Talk:California State Route 160/GA

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
"...both 12th and 16th Streets pass under the Union Pacific Railroad's Martinez Subdivision, where B Street would be, in four-lane subways, but 15th Street dead-ends." I don't really know what that's saying. "patented" doesn't need to be wikilinked. Traffic calming is linked twice... didn't catch any others, though.
"Patented" fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Traffic calming" fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
"The city plans to convert these to two-way streets for traffic calming purposes." needs to be cited. Also "Although Business 80 is now known as the Capital City Freeway here, the original North Sacramento Freeway continued northeast to Auburn Boulevard at exit 11, where the newer Roseville Freeway began." which seems historical in nature.
First one cited. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

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

Excellent, looks good now. —Rob (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]