Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/2018

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

U.S. Route 75 in Iowa edit

Promoted to A-Class. SounderBruce 03:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

U.S. Route 75 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: It's been a while since I've been to ACR, so here is an article that I believe has a chance of becoming a Featured Article.
Nominated by: –Fredddie™ 13:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754 edit

  • I do intend to review this article. I don't know when I'll get around to it, so I don't mind if someone else goes ahead. --Rschen7754 03:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reconfirming that I intend to review soon. --Rschen7754 00:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Dave is reviewing I will shift my review to some of the source review/image reviews, and any obvious issues I find. --Rschen7754 03:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Dough4872
  • I will review this article. Dough4872 01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. When mentioning the state line termini in the infobox, you should mention what state line it is located at.
    This doesn't apply since I didn't (and typically don't) mention the state endpoints in the infobox
  2. In the first paragraph of the lead, you should mention what state the route comes in from the south and leaves to the north to give more geographical context.
  3. "Immediately upon landing in Iowa,", the word "landing" sounds awkward here, I would use "entering" instead.
    I used the verb land because the road already entered Iowa on the bridge.
  4. "US 75 enters Iowa on the Sergeant Floyd Memorial Bridge, which also carries I-129 and US 20, over the Missouri River.", you should mention the route enters Iowa from Nebraska.
  5. Again, would use "entering" instead of "landing".
    Again, I think it's fine.
  6. "an interchange with Iowa 3 helps direct more traffic to the downtown area.", "more" seems superfluous here and should be removed.
    The previous interchange was with the Le Mars business route; it's implied that the business route directs traffic to downtown.
  7. You should add a little more detail about the physical surroundings to the route description. Specifically, you should mention what kind of development the highway passes in Sioux City and what the surroundings are like in the rural areas. Also you should mention where the road leaves Sioux City and heads into rural areas.
    There's really nothing to describe. Northwestern Iowa gives the rest of the state a bad reputation of being flat cornfields.
    All that needs to be added here is that when the route leaves Sioux City is that it heads into farmland. Maybe add just one sentence that says "Upon leaving Sioux City, US 75 passes through farmland for most of the remainder of its route." or something similar. I think ignoring this leaves out a piece of the route description as the reader may be curious what the areas US 75 passes through in northwestern Iowa are like and some readers may be unfamiliar with the geography of Iowa and cannot assume it passes through farmland on the stretches outside of cities. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree
    I would disagree here too. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In the route description, you should add a web mapping source such as Google Maps or Bing Maps to supplement the Iowa DOT map as I doubt the Iowa DOT map can source some of the information in the route description.
    Like what, specifically?
    For example, in the sentence "In Hinton, the highway and railroads separate the residential western half of the town from the eastern half's grain elevator operation.", I don't think the Iowa DOT map can back up the claim that the road separates residential areas from the grain elevators. Usually, I would use both an official DOT map and a web mapping source to source the whole route description in order to accurately be able to back up all the claims presented in the route description as neither can do it alone. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Cited only this example to Google Maps. Otherwise, it would just appear like I lazily tacked on Google Maps refs. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In the last paragraph of the route description, I doubt the Google Maps of the state line section change is supposed to be the source for the sentences before the state line.
    Did you click the link? You can clearly see a pavement change and a MnDOT sign. Spin the view around 180 degrees and there's an Iowa welcome sign.
