Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 56/archive1

California State Route 56

California State Route 56 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/California State Route 56/archive1

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

SR 56 is a major freeway in San Diego that is less than 10 miles long, yet took decades to build. Rschen7754 04:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support—I had reviewed this at the ACR.
  • All images are appropriately licensed or released into the public domain. The captions are all appropriately formatted (per comments in the ACR).
  • The article complies with MOS:RJL and other sections of the MOS.
  • The prose is of the requisite quality, in my opinion.
  • Citations are to high-quality, reliable sources, and all of them are formatted consistently.
  • In short, I believe that this article meets the criteria and merits promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feels it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 16:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support with comment: would it be best if footnote 12 read pp. 1-2 rather than pp. 1, 2; compare to footnote 37 - pp. 33-34. Probably best to pick one of them and MOS suggests first one. Great article! JZCL 20:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Done, and thanks! --Rschen7754 20:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Just one other thing - I ran the citation bot and it deleted a lot. I looked on the revision differences and it has taken all of the access dates off the cite news templates. I am not sure on the subject, so feel free to revert it; should the access date be there? JZCL 20:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I have no idea, to be honest. --Rschen7754 20:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Feel free to revert it - in Template:Cite news#URL it says that an access date can be used in the template, so it's up to you. JZCL 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
          • I suppose it should be left off, since I didn't cite the URL. --Rschen7754 20:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment on the infobox map on the state route:

1. Need labels of the city "San Diego" embedded on the map. The reader should know what city this freeway is in. (This is the San Diego area, right? I drove on this freeway to get to the San Diego zoo, haha.)

2. California State Route 56 had that recently completed portion, yet the current map does not reflect that. Replace that purple dotted line with that solid red line.

Other than that, I honestly didn't review the entire article, but rather just the map. 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The purple dotted line is the part that was never constructed. Working on adding the text. --Rschen7754 01:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Text added. --Rschen7754 02:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing the map text concern. And my apologies over the purple-dotted line. It was Route 52, not 56, that got extended (right?). (I always get those mixed up...) 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm trying to get SR 52 ready for FAC next. :) --Rschen7754 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I still notice that State Route 52's extension is not reflected on the map; the freeway's east end is at Route 67 (and not Route 125 anymore). Can you replace the golden dotted line with the blue line? 8-9-1-1-9 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That would require redoing the whole map, unfortunately, as that line is not entirely accurate. I don't think it's a huge deal for this article as SR 52 isn't the focus of this article (whereas I obviously redid the one for SR 52). --Rschen7754 01:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had to redo the map for California State Route 67 anyway, and I decided to redo this one as well. --Rschen7754 06:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Spotty, incomplete review by SandyGeorgia;

1. Please search out every "however" in the article, and correct as needed (there are many, everywhere, repetitve, not needed, not good): see here.

   I think it's good now, though I'm still not exactly sure which instances are incorrect. --Rschen7754 07:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

2. "The city of San Diego agreed to pay $25 million (about $42.1 million today), ... " Today needs as of, see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. This occurs throughout the article.

   Done. --Rschen7754 02:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

3. "after the completion of two lawsuits that residents lost ... " After residents lost two lawsuits. Challenging ... what ?

   Fixed. --Rschen7754 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

4. "Planning for the missing ramps at the western end of SR 56 was under way in 2008, amid nearby homeowner opposition ... " Amid ?

   Changed to "despite". --Rschen7754 07:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing glaring, but little glitches here and there, please give it another pass, and please deal with the "howevers" and "todays". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All replied to. --Rschen7754 07:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your changes introduced a typo (there are currently --> here are currently), and "currently" also falls afoul of MOSDATE#Precise language, so please review throughout. "As of today" is meaningless in a dynamic environment. It is also redundant-- you don't seem to be understanding MOSDATE#Precise language, so you may need to review this and all of your FAs for same. "As of today" does not fix the problem-- are you intending to say something like "in 2012 dollars"? You didn't say what residents were opposed to in the two lawsuits they lost. So, you have fixed the "howevers", but nothing else, and in fact, "as of today" is even worse. I do hope that the Roads Project will undertake a review of any recent FAs for same, because it doesn't appear anyone has been catching them. Please search all of your FAs for currently, recently, today and however; remove however when it adds nothing, and make your language that references time or date specific so that it will endure as time marches on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize; I misunderstood what you were saying. I've changed statements to use the template. Should be making a second pass in a few hours. --Rschen7754 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's good now - let me know if there's anything else. --Rschen7754 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, now you have uppercase problems and redundant prose. See sample:

• Nevertheless, As of 2012 there are no plans to construct the portion of SR 56 east of I-15.[12] As of 2012, several arterial roads connect the eastern end of the SR 56 freeway with SR 67, including Ted Williams Parkway, Twin Peaks Road, Espola Road (CR S5), and Poway Road (CR S4).

