Talk:County Route S18 (California)/GA2

GA Reassessment

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Delisted. Imzadi 1979 → 08:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch[reply]

My main issue with this article is that as of this diff is that references 3, 4, 10. 11, 15, & 29 are cited to images / street view, and 5, 20, & 21 are not reliable sources. If this article can be cleaned up I support retaining the article's GA status, else the article will be demoted. --Admrboltz (talk)

I agree. The multitude of Google Maps references could be combined together, and using the aerial view with labels instead of the map view in the link will reference the physical surroundings. As it stands, the Google Maps references should be using {{google maps}} instead of {{cite map}}. The current method is linking Google Maps in ever citation, a clear case of WP:OVERLINKing. Several newspaper names are used, but not in italics, and second usages of newspaper names should not be linked. Source #2 needs section numbers/inset names. If a link target is a PDF, |format=PDF should be added. Not all browsers can read PDFs nor do they all insert the PDF icon after the link. There's no publisher or author information on footnote 28. (If retained, the title needs to bre re-rendered in Title Case, not ALLCAPS. Actually the other titles need to be redone in Title Case instead of Sentence case.)

The map needs work. It provides no context... which line is S18? Where is this map located? The writing quality could be improved. It's still not well written from its aborted FAC nomination. I suggest a copy edit. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The route follows in a boomerang-like pattern" - wha?

Knowing who the editor of this article was, this likely needs cleanup; I haven't read the article, but it's highly probable. --Rs chen 7754 07:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lack of activity or interest for improving this article to retain it's GA status. I'd like to suggest that we move to demoting/delisting it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the only reason I'd be interested in saving this is rel WW, and this is the only CACR standalone remanining. Not good signs for it staying a GA. --Rs chen 7754 06:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.