    I understand that the three sentences starting with the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." can be backed up with the Google Maps ref of the state line, but its the sentences before that in the same paragraph that can't be backed up by that reference, such as "North of US 18, US 75 continues on its due-north course.", which describes a section of road well south of the state line. Again, refer to my comment above on how you should use both a DOT map and a web mapping source to source the entire route description in order to avoid these issues. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded to avoid this. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add a reference to the Iowa DOT map after the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." as not to imply the Minnesota map is citing that information about the portion of the road south of the state line. Dough487210th 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I noticed the History has a lot of short subsections. May want to merge or eliminate the subsections.
    Nope. Each subsection is a separate topic. Some things have more to talk about than others.
  11. Is it necessary to spell out U.S. Highway 75 in the History given that you defined it in the lead?
    You could have fixed that one.
  12. "At Court Street, they diverged; US 20 and Iowa 141 continued west along 4th and US 75 turned north onto Court", should add "Street" after 4th and Court.
    If I do that, I'll have said Street four times in two sentences.
  13. Is it possible for the inflation conversions be updated for 2016?
    This is handled automatically by the template.
  14. Again, don't need to spell out Interstate 29 since you defined the abbreviation in the lead.
    You could have fixed that one, too.
  15. What year did US 30 Alternate replace US 30? I would add a specific year as opposed to saying "years ago".
    I don't think this detail is important, US 75 is the subject of the article, not US 30 Alternate.
    I think it may help in order to provide a little historical context. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree
    If you're not going to give the year, I would remove "years ago" - without the number it's redundant, and also "US 30 years ago" could be confusing. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "and onto the abandoned US 73 corridor", I would use "former" over "abandoned" as the highway wasn't actually abandoned.
    I think it's fine.
    I still think the word choice here is poor as a reader may think the former US 73 was abandoned to the point where cars were no longer allowed to drive on it and it was no longer being maintained. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Disagree
    I do think "former" is better than "abandoned" here. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Abandonment is the meaning that I wanted to convey, so I've rephrased that part of the sentence. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "Now a much shorter highway,", I would add "within Iowa" after that to specify that the length was shorter in Iowa as the actual total length of US 75 didn't change much with the shift into Nebraska.
  18. Why was the highway north of Sioux City growing? Dough4872 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the rest of the paragraph.
    Any specific reasons why US 75 was improved to a four-lane divided highway north of Sioux City? Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Y I still need to answer this one. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I finally answered this better.
  • I've either corrected the issue or disputed it above. –Fredddie™ 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fredddie and Dough4872: I'm finding it hard to follow what's happening here. Does this need further input to resolve a disagreement, or is this simply inactive? --Rschen7754 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little of both. I've marked the ones on which I'd like some extra input with. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have everything covered. –Fredddie™ 20:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues 8 and 9, both regarding sourcing in the route description, still need to be addressed. Dough4872 21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dough4872: --Rschen7754 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One more reply above and we should be good. Dough487210th 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: --Rschen7754 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dough4872 and Rschen7754: I don't know what I'm supposed to look over. I thought I had it all figured out the last time. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Issue 9 still needs to be addressed, see my last comment there. Dough4872 23:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie and Dough4872: I've made the change myself since it was so minor: [1] Is this good for the both of you? --Rschen7754 19:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It may have taken a long time, but I can finally support the article for A-class. Dough4872 05:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Moabdave

