Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 160/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 01:39, 21 January 2008.

---

California State Route 160

This article recently had a significant expansion, describing detailed, concise, and thorough information about SR 160. It also contains multiple references and a well organized exit list. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it looks like a good article. However, there are an overwhelmingly large number of redlinks... Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose; as the one who wrote it, I can say it's not yet ready. I honestly can't find anything specific, but it seems there should be more detail on the history. One thing that should probably be added is how development along Freeport Boulevard has been affected by being a main road and now being bypassed. --NE2 23:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you still developing the article, then? Melchoir (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not at the present time; I just don't think it's ready. --NE2 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm... as a fellow writer I'm inclined to defer to your judgement, but as a bystander here, it would be easier to reject the FAC if you were going to improve the article in the future. (nudge nudge) Melchoir (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well-written, MOS breaches, and why the humungous table? Tony (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The table shows the major intersections, like Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney shows the stations. --NE2 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as a matter of procedure - needs to go through GA and A classes first. While these processes are not necessary, if the processes were to be omitted, the article has to be at FA quality, which it is not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.