Talk:California State Route 188

	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

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: Transportation Concept Report: State Route 188 (PDF), October 2016

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]

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]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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

   :

7. 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. :/ --Rschen7754 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]