Lead:

  • For me the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are the hooks to keep someone reading the article. While some of the route description should be summarized for the lead as well, my $.02 is to compress this content, to something like "US 75 is routed in the extreme NW corner of Iowa, forking from I-29 near Souix City towards the Minnesota state line"
  • the bolded "No 22" looks awkward. What I'd do is reverse the order of this sentence, so that the bold reference to NO 22 can use the full title and the mention of No 12 can use the abbreviated form.

Route description:

  • "two half interchanges complete the reconnection of the business loop to the mainline highway" I'm not sure non-roadgeeks will understand the phrase two half interchanges. Perhaps re-word or add a paragraph about half interchanges to the article for Diamond interchange and wikilink.
  • Hinton is wikilinked on the 2nd instance, not the first.

History:

  • It's a bit weird to see the King of Trails with both a red wikilink (implying there will someday be an article about the subject) and an infobox (implying this IS the article about the subject). I have no objections to this, but it looks strange to me. You might just do something like a straw poll on WT:USRD or WT:HWY and see if I'm the only one or if others think it's weird too.
    • There should be an article on the King of Trails; however there isn't, so we have a redlink. If a KoT article ever gets written, this article would serve as the Iowa state-detail article, so I put an infobox. I consider it the same as Lincoln Highway in Iowa redirecting to U.S. Route 30 in Iowa. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, that makes sense Dave (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The road connected 89 cities with populations over 1000 residents and nine military posts" That sentence needs a time reference, (I.E. When first formed, the road connected...) a city of 1000 people had much more significance 100 years ago than it does today.
    • I misread what you originally asked, so I was puzzled why you were asking for a reference on something that was already cited. I re-read this and figured it out. –Fredddie™ 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

exit list:

  • I'm used to seeing state lines indicated in the location column (i.e. concurrent with the mention of Missouri River) not the notes column. This doesn't bother me, but again you might bounce it off a couple of people.
    • I'm not sure why I did that. Probably just to have some endpoint symmetry by mentioning the state line on both ends. It's not perfect, but it's not hurting anything. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • The Checklinks tool redflags two sources, and the reasons for the redflags appear to be serious: [3]

My sincerest apologies for taking so long to get back to this. As it turns out I had a lot of unplanned travel recently. Dave (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  • I think I tried to summarize each paragraph of the RD into a sentence for the lead. Is that still too much?
I don't know what changes have been made in the month or so that I first read the lead, but it reads better now.
  • "No. 22" is only bolded because Iowa Primary Road No. 22 redirects to US 75, not that that link is going to get thousands of hits, but it is what it is. As far as reorganizing the sentence, No. 12 was the southern half and No. 22 was the northern half. But I get what you're saying. –Fredddie™ 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're going to have to address this in some fashion. To me it seriously appears the article was vandalized by a newbie who like to "blog bold" everything. I get it that it's bold because of the redirect. I think reversing the sentence order is the easiest solution, and I'm not concerned that this breaks the S-N guideline for one sentence. However, if you want to fix it another way, that's cool too. I'd just make sure it's fixed, as I'm fairly confident that's going to cause a problem. Dave (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave: Do you think you can finish this review soon? --Rschen7754 17:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to get to this later this week. Dave (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again my apologies for taking so long. I'm back now and will try to get to more reviews this week. Dave (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the first few and commented inline. –Fredddie™ 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave: --Rschen7754 19:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I finished my review of this article. I was waiting for Fredddie to comment on my suggestions. It looks like he has on all but the one about finding the name of the rail line. Fredddie, you out there? Dave (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here. I can't find the names of the rail line. It's like they don't want me to find it. –Fredddie™ 13:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Let me re-read the article and see if I have any final suggestions. Dave (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I couldn't find a definitive source for the name of the rail line either. The only thing I do know is the current BNSF line came from the Great Northern Railway which is the "N" in the BNSF conglomerate. So I won't hold it against you. But would suggest that if someday you find yourself in a Railroad museum in the area (or whatever) take a look. If User:NE2 is still around, you might ping him. He was sorting through a ton of railroad docs back in the day. You also might just state that (i.e. crosses the BNSF Railway (ex-Great Northern Railway)) to at least narrow it down. With that said, all my other issues have been resolved, so I'll Support promotion, best of luck. Dave (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Rschen7754 edit

Note: this ACR is now ready to close. --Rschen7754 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Washington State Route 522 edit

Promoted to A-Class. –Fredddie™ 16:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Washington State Route 522 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Fresh off a DYK appearance and GA promotion, this is my first ACR nomination since 2008, and really my first attempt at modernizing my road article style by heavily populating it with articles from newspaper archives. I'm aiming to take this one all the way to FA.
Nominated by: SounderBruce 22:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Rschen7754
Preliminary checks
  • RJL should use unnum=yes to add the note that exits are unnumbered (as many are in WA).
    • Fixed.
  • At-grade intersection - doesn't seem necessary here; when it's not a freeway, at-grade is the expected norm and interchanges are what are marked in the notes.
    • Fixed.

