Talk:U.S. Route 395 in California/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This review is based on this revision of the article. In all it is a very good article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I need some clarification on ref 18 as an RS.
 * 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):
 * Image:US395 victorville.jpg has a deprecated license tag that should be cleared up.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm holding the article pending the questions I have above. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:US395 victorville.jpg has a deprecated license tag that should be cleared up.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm holding the article pending the questions I have above. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The image has been fixed. Regarding source 18. I'm struggling with this. I was hoping you would let is slide =-). It is not a Self Published Source. I've seen articles from at least 5 different authors on this site, and the author of this article does not match the name on the publisher. However the credentials of the publisher are not clear, and this may be a personal website. Although if it is, it's a dang thorough one. This site is done in a similar style to a website I found for a museum in the Owens Valley. I'm trying to find out if this is an extension of that website. I'll advise. I would like to keep this as a source if nothing else due to the thoroughness of the information. Worst case, I'll find another source and move this to external links. Dave (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK found a reliable source, that was not a detailed, but covered similar material. I had to re-word portions of the paragraph to keep in line with the source.Dave (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sorry I'm a little belated on this, but passing. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)