Talk:California State Route 188

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California State Route 188 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

California State Route 188 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 26, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: State highways / California Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major 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.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	California
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Map

The map looks better if it's zoomed in more; the highlighted route on the current map looks too short. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 188/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 17:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~See comment section below.~~Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Reference number 1 is not working. Fix it or delete it. I will pass the article once this issue is resolved. Everything else in the article is good.--Dom497 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed; we can thank Microsoft for making a new XLSX format. :/ --Rs chen 7754 17:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be on hold for 7 days.--Dom497 (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]