More later. --Rschen7754 03:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference 59 has an extra }.
    • Fixed.
RD
  • SR 522 enters the city of Bothell while following a narrow valley formed by the Sammamish River, turning ... what turns? the highway or the river? --Rschen7754 03:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
History
  • Non-Indian settlements - can you be more specific?
    • Changed to Logging settlements.
  • 50 participating automobiles - why participating?
    • Removed.
  • The 8.2 mi-long (13.2 km) Bothell–Monroe... segment?
    • Fixed.
  • Inflation should be using US-NGDPPC since this is construction costs and the values are calculated differently.
    • Fixed.
      • Inflation-fn and Inflation-year need to be updated too, since the data usually lags behind normal inflation by a year or so. --Rschen7754 05:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already mentioned WSDOT in the RD and abbreviated it. I would shorten it to WSDOT here and remove the duplicate link.
    • Done.

Otherwise should be good to go. --Rschen7754 06:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: I believe I've fixed all of the things you've pointed out. SounderBruce 04:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to one issue above - the rest are okay. --Rschen7754 05:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough4872 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. Is "re-designated" supposed to have a hyphen?
  2. "Portions of the highway near Woodinville and Monroe were widened between 2001 and 2014, but other sections near Maltby remain two lanes wide, as of 2015.", can this be updated to reflect the status as of the current year?
  3. "The interchange only allows movements towards Downtown Seattle", maybe should specify southbound I-5.
  4. "Lake City Way continues northeast through Maple Leaf as a four-lane arterial street ...", should mention its undivided.
  5. "After crossing the creek, the highway enters the Lake City neighborhood, passing several car dealerships", do we really need to mention that it passes car dealerships? I'm sure "businesses" would suffice here.
  6. "In Maltby, the freeway reaches an at-grade intersection with Paradise Lake Road (SR 524) and becomes a two-lane highway", again should mention its undivided.
  7. "and crosses over US 2 and a freight railroad near the Evergreen State Fairgrounds.", who operates the freight railroad line?
  8. "The Pacific Highway was incorporated into a new national highway system that was approved by the American Association of State Highway Officials on November 11, 1926, and numbered as U.S. Route 99 (US 99).", you already defined the abbreviations for US routes in the lead, I don't see the need to do it again here.
  9. "roads clubs"? Is this the correct term as opposed to road clubs?
  10. "2 mi-long (3.2 km)", this looks malformed but looks like its because of the template. Is there a better way to display this?
  11. Are there any more recent inflation conversions than 2015 available? Dough4872 00:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  1. Yes, I believe using the hyphen works better in this case.
  2. I re-wrote the sentence to avoid quoting a current year. The "as of 2015" initially came in reference to the last funding increase (in 2015) and would not be able to be updated annually.
  3. Done.
  4. The use of "arterial street" implies that it is undivided.
  5. The Lake City Way corridor is pretty notable for its density of car dealerships, so I think it warrants mentioning.
  6. Done.
  7. Added the operator.
  8. Removed the definition.
  9. The group in question was a "good roads association", which I've added in lieu of the term.
  10. Removed the abbreviations, which were done at the request of the GA reviewer.
  11. The inflation template automatically updates when new data comes available, with 2015 simply being the most recent dataset.

I think that's it. A few of your suggestions I left out because of my own opinions on the matter. SounderBruce 02:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 02:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Rschen7754 edit

  Done --Rschen7754 20:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: What do you think of approving this one? –Fredddie™ 03:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With some WP:BOLDness and some consensus I've just changed it to require only 2 supports, so this can pass. --Rschen7754 05:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

California State Route 54 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.

Promoted to A-Class. —CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Toolbox

California State Route 54 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: After a long hiatus from ACR, I bring California State Route 54, a freeway in the South Bay region of San Diego County.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Review and comments by Kevon kevono

Infobox and Intro

  • The route should take more of the map.
    • I don't understand what you are saying here. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The map is too big and the route takes up little of the area of the map.
        Kevon kevono (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 20:25 (PDT)[reply]
  • Should the major intersections section of the infobox should have 2 sections, since SR 54 consists of 2 sections?
  • SR 54 doesn't exactly end on a street, the route more or less is a dead end state-maintenance-wise.
    • Jamacha Road is the continuation of SR 54 north to its original terminus at I-8. --Rschen7754 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro is good.

