Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 56

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review

California State Route 56 edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Toolbox

California State Route 56 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This article just passed at GA, and is complete; I think it could be a FA.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Promoted!  VC  03:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dough4872

I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:

  1. Some of the attractions in the route description do not seem notable enough for mentioning, such as the San Diego Jewish Academy and Westview High School.
    Really? --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Planning for SR 56 was reportedly started in 1956", the use of "reportedly" sounds awkward here.
    Reportedly because it's based off the recollections of one person interviewed for the newspaper article. --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The routing ran from LRN 2, which later became US 101," wasn't LRN 2 already US 101 at this time?
    Signed, maybe; legally, no. --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There should be an appropriate conversion for " 69 acres".
      Done --Rschen7754 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "require them to move the western terminus of SR 56, possibly moving it closer to Sorrento Valley", use the verb "move" twice here.
      Done --Rschen7754 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The sentence " However, the ramps connecting SR 56 to I-5 were opened between 1997 and 1998; traffic was diverted onto Carmel Valley Road." seems to be missing some words.
    Any ones in particular? --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can rephrase the sentence to "However, the ramps connecting SR 56 to I-5 were not opened until between 1997 and 1998; traffic was diverted onto Carmel Valley Road until they were finished." to make it sound more complete. Dough4872 01:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "Highway 680", is that what the county route was officially referred to as and not CR 680? Dough4872 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the sources I have, yes. cahighways.org calls it Select Arterial 680, though. --Rschen7754 00:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My issues have been resolved. Dough4872 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Fredddie
Infobox and lead
  1. In the map's caption, you should mention what the dotted line that connects to SR 67 is.
      Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No wikilink to Carmel Valley, San Diego?
      Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The first mention of I-15 could be shortened.
      Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "It is also called the Ted Williams Freeway, named after baseball player Ted Williams, who was born in San Diego." I'd probably say "It is also called the Ted Williams Freeway, named after the San Diego-born baseball player." I'm not sure the link to the baseball article is useful.
      Done --Rschen7754 06:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Route description
  1. Picture shows a BGS that says "El Camino Real" but the caption says "Carmel Creek Road". Is that right?
    Yes, it's looking off the Carmel Creek Road bridge. --Rschen7754 07:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Northbound SR 56 begins as a ramp from the I-5 northbound local bypass lanes."
    1. Northbound SR 56?
    2. "from northbound I-5's local bypass lanes."
      Done --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Move ___bound to before the road's name.
      Done --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Continuing eastbound, → Continuing east,
      Done --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Similar diamond interchange to what?
    To the previous interchange. --Rschen7754 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Are "Rancho Penasquitos" and "Rancho Peñasquitos" interchangeable?
    You tend to see both, because some people can't or won't use the tilde, since this is in a primarily English-speaking country. --Rschen7754 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No newer AADT statistics?
      Done --Rschen7754 07:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. Reportedly started? Nothing concrete?
    See comment to Dough4872. --Rschen7754 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "On December 30, 1980, the city of Poway included SR 56 extending all the way east through the city to a northern extension of SR 125.[10]" What do you mean by 'included'?
    That's what happens when you write out of order, and never come back to the original part. :/ --Rschen7754 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Capitalization of Least Bell's Vireo
      Done Rschen7754 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As a corporate entity, it's "City of San Diego", not "city of San Diego"
    Got all the ones I saw. --Rschen7754 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Have you considered inflating the figures to today's dollars?
      Done --Rschen7754 08:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Why was McNamara charged for the signs?
    Source wasn't really clear on that. --Rschen7754 05:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What was Proposition A?
      Done --Rschen7754 08:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Exit list

This was a fairly quick run for me. I might make another pass later in the week. –Fredddie™ 04:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Rschen7754 08:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed. –Fredddie™ 23:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dave

Note:Partial review, I will remove this note when finished:

Lead

The statement "as the only east–west freeway in between SR 78 and SR 52" is clunky. The intent of this clause it to explain why the words "important connector" are merited in describing the highway. The problem is, it only works for those know where these 2 state routes run. At a minimum they should be linked, but I'd prefer to re-write this so say something like. "as the next east-west artery is SR-XXX, X miles away".

I've added locations; the danger is that SR 78 does not run due east-west, and is a different mileage away on I-5 versus I-15. --Rschen7754 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's better. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Route description

"SR 56 is not part of the National Highway System (NHS)" Why is it important to know this?

I've seen a lot of GA/FAs indicate whether they are part of it or not. Open to input on this from anyone though. --Rschen7754 22:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me is seems like fancruft to list what a highway is not. However, I've been out of the loop lately (trying to get back into it) and I'll take your word for it that this has passed the scrutiny of FAC. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History

"Following the Sierra Club's settlement, the City of Del Mar had a dispute with them" is clunky. Presumably "them" refers to Sierra Club, but there are a lot of organizations listed in this section and it isn't 100% clear who them is. Maybe, "The City of Del Mar had a post settlement dispute with the Sierra Club over..." and then massaging the sentence that follows.

