Talk:California State Route 174

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	California State Route 174 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 8, 2008.
February 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics	California State Highways
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the following regions may able to help: Placer County, California Nevada
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] GA hold

1. Prose- Fail. Please improve lead, see Wikipedia:LEAD.

2. Sourcing- Check

3. Coverage- Check. It's a small roadway, so there isn't going to be much.

4. Neutral- Fail. Please see Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Focus mainly on the last paragraph of the history section. Words like fight and fought have viewpoint.

5. Stable- Check

6. Images- Fail. While there is no set standard on graphics, most good article highway pictures have at least one picture. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, if you look at the criteria for GA, there is no requirement that an article have an image... --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article criteria says "It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images." Anyone could take a picture of this highway who is nearby so it is possible and it would be appropriate to have a visual.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no... someone would have to drive out there and take a picture of the highway. Seeing as there's no Wikipedia editors nearby, that would be pretty difficult...--Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask for a second opinion on this article after the other changes have been made. I saw a few good articles without pictures, but most were approved recently, so it's hard to say if they that's the good article review standard or not.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't specify pictures, but images, which this article does have one image, a map. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll still put it up for a second look. I'm still relatively new at reviewing.User:calbear22 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed the lead and POV issues. As for the photo...I just took another look through Flickr and there's nothing. Note that U.S. Route 199 was recently approved before I found and added the photo that's on it. --NE2 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll relax that photo claim, though that reviewer of US 199 hasn't reviewed that many highway articles. It does have an image and there must be some difference between Good Articles and Featured Articles when it comes to graphics. There are few minor things that I will patch up still.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)User:calbear22 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is a "majority eligible". What parts are and aren't eligible?User:calbear22 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's detailed in the history: "the part of SR 174 between the county line and the Grass Valley city limits". Since the abutting government has to adopt the program to restrict development, and only Nevada County requested it, only the part in unincorporated Nevada County was added. --NE2 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Approval

Passes review. Few suggestions for further improvement: expand article (maybe economic impact or state funding for the road?). Some pictures of the highway. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This one was a little short; I couldn't find too much about it. --NE2 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)