Talk:California State Route 190

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	California State Route 190 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 9, 2008.
March 7, 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.

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

[edit] History notes

1941 map: proposed road [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --NE2 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination on hold

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

No significant problems in article, but needs to have references corrected.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   There's a lot of redlinks in the article, but this is probably ok. I would make sure you only wikilink each term the first time its used in the article (outside of the lead)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   References are not in a consistent style; online sources should have "accessed" information. See WP:CITET for citation templates that can be used, given that it doesn't appear this article is using Harvard referencing.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

--MASEM 18:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Links cleaned up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see which sources need accessed date. You may be referring to the various reports that are published online; these already have an associated publication date. --NE2 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

All web links need an access date, the date that you actually went to the link. This will be different to the date the document was published. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since those links are simply "convenience links". Caltrans produces a yearly (?) bridge log; this is the July 2007 edition. The purpose of the accessed date is so if the resource changes, we know when it was accessed, but these aren't going to change. --NE2 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So then just put today's date for them. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a MLA style issue - I'd just go ahead and put a date just to have one in the reference. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Or I could remove the link. --NE2 05:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, how difficult is it to type "accessdate=2008-03-07" and copy and paste it to each spot, you are talking 15 seconds of work. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the accessed dates. --NE2 18:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, accessdates should be a standard date format, and they can be "today" as long as the source still exists at that point, it's not when you first looked for it. That way, if the site should disappear, someone may be able to find the article at the Wayback Machine or other source.

However, regardless, the issues addressed from the GA hold have been cleared up sufficiently that, congratulations, I promote this to GA. --MASEM 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)