Route description

  • "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125] north, and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." The second comma I think is a grammar error. I'll be removing it soon.
    • There's nothing wrong with a comma there, but okay. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of section 1 of SR 54, does SR 54 end here or here? Of section 2 of SR 54, does SR 54 end here or here? Kevon kevono (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 09:37 (PDT) I'm confused.[reply]
    • From the article: "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125 north and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." and "SR 54 then runs concurrently with SR 94 through the unincorporated, but developed, area of Rancho San Diego, following Campo Road about one-half mile (800 m) east." Those should answer your questions. --Rschen7754 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, RD is good.

History

  • "This portion of freeway opened on September 27, 1963, and the entire project cost $2.25 million (about $37 million in 2015 dollars)" (and other sections) These money comparison facts should be updated to 2016 dollars.
    • Perhaps, but the data has only been released for 2015, not 2016. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 13: Here's a link for the non-link citation: http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa196465calirich#page/n3/mode/2up
  • I fixed a space between "…accomplished in a single year by the county board of supervisors" and citation 26. You can revert it if you want.
  • "The project to convert the HOV lanes to regular mixed traffic lanes was authorized in 2006." Do you mean "The project to remove the HOV lanes was authorized in 2006."? I didn't get what you meant.
    • The HOV lanes would not be HOV lanes anymore. "Remove" is a bit ambiguous, as it could mean that the lanes were removed entirely. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing the part of SR 54…" Are they still considering? Oct. 2014 is a bit outdated.
    • Haven't heard or found anything. --Rschen7754 04:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent and descriptive prose. You have really good writing skills.

Junction list

Overall

Your writing is exceptionally good. Few grammar mistakes were in the article, and this article is nearly perfect. It wouldn't be long before this article could become an FA.
Kevon kevono (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 16:28 (PDT)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: All replied to. --Rschen7754 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't reply to one question about the relinquishing thing.
Kevon kevono (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 20:25 (PDT)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: Replied now. --Rschen7754 04:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: Replied again. --Rschen7754 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: Replied again. --Rschen7754 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Support I now support the ACR nomination. Kevon kevono (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 13:25 (PDT)[reply]

  • As Kevon kevono is inactive and unable to support or oppose, I have collapsed the comments. --Rschen7754 07:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie edit

