Talk:California State Route 20/Archive 1

assessment
this article by wp proj calif standards is only start class. aside from the lists and template the content is barely over stub. to meet B class it needs expansion to address history, prehistory, ecology and other factors also more sources are needed. Anlace 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review
Comments below. Very comprehensive, and just a few issues. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 01:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Where is the Business Business 20? I can't find it :P --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the junction list, Image:Business plate green.svg appears twice in both CA 20 lines, in both Firefox and IE. I wasn't sure if it was a browser bug, intentional, or what, but I suspect it's an accident. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Looks like an error resulting from the conversion to jct. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I can't see images so I couldn't tell. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? How does Wikipedia look on Lynx? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't access upload.wikimedia.org so I can't see Wikipedia images. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Clarified in lead. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified the regional system. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed extra links. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably with the removal of extra links, the red link number is appropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by adding elevations? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like this route runs up and down a couple set of mountain ranges. If CA 20 doesn't run through any passes, then elevations wouldn't really be required, but I figured change in elevation would be helpful in describing the route further. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 12:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Added one, hope the layout is ok. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Added one, hope the layout is ok. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

With the work that's been done, I've gone ahead and passed the article. I am leaving the comments for future improvement as well. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think SR 20 goes through any passes, but I'll have to reconfirm that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I didn't see any when I followed it on topos. --NE2 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)