Copyedited, better now? --Rschen7754 01:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ted Williams paragraph doesn't flow well with the rest of this section. IMO the best solution would be to expand this enough to split into two paragraphs and make it its own L3 heading, "Naming the freeway" or similar. Then move this new section to the bottom of the History section. However, its possible a less invasive solution is out there.

Made a copyedit to the first sentence - is this smoother? --Rschen7754 01:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's out of place. I won't stop the nomination over it though. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that it's a bit of a jump, but I'm not exactly sure where it would be better. --Rschen7754 05:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California Coastal Commission should be linked on first use in the article.

Done. --Rschen7754 00:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more later Dave (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Rschen7754 01:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History part 2

Caltrans should be wikilinked on first mention in prose (it is wikilinked in the infobox, but not in prose) FYI, An article exists for San Diego City Council, but I've got mixed feelings if that needs to be wikilinked or not.

Both done. --Rschen7754 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In history an unlinked term "Bolsa Chica" is used. There are a handful of wikipedia articles on places named Bolsa Chica. I'm guessing the one this refers to is Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. In any case, I'd advise to find out which one (if any) applies and link as appropriate.

A Wikipedia search didn't come up with the right one. :( --Rschen7754 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fail. Yeah, that is the right one. --Rschen7754 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should explain the phrase "dual freeway". I think of a setup of separate collector and distributor lanes when I read that, but I'm a roadgeek. Not sure what non-roadgeeks would think of.

Added a bit. --Rschen7754 09:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
exit list

Is I-5 known as the "San Diego Freeway" within San Diego County? I know it is south of El Toro Y in the LA Metro area, but this surprises me that it is known as this in San Diego.

It's actually Montgomery. I think we both know who we can blame for that. :( --Rschen7754 06:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exit list seems to contradict the infobox. The exit list states the entire route is in the city of San Diego in San Diego County. However the infobox lists cities other than San Diego. I'm aware they don't actually contradict each other as these are neighborhoods of San Diego. Do you know if there is precedent for using neighborhoods, rather than city names, in the infobox?

I don't know that there is a standard. I'll add San Diego to both to prevent confusion. --Rschen7754 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sourcing

Sources 8,9 ans 44 are linked to URL's with static IP's. I'm not aware of a policy issue against that, but it seems risky to do so. Do you know if this IP is known to be stable?

It has been for a while... unfortunately, that's how the archives are set up... that's California for you. :/ --Rschen7754 06:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overall

The lead and the infobox map caption each have one sentence mentions of an unconstructed portion. However, this topic is not really expanded in the body of the article. There are 2 sentences about it in the section titled "Planning and initial construction". I'd like to see more, similar to what I did in California State Route 14. IMO if something merits a mention in the lead it should merit at least a paragraph in the body. However, I'll admit I'm hypocritical in stating that in my own work.

I've added a sentence and shifted stuff around. Unfortunately, my sources were silent on this one. I've seen a SPS claim that the city shot it down, but I'm not sure if they have it confused with Select Arterial 680, another related road. --Rschen7754 08:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dave (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done, and thanks! --Rschen7754 09:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved to my satisfaction. So I will Support. The one thing I'd like to see is, while you did address my concern about the unreconstructed portion, I'd like to see what geography lies between the planned verses constructed terminus of the highway? (i.e. is there some mountain or other geologic obstacle that makes construction difficult, or is it as flat as Kansas and as such no obvious reason for the cancellation?) Dave (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was more of the city of Poway not wanting it. --Rschen7754 02:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Imzadi1979

I made some tweaks to the lead (bolding the abbreviation, etc), and I have additional comments for the other sections of the article.

