# Talk:California State Route 149

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)
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)
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)

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)

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. --Rschen7754 10:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
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. --Rschen7754 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Source found for lanes. --Rschen7754 08:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
What kind of rural features does it pass? Farms? Woods?
Not done; I think the article's specific enough. --Rschen7754 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In the route description, indicate the termini are interchanges.
Done. --Rschen7754 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
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. Dough4872 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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. --Rschen7754 22:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I tried to get the dead links resolved; one remains. Got everything else except for one that I disagree with. --Rschen7754 08:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Once the remaining dead links are taken care of I will pass the article. Dough4872 19:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, according to the external links too these links are dead but they came up for me. Therefore, I will pass the article. Dough4872 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)