Comments by Fredddie

I will take a look at the article next. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  1. Can we get some better descriptors than "Section 1" and "Section 2"?
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't feel like the lead is long enough; more the first paragraph than the second.
    Added to lead. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "the part of the highway east of SR 125 is undivided, ..." Undivided should be an adjective for something more descriptive (i.e. an undivided two/four-lane road)
    I'm not sure the number of lanes can be sourced (if it is even the same the whole length), so I edited accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The extension of the freeway west to I-5 was delayed because a flood channel for the Sweetwater River was built with the extension." What?
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The lead doesn't really talk about the non-freeway part.
    Added to lead. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Y These check out. –Fredddie™ 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  1. Watch the ", with <verb>-ing" clauses. See how the sentence changes by removing the with?
    Seems to be resolved already. --Rschen7754 02:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I don't expect turn-by-turn or even exit-by-exit coverage, "through Paradise Hills in San Diego" doesn't really tell me about the physical surroundings.
    Added. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The portion about the CR S17 section is a bit misleading. You talk about it like it is both SR 54 and not SR 54. I realize that's partly because SR 54 is designated for a freeway that wasn't (or hasn't yet been) built. Do you think that section of road should be described in the RD?
    Made the distinction more clear. --Rschen7754 02:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Again with the physical surroundings east of SR 94.
    Added. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The last sentence of the RD doesn't do anything for me. How about this?
    "In early 2012, portions of the interchange with I-5 were among the top ten most congested segments of highway in Caltrans District 11, which includes the San Diego metro area."
    Adjusted. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. Mini-lead?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm assuming the 'road through Jamacha' is related to SR 54, but the casual reader might not make that assumption. I don't feel like a connection is drawn between that road and to SR 54.
    It is a road that runs through Jamacha that parallels the Sweetwater River from US 80 (I-8) to the Sweetwater Valley, similar to SR 54. I added "around El Cajon", but it's a bit difficult to make the connection more explicit without original research. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You should summarize the planned route of the South Bay Freeway.
    Added details. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This sentence, "By 1961, E Street in Chula Vista continued along the Sweetwater River, ...", is this still the case? If not, you should revise the verbs in the second half so it reads in the past tense. You can probably ditch the comma when you do.
    I doubt it still does. I've revised accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Where were the at-grade intersections along the freeway?
    I don't know, but apparently all the intersections were at-grade. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Did SR 54 replace SR 280 entirely? Route 280 is only mentioned once and the 1964 renumbering page doesn't mention either highway.
    I think Rschen7754 meant Legislative Route 280, not State Route 280. SR 54 was signed while it was probably Legislative Route 280. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 21:24 (PDT)[reply]
    @Kevon kevono: It is the custom to let the nominator have the chance to resolve issues raised first, because they may disagree with what the reviewer has to say. AS far as Fredddie's question, I would have to look at the article and my sources again. --Rschen7754 05:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been more specific. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Was flooding a problem in the area prior to the flood channel?
    It's not clear from the sources, likely because the area wasn't developed at the time, though it seems to be more preemptive. I've clarified. --Rschen7754 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "The county hoped to build both projects at the same time to save $4 million..." Run-on sentence.
    Adjusted but it's a bit awkward still, I'm afraid. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The U.S. Congress gave approval for the project.[28] But later that year, it was announced that the target date for completing the system would be extended from 1972 to 1974.[29]→‎Congress approved the project in <month> 1972;[28] later that year, the target date for completing the system would be pushed back two years.[29]
    Adjusted a bit, but see reply to the next one. --Rschen7754 20:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The previous paragraph was just in 1972, so the next one should not start with "By 1971, ..."
    The previous paragraph does mention 1972, but the articles are from 1968. It could be more clear, I suppose. Feel free to add suggestions. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "dismayed at this" Is 'at this' necessary?
    Removed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Meanwhile, the interchange at I-805 was constructed, ..." was under construction?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "...due to a lack of funding and a shift in priorities to maintenance from the building of new road.[37]" From should come before to.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You should either abbreviate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or revise so you don't repeat yourself.
    Done. --Rschen7754 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Did the environmental impact report suggest changes to the route? I have to assume no because the next paragraph starts with construction beginning.
    The role of the EIR is implied a few sentences later with the wildlife preserve creation. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Did the I-5 detour signify the beginning of construction? Regardless, this could be worded better.
    It does, as that is the first thing that had to be done on the construction project. I made a slight adjustment but suggestions are welcome. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Is it necessary to name drop the mayor of National City? How about the fire chief?
    I think the mayor is important enough; the fire chief, probably not. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. What dispute and with whom?
    Clarified per above. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. What is a 'high number of traffic accidents'? Does the source say?
    Added. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. You should use some synonyms for "construction"
    Removed/reworded some instances. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Construction resumed in early November 1989;[53] the halting of construction meant that the project had to be rebid, and one bridge was partially constructed, resulting in it being known as "the bridge to nowhere".[54] This sentence is mostly fragments.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Shouldn't it be an HOV lane?
    Done. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 21:24 (PDT)[reply]
  23. "As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing" had considered?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overall comments

One thing that distracted me, and I mentioned it a few times, was the use of -ing. I'm not saying that all of them are wrong, but some of them could be said better with revision. I am going to do some copyediting now of stuff that I didn't think was worth mentioning. I'll ping you when I'm all done. –Fredddie™ 00:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: All done or replied to. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had been waiting for you to finish up, but I'll look it over in the coming days. –Fredddie™ 04:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Have you had a chance to look at this? --Rschen7754 17:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The long and short answer is no. However, now that I know you're interested, I will look it over soon. –Fredddie™ 17:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Were you planning on looking at this? If not, I may consider withdrawing and going to FAC. --Rschen7754 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above looks fine, but a couple final comments. 1. Find a different word for funds/funding. It seems like it's the only word used to describe money. 2. Do another once-over to look for "ing". There are a couple instances where two -ing words are used in quick succession, one of them is a quote, so that's unavoidable, but the others could be revised. –Fredddie™ 02:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: –Fredddie™ 04:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: All done. --Rschen7754 21:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Dough4872 edit