Why is the first As of capitalized? Can you avoid using that dumb template in every instance, and vary the prose with different selections? Merging these two sentences to one will let you indicate the date once. The second as of is really unnecessary; is that likely to change? Please re-check everything, because your changes have again introduced errors. I suggest you need to re-read the entire article instead of just applying templated changes-- I have no idea why that template always uses uppercase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are only two times that template is not used for the phrase "(in 2012 dollars)", and those were the two issues above, that I have now fixed. --Rschen7754 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't reread the article, but this looks better. Again, I hope you all will review FAs passed this year for same, since I'm not sure reviewers have been checking this, and we don't use "today, recently, currently" etc in article per MOSDATE#Precise language. Good luck here ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Turns out it's just me; I did a search for those words on the last FA of our FA writers, and everything was in order. --Rschen7754 09:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I'm back ... I don't know what this sentence means, not a correct use of the word average, can't tell you how to rephrase because I can't figure out what you want the sentence to be saying:

• In the year 2011, there was an average of between 55,000 and 78,000 vehicles traveling on SR 56 on a weekday.

"The year" is redundant: 2011 is 2011. Do you mean to say:

• On weekdays in 2011, a low of 55,000 and a high of 78,000 vehicles traveled on the road? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Made a change, is it better now? --Rschen7754 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a good practice to put the diff here so folks don't have to keep clicking out to check :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmm, that is a good idea; I may have to steal that. [1] --Rschen7754 22:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Nope, don't understand that: an average is a number, not a range. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It was alleged that Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer nominated Wilson for the honor as political ammunition against Councilman Ron Roberts.[41]

• Alleged by whom? The source isn't available online, so we have no idea who made the charge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Williams, soon after leaving San Diego ...

• Soon after leaving San Diego for where, when ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • [2] Rewrote traffic sentence and added other two items. --Rschen7754 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, ha ... now that all makes more sense! Struck. I haven't combed through all of the prose, those were random things I picked out, so you all might want to give it another thorough read. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Okay, this one should make the cut but just skimming through the prose I found things that suggested it would benefit from a light copyedit at least -- you might ask say Dank or Maralia to give it the once-over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a run through, and I'll ask Dank to do the same. I'm used to writing, but not writing with random blocks of code strewn in... *sigh* --Rschen7754 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dank is unable to, so I've asked Maralia. --Rschen7754 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I will try to get to this tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Rschen7754 05:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: I will be away from a computer starting tomorrow morning (Thursday) and ending Friday night. I'll have my phone with me, but will not be able to make extended replies. --Rschen7754 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose from Cryptic C62:

• The lead does not answer the question "How long is this route?".
  • Added. --Rschen7754 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• The lead does not answer the question "How much usage does this route get?".
  • And it doesn't need to; that's too much detail for the lead. --Rschen7754 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Even something as simple as "the route is used by several thousand commuters each week" would help (I don't know if that's an accurate statement; tweak as needed). As it stands now, the lead is pretty skimpy, so it wouldn't hurt to add in a few more useful nuggets. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You could copy and paste that statement into most of the California road articles. I don't think it's particularly useful. --Rschen7754 16:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Right, but the goal is not to cater to the preferences of people who have read or edited many California road articles. The goal is to explain the subject to the lay reader, someone with minimal understanding of such a topic. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• "from southbound I-5 one must exit to Carmel Valley Road before entering SR 56." This seems a bit like a how-to guide. Perhaps changing "from southbound I-5 one must exit" to "southbound I-5 traffic must exit" would help?
  • Done. --Rschen7754 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Planning for SR 56 was started in 1956, according to San Diego Councilwoman Barbara Warden." This is a rather abrupt way to begin the section, and it implies that the planning process just spontaneously popped into existence one day. Whose idea was it to build SR 56, and why? The idea came before the construction, and as such it should be explained first.
  • No, this gives a definite start date and is in chronological order. --Rschen7754 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I was not clear on what my concern was. When I read the word "planning" in an article like this, I assume it means "figuring out the logistics": the exact layout, the number of exits, the contractors to build it, the funding, etc. If this is the correct interpretation of "planning", then what must inevitably come before the planning phase is an idea, a proposal, some indication that someone thought the route would be a good idea. Whose idea was it to build this route? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That's definitely not how I interpret planning, and that is not all that planning for a road is. --Rschen7754 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • So then what is it? I still have no idea what happened between 1956, when the "planning" started, and 1959, which is the next year mentioned in this section. I imagine I am not the only reader who would be mystified by the opening of this section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• "On June 13, 2012, Caltrans held a public forum..." and what was the result of this discussion? It happened more than 6 months ago; surely something new must have been released in that time.
  • Nope; I'm pretty sure I would know about it if there was, since I live nearby. --Rschen7754 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What about this? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Still not convinced; I went through my databases in October. --Rschen7754 16:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • What is there to be convinced of? The History section only covers events up through June 2012. The document I linked to mentions a public hearing on the issue in September 2012. This document about the I-5/SR-56 interchange project, from December 2012, says "A preferred alternative is expected to be announced in Spring 2013, with the Final Environmental Document to be released Fall 2013," something which is clearly relevant to the article. Where you live and when you have searched databases are not at all relevant here; what matters is that the section in question is not up-to-date or comprehensive. I am opposing until this issue is resolved. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry but this is unnecessary and complete garbage. --Rschen7754 19:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• • All replied to. --Rschen7754 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Replied, again. --Rschen7754 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)