Talk:California State Route 174/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
GA hold
1. Prose- Fail. Please improve lead, see Wikipedia:LEAD.
2. Sourcing- Check
3. Coverage- Check. It's a small roadway, so there isn't going to be much.
4. Neutral- Fail. Please see Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Focus mainly on the last paragraph of the history section. Words like fight and fought have viewpoint.
5. Stable- Check
6. Images- Fail. While there is no set standard on graphics, most good article highway pictures have at least one picture. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, if you look at the criteria for GA, there is no requirement that an article have an image... --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Good article criteria says "It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images." Anyone could take a picture of this highway who is nearby so it is possible and it would be appropriate to have a visual.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um, no... someone would have to drive out there and take a picture of the highway. Seeing as there's no Wikipedia editors nearby, that would be pretty difficult...--Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll ask for a second opinion on this article after the other changes have been made. I saw a few good articles without pictures, but most were approved recently, so it's hard to say if they that's the good article review standard or not.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it doesn't specify pictures, but images, which this article does have one image, a map. --Holderca1 talk 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll still put it up for a second look. I'm still relatively new at reviewing.User:calbear22 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, it doesn't specify pictures, but images, which this article does have one image, a map. --Holderca1 talk 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll ask for a second opinion on this article after the other changes have been made. I saw a few good articles without pictures, but most were approved recently, so it's hard to say if they that's the good article review standard or not.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um, no... someone would have to drive out there and take a picture of the highway. Seeing as there's no Wikipedia editors nearby, that would be pretty difficult...--Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Good article criteria says "It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images." Anyone could take a picture of this highway who is nearby so it is possible and it would be appropriate to have a visual.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think I fixed the lead and POV issues. As for the photo...I just took another look through Flickr and there's nothing. Note that U.S. Route 199 was recently approved before I found and added the photo that's on it. --NE2 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll relax that photo claim, though that reviewer of US 199 hasn't reviewed that many highway articles. It does have an image and there must be some difference between Good Articles and Featured Articles when it comes to graphics. There are few minor things that I will patch up still.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)User:calbear22 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is a "majority eligible". What parts are and aren't eligible?User:calbear22 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's detailed in the history: "the part of SR 174 between the county line and the Grass Valley city limits". Since the abutting government has to adopt the program to restrict development, and only Nevada County requested it, only the part in unincorporated Nevada County was added. --NE2 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is a "majority eligible". What parts are and aren't eligible?User:calbear22 (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll relax that photo claim, though that reviewer of US 199 hasn't reviewed that many highway articles. It does have an image and there must be some difference between Good Articles and Featured Articles when it comes to graphics. There are few minor things that I will patch up still.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)User:calbear22 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
GA Approval
Passes review. Few suggestions for further improvement: expand article (maybe economic impact or state funding for the road?). Some pictures of the highway. Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. This one was a little short; I couldn't find too much about it. --NE2 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Bevy of Offline Newspaper Article References
I was reading through this article and found it very informative. I wanted to read more about the scenic highway designation debacle, but all of the references are to offline newspaper articles that I wasn't able to locate on the internet. This was sort of frustrating. I'm not exactly sure what to suggest, aside from possibly a couple references to more easily-referenced references on this issue -- if any exist? Agnosticaphid (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to add -- there is that one web-article, but it doesn't contain any real discussion of the history of the opposition to or support for the designation, or a longer analysis of the concerns of property rights advocates, for instance. Agnosticaphid (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)