Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 67
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 12 February 2024 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
California State Route 67
[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.
The article was promoted. SounderBruce 01:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
California State Route 67 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: This just passed GA and I believe could go to FAC. P.S. This is pretty short, unlike CA 52 and CA 56, and the upcoming I-8.
- Nominated by: Rschen7754 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First comment occurred: 02:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Image review by Dough4872
[edit]- File:California 67.svg - Shield released as PD by Caltrans.
- File:California State Route 67.svg - Released into PD by creator, has GIS data.
- File:CaliforniaRoute67a.jpg - Released into PD by author.
- File:CASR 67.JPG - Released into PD by author.
- File:CaliforniaRoute67b.jpg - Released into PD by author.
- Support - Images look good. Dough4872 02:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this review needs 3 more supports and a spotcheck before promotion. --Rschen7754 09:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Fredddie
|
---|
I can't believe I haven't looked at this until now. –Fredddie™ 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were right; this was shorter than the last! –Fredddie™ 02:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Nothing sticks out at me. I'll support. –Fredddie™ 05:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by TCN7JM
[edit]
I will review this article. –TCN7JM 01:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Lead
Route description
History
Major intersections
That's all he wrote! –TCN7JM 03:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Okay. Looks great! I support. –TCN7JM 06:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Scott5114
[edit]oh if you insist
- It then becomes an undivided highway through the eastern part of Poway and becomes Main Street in the town of Ramona before ending at SR 78. Describing three locations that the route serves in one sentence is probably a bit much, and makes it feel like a runon sentence. Try splitting it up into two sentences, or use punctuation, like a semicolon (or even commas!) to help give the reader a mental stopping point so they can reflect on what it is they just read. This is somewhat like the boulevard sentence from SR 282, and it might be something to consciously look for when writing in the future.
- Done. --Rschen7754 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand East County is a local colloquialism for the eastern part of San Diego County, but that may not be clear to all readers, even with the link. They may think that East County is, itself, a county, or perhaps the name of a city. Consider eschewing its use for something more explanatory, such as the eastern half/portion of San Diego County.
- Done. --Rschen7754 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The route existed as a railroad corridor since the turn of the 20th century...—something's off here. The route has existed sounds better, but may not be what you're trying to say. Or maybe replace since. I'm having trouble articulating what the problem is, other than just a vague sense that it doesn't sound quite right.
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...a highway was built by 1913, and was designated as Legislative Route 198 in the state highway system by 1935, to become SR 67 in the 1964 state highway renumbering. Again, too many clauses here, especially with the semicolon in the sentence. At least they have commas this time. I recommend breaking off the last clause as its own sentence, since there's an interval of almost thirty years there, so it would make a good place for a sentence break.
- Done. --Rschen7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [T]he road north of Lakeside could mean any given road north of Lakeside. Might want to specify that you mean the portion of SR 67 north of Lakeside.
- Clarified. --Rschen7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interchanges with Broadway / Fletcher Parkway and Bradley Avenue occur as the freeway leaves the El Cajon city limits—What purpose does the slash serve? Is that the name of the street, "Broadway/Fletcher Parkway", or do you mean that the two are reached by the same interchange? If the latter, is it just Broadway or Broadway Parkway? Slashes are ambiguous in prose. As a noun, can an interchange really occur?
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes to an interchange... What does, the city of Santee? Gillespie Field? The El Cajon city limits? Oh, right.
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The freeway ends and SR 67 turns north into a conventional highway at Mapleview Street... Pretty impressive feat, turning the entire concept of one of the cardinal directions into a highway! SR 67 turns north as it transitions into a conventional highway or something would be better.
- Done. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a few red links here, some of which are especially long, which might look bad if you intend to pursue a FAC. The geographical ones should be easy to stub out; see Ottawa, Oklahoma as an example of what you can do with just a map and a coord.
- I haven't had issues with red links at FAC ever since my 2012 return to FAC. --Rschen7754 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be better to restructure the traffic count sentence thusly: In 2011, SR 67 had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 83,000 between Broadway and Bradley Avenue (the highest AADT for the freeway portion), and 18,400 between Rio Marta Road and Poway Road.
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What caused the deterioration of the Julian road? Lack of maintenance, poor construction, or were the stagecoaches beating it up?
- Again, information was not available. --Rschen7754 01:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to explain what portions of the modern highway correspond to the "Julian road", "Road 3A", and the "Ramona road", or if they were the same thing, if that information is available.
- Unfortunately it is not. --Rschen7754 01:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider rounding the inflation statistics to avoid false precision.
- I've rounded them to match the original precision. --Rschen7754 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "declaring something to be a boulevard" mean? Is it funding-related, or that it meets a specific design standard? If it would have little tangible difference on the driver of the day, might want to leave it out.
- I get the feeling that it was something like the NHS. --Rschen7754 01:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looked and clarified. --Rschen7754 07:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the feeling that it was something like the NHS. --Rschen7754 01:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The demand for more water in San Diego might have led to the construction of the reservoir, but other than that, it doesn't seem pertinent to SR 67. Ditch it.
- Removed. --Rschen7754 06:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "right-of-way" in quotes?
- See Fredddie's review. --Rschen7754 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. That's probably not the proper way to resolve that. Putting one word in quotes just looks silly, like you're doing scare quotes or something. I agree that it shouldn't be a plagiarism problem to use right-of-way with no quotes, but if you are convinced it is, do "follow the railroad corridor", "on railroad land", "followed the path of the former railroad" or something like that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. --Rschen7754 06:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. That's probably not the proper way to resolve that. Putting one word in quotes just looks silly, like you're doing scare quotes or something. I agree that it shouldn't be a plagiarism problem to use right-of-way with no quotes, but if you are convinced it is, do "follow the railroad corridor", "on railroad land", "followed the path of the former railroad" or something like that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Fredddie's review. --Rschen7754 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the raised yellow dots prototypical Botts dots?
- Following a March 2009 fatal crash, some of the victims filed a lawsuit against Caltrans.. Aren't the victims of a fatal crash dead? Perhaps you should substitute survivors.
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, not bad; just some small details that need to be polished. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the recent fixes, I now believe that I can support this article. Good work, sir. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck by Imzadi1979
[edit]Looking at this revision, I'm going to spotcheck the following footnotes:
- fn 10
- fn 17
- fn 24
- fn 31
- fn 38
- fn 45
- fn 52
- fn 59
- fn 66
- fn 72
Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All items check out. There are two items that should be updated through.
- Fn 17 is for a source published on July 1, 1920, but the bidding mentioned in the article happened the day before, so our article should use a June 30 date.
- Fn 38 ("Road Funds Allocated") is referencing the continuation of an article from page B1 on B6. That probably should reference the full article with both page numbers, and whatever the headline is on page B1.
- Other than these two minor changes, the rest of the spotcheck is good. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes look good. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 26 March 2013 (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.