Talk:California State Route 160/GA

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Patented" fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Traffic calming" fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Prose issues fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * First one cited. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Turns out that the second issue is also repeated in the history section but is cited there - so I removed it from the RD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Good article! Maybe give the Northern Sacramento Freeway its own subsection, but that's entirely up to you. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent, looks good now. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)