Comments:

  1. File:California 54.svg - PD-MUTCD-CA
  2. File:California State Route 54 map cropped.svg - cc-by-sa-4.0, GFDL, has sources
  3. File:CA 54 eastern terminus.jpg - cc-by-sa-4.0
  4. File:CaliforniaRoute54a.jpg - PD-user-en
  5. File:SR 54 and SR 94.jpg - GFDL, cc-by-sa-all
  6. Captions look fine. Dough4872 01:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The review has been suspended for being inactive for 30 days and having outstanding comments. It may be reactivated at any time in the next 6 months. --Rschen7754 07:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Moabdave

Lead:

  • The lead leaves me with one big unanswered question, "why aren't the two sections connected". The implied answer is that the middle section was relinquished to the county and now part of CR S17. I'd advise to make that explicit (if true) and if not true re-word to remove the implication.
    • It's not true. I've tried to reword appropriately. --Rschen7754 02:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route description:

  • Westfield Plaza Bonita wikilink?
  • "SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa" This is a little rough. It also seemingly contradicts the last 2 sentences in this same paragraph, which claim that Jamacha Boulevard is not SR 54. How about replacing the latter part of this paragraph with something like this, "The SR designation officially ends at the Jamacha Boulevard exit in La Presa, with a gap in the route along the county maintained portion of Jamacha Boulevard. State maintenance and the SR 54 designation resume at the intersection of Jamacha Boulevard and Campo Road. However, Jamacha Boulevard formerly carried the SR 54 designation, and is still marked as such on some maps."
  • What's with the bolded names near the bottom of the route description? Currently only "South Bay Freeway" redirects to SR-54. Even if the other redirects were created, the bolded instance of Jamacha Boulevard is about the 5th mention in the article (the first is in the lead). Based on what I see, I'd work a bolded "South Bay Freeway" into the lead and de-bold the rest.
  • wikilink Caltrans in the phrase "Caltrans District 11" (It's wikilinked in the infobox but not in prose)

History:

  • "The earliest predecessor to SR 54 existed from 1908" And that earliest predecessor was? How about something like, "An unpaved road with a similar route to modern SR 54 first appeared on maps in 1908"?
  • Now SR 54 (IMO, that just adds confusion as the previous sentence is set in 1908 and the next in 1990)
  • "from US 80 around El Cajon" Being as how a non-roadgeek will have a tough time knowing where US 80 ran at the time, how about including the modern street name? I.E. "from US 80 (now Main St.) around"
    • Done, but had to add a source to back it up. --Rschen7754 17:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a red linked "light footed clapper rail". Being an endangered species this SURELY has an article, just under a different title. That would be like seeing a red link to Highway Mother Road 66 to a roadgeek. I'm 99.9% sure the appropriate article is Ridgway's rail, check out the article, specifically the sub-species section and reference #4 and see if you agree, and if so pipe-link it.
    • Adjusted to clapper rail since Ridgway's rail appears to no longer be considered a subspecies. --Rschen7754 17:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SR 54 from the El Cajon city limit to I-8 to the City of El Cajon in 1999,[59] and the transfer took place that year.[4]" Is this the same relinquishment that caused the gap in route? or is this a different relinquishment? Please clarify
    • I've noted that this is the eastern portion - there was also only one relinquishment as noted above. --Rschen7754 02:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Best of luck. Dave (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moabdave: All done and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 17:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked some wikipedia time out early next week. I'll finish this up then. Dave (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to promote, much better. I will make an optional suggestion, consider wikilinking the first instance of Campo. I'm making this optional as there are reasons to do it, and reasons not to do it; namely the link is to the town, and the use in the article is the street (that leads to the town of the same name). Dave (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/2018&oldid=823742930"