RD
  • This section looks good, except the last paragraph. Since the NHS isn't mentioned again at all, the abbreviation can be dropped.
  • As for the last sentence, "On average... an average..." is a little repetitious. Also, does the source specify that this is the average for a weekday, versus weekend traffic levels, or just the theoretical average day of AADT?
    • Done, and yes, it's weekday. --Rschen7754 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Planning and construction
  • Saying that the planning "reportedly" started in a certain year expresses a certain amount of doubt that it did. I'd drop the adverb if you have confidence that the source is right.
    • See comment to Fredddie above. Maybe I should say "according to _"? --Rschen7754 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a subject-verb error in one sentence further down. The road can't start construction. Instead of "The predecessor of SR 56 began construction..." I would think it should sound better as "Construction for the predecessor to SR 56 began on...". I would then use a semicolon and drop the "with" since that word is a preposition and not a conjunction.
  • I had to double check, but California has District Courts of Appeal, not of Appeals. (I was looking because on the federal level, the Courts of Appeals are organized by Circuits, not Districts.)
  • "However, the ramps connecting..." sounds wrong. That word is great for introducing a concept that is in opposition or juxtaposition to something else (like "but"), but in this case, I think "Later" would work better.
    • But then it's redundant with "1997 or 1998". --Rschen7754 07:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole paragraph about Ted Wlliams and Pete Wilson can omit their first names after the first mention. However, I would look up the first names of the councilwoman and councilman since they're missing.
    • I'd rewrite the on sentence as: "However, the Council voted 7–1 to name it after Williams on May 12, 1992." The "of naming" is one of those "preposition + -ing" constructions that makes Tony1 cry. (The vote needs a dash instead of a hyphen as well.)
    • Since this is past history now, I would change the tense on the "It is alleged..." to "It was alleged..." and change the "...proposed the named of the freeway after Pete Wilson for... " to "...nominated Wilson for the honor as...".
  • Further down, there is a "however" that isn't needed when discussing Kevin McNamara. Nothing seems to pull together why that's counterintuitive or unexpected.
    • But why would a private citizen have to pay for this? --Rschen7754 07:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Filling the gap
  • "... however, Caltrans was required to install a drainage system, since the route traverse wetlands similar to those in a project in Bolsa Chica that was the subject of a court verdict" is kinda wordy to be tacked on to another sentence. I'd make that its own sentence and reword it up a bit along the lines of "Caltrans was required to install a drainage system because of wetlands; this was similar to a court verdict for a project in Bolsa Chica.
  • "for the construction of the interchange at ... began on the interchange..." is a perfect place to us an "it".
  • "...the City Council allocated ... to purchase land..." would be better than "for purchasing" to avoid tears from down under. (See above for the reference.)
Ramps and bypasses
  • "referring to the carriageways needed for each direction of the freeway"?
  • I'd split the five options out as either a bulleted or numbered list. Something like:

On June 13, 2012, Caltrans held a public forum to discuss five proposals to address the issue with the missing ramps at the western terminus:

  • build the westbound-to-northbound ramp and the southbound-to-eastbound ramp,
  • add additional lanes to both SR 56 and I-5,
  • build only the westbound-to-northbound ramp and add lanes to southbound I-5 and eastbound SR 56,
  • build the westbound-to-northbound ramp and add lanes to SR 56 only, or
  • build nothing at all.[73]
  • The X-to-Y constructions do need to be hyphenated though.
    • Exit list
    • Just a thought, but since this has a CalNexus document, maybe the table should be switched to use mileposts instead of postmiles?
    • Second thought, but is it possible to have the last milepost/postmile span the bottom three rows of the table if they pertain to the same location?
    References
    • While there isn't actually any MOS guideline against it, it does look consistently inconsistent to use DD Month YYYY format for the dates of the references when the body of the article uses Month DD, YYYY, format. I'd personally make them match the body of the article.
    • I didn't look at the source code, but I'd recommend that if titles have SR 56, Route 56, etc as part of the wording that non-breaking spaced be added to the citations as needed.
    • FN 2 has the publisher wikilinked while other citations don't. The {{Bing maps}} template can have |link=no to unlink the publisher, or the others could have their publishers linked on first usage.
    • FN 4 is a map, but isn't using {{cite map}}.
    • FN 5's associated web page has been updated. I'm slowly changing Michigan articles over to use the new page that FHWA posted in June.
      • The URL is still the same - not sure what you mean. --Rschen7754 19:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The templates look like they're using |pages= for single page citations for newspaper articles. This results in things like the "pp. B8" on FN 7.
    • Also for FN 7 and similar, the location isn't needed for The San Diego Union-Tribune because it is part of the newspaper's name. It would be needed for FN 13 for the Evening Tribune though. (Also when providing it, the state name can be dropped for San Diego.)
    • FN 12 should either have a space after the comma (1, 2) or a dash (1–2).
    • FNs 4, 12 and 75 are missing |format=PDF indicators.
    • FNs 6 and 12 are missing authorship (the "Staff") that FN 1 has for a corporate work without a specified individual author or authors.
    • It may be quite beneficial to add the ISSN or OCLC numbers for the newspapers.
    • FNs 34 and 35 should have map sections added if the maps have grid references.
      • 34 done, I don't have the source with me for 35. --Rschen7754 01:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 36 is missing a location and FNs 37 and 38 has one. (If retained, FN 38 should get a state name if that's Cambridge in Massachusetts and not in England.)
    • FN 75 should have an update date for the document; if so I would provide that as a date.
    Images
    • The captions need their terminal punctuation removed if they aren't full sentences. The only one that would need punctuation is the "SR 56 east at Carmel Creek Road; the exits on the sign were... completed in 2004." (Note the punctuation change I'm suggesting here.)
    • File:Ted Williams BBall Digest May 1949 raw.jpg might make a better photo choice than the baseball card.

    Overall, very minor stuff, and an article I'd be happy to support once tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 13:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    All issues addressed, and thanks for the review. --Rschen7754 07:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/California_State_Route_56&oldid=1138363158"