen 7754 19:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Supporting. --Admr Boltz 20:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I've made some minor formatting changes and I'm content with the prose and the quality/reliability of the sources plus their formatting. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- As usual I'd like to see a review from outside the roads project for accessibility to the general reader; also looks like we need a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noted above, but maybe it got lost in the shuffle: the sources are all reliable items (major local newspapers, appropriate gov't sources, etc.). They're all consistently formatted save one minor issue I've just pinged Rschen7754 about off-wiki. Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I conducted a spotcheck at the ACR, so they should be good on verifiability and lack of plagiarism, if that was an issue. (Just thought I'd note that here somewhere.) T C N7JM 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be away until late Tuesday December 31, only having phone access. --Rs chen 7754 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. The article reads well to this non-transportation expert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.