Talk:California State Route 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article California State Route 37 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.
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
The following comments have been left for this page:

A good way to get to B class is to adhere to WP:USRD and WP:CASH standards. Then steps can be taken to go to GA and beyond. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a pending nomination, if you want to go ahead and use the new routebox (there are no instructions yet though) you probably can. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (edit)
This article has been recognized in the following venues:
Blank shield.svg
This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in January 2007.
California blank.svg
This article was the selected article of the California task force in August 2007.
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).

This article has comments here.

Columbus Parkway[edit]

FIX 37 GRAPHIC, Example Marin County, California

At State Route 37's eastern terminus with Interstate 80, Columbus Parkway (part or all of it future Auto Mall Parkway) seems to continue the road around the east perimeter of Vallejo, meeting Interstate 780 just outside the limits in Benicia. This road passes directly through a golf course. (The source for the naming of Columbus Pkwy. is from the AT&T 2006 Vallejo Yellow Pages, handed with local car dealers moving to their new locations on the road.) --Geopgeop 19:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but what's the point in adding it? It's doubtful that the state will extend 37 to 780. Ironically, 780 turns to Curtola Parkway, which changes to Mare Island Way, which turns into Wilson Ave, which ends back at 37 at the Napa River Bridge. This was once known as California State Route 141, which was deleted because of it running through a city park. Makes you think The Auto Mall and Columbus parkways will share names. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Passage[edit]

I passed this article because, according to the criteria for good articles, it is well written, well organized, holds verified information, and covers the entire route. It does not adhere to just one section of that route. Plus, it has plenty of pictures to boot. So, here's a thank you to all who built this article. Diez2 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional sources for the article's FA status[edit]

USRD GA audit[edit]

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed.

See your talk page. --wL<speak·check> 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I realise it's had some problems on FA- and A-level reviews, but 1. most of the objections have been addressed, and 2. GA criteria are less strict. Lampman (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete Access in Black Point[edit]

Harbor Drive at Black Point is listed as Incomplete Access, Westbound Only. I live right there, and there are most definitely exits/entrances on both sides of the freeway, going east and west. See [1]. Is there a secondary or technical meaning to Incomplete Access, Westbound Exit Only that I'm missing? --Mrcolj (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The intersection refers to the one slightly northeast of the Atherton intersection. There is no exit ramp going eastbound.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 37/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As the article currently stands, it does not meet the GA criteria: there are citation needed tags all over it, it references a SPS, and it does not have very much on the actual construction of the road, failing the "broad" criterion. Unfortunately it will need a major rewrite. Therefore, if there is no attempt made to resolve the issues within 1 week I will be reluctantly delisting the article. --Rschen7754 07:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There really isn't much information available online relating the early construction of the road, only that it existed as a toll road before being taken over by the state, and a sale listing for an ad brochure for the road published around the 1920s. I'm not sure that item would fit WP:V as a third party source. I will need to look through centry-old newspaper archives to find information and that will take some time; but if no information is found, how should we go with this? I don't want to just say the article cannot be GA'd because there was no early media coverage on the road, something out of WP's control. As for {{fact}} tags, it seems that multiple paragraphs are cited to one source, which makes it look like full paragraphs are uncited. I'll have to fix those citations, and completely remove the trivial "cars backing up" passage altogether. There shouldn't be a problem with replacing the SRS with another source. Please hold deciding until May so I can get these issues situated. --wL<speak·check> 07:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the law is a good start; you can look at to see when the law changes were. You can't cite that website, but it tells you what the chapter and year are so you can cite those. It's also possible to look at maps and estimate when the changes were - Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/Map database may be helpful, as may be some of the sources on the WP:CASH page. Newspaper databases are really the best bet as those provide why the road was built and other things that the above two wouldn't provide; if you're thinking of taking this back up to ACR/FAC you'll probably need to do that. But the law and maps are probably enough to retain GA status, barely.
I'm happy to leave this on hold as long as changes are being made. I'm doing a nationwide audit right now, so I'm checking all our GAs to make sure they're up to standards. --Rschen7754 07:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on what I understand the article fails GA based on the following:
  • Criteria #2: It includes SPSes and uncited passages.
    Yes check.svg Done The SPS source is no longer linked in the article, and all uncited passages were removed because they were redundant to an earlier section.
  • Criteria #3: Because it does not mention the original construction of the roads that comprise this route, it is not broad enough.
    I dispute this. The vast majority of the article deals with the road being constructed as a modern highway starting from the time Caltrans took control of it. There are barely any sources relating to to roads before, other than Caltrans stating that it was known as the "Sears Point Toll Road". When this article achieved A-level status, it was written with the aim to be comprehensive in order to satisfy the FA criteria. The main aspects of the road are mentioned in the Route description section: where it is relatively located in the Bay Area, where it begins and ends, road names, classes, features, and notable locations along the route.
    The article would not pass FA today with the early history of the road missing - for recent California road FAs you may want to look at California State Route 56 and California State Route 52, or California State Route 67 which is more analogous having existed back into the 19th century. I know it's hard to get stuff for California, but it is possible. As for GA, the article suffers from recentism - the first subsection starts with "The struggle to improve the portion of SR 37 between the Napa River Bridge and I-80 began in 1952, and lasted over 50 years.". Well, then how did the road come about? What about when the road actually entered the state highway system (it was well before 1964, that's for sure!) Unfortunately, this is C-class at best because there's too much missing from the history. --Rschen7754 09:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done - The article now broadly covers the history of the road from the year it was constructed (giving context through the 1915 Act and without repeating what is written in LRN 8). It also goes into moderate detail on the construction and acquisition of the Sears Point Toll Road. --wL<speak·check> 08:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, that's a lot better now. If you can source the part with the citation needed tags I'll make a few tweaks and we can close this. --Rschen7754 08:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and close this as a keep - good work! It may need a bit more research if you're still interested in ACR/FAC, but it definitely meets the GA standard. --Rschen7754 09:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Some formatting considerations[edit]

Since this article passed its assessment reviews so long ago, there were some updates in terms of formatting that I made to polish things back to the modern expectations.

  1. Date formats are now consistent. There were three formats in use in the citations, and now there is just one.
  2. I moved the portal links to a "See also" section as they aren't "External links"; portals are hosted on the English Wikipedia which makes them internal links.
  3. I properly noted news wire agencies in citations using the |agency= parameter instead of noting them as authors. At the same time, I corrected the name of the agency and only linked to it on first mention.
  4. I also made sure that Caltrans' full name is specified and linked only on first mention.
  5. I converted a few {{cite web}} to the proper citation templates, either {{cite map}} or {{cite press release}}.

Imzadi 1979  12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)