Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 67/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

California State Route 67[edit]

California State Route 67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 05:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 67 has existed in some form since the 19th century, and still serves as an important connection to the San Diego mountains. This is a GA and has passed the HWY A-Class review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 67), and I feel that it meets the criteria. Rschen7754 05:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this when it was at ACR. I feel it meets the featured article criteria. TCN7JM 05:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I also reviewed this article at ACR, and all of my concerns were taken care of at that time. I, too, believe this article meets the FA standards. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I did the spotcheck as a part of the ACR, but did not review the prose at that time. I have just made a few copy edits and believe the article is worthy of promotion as a FA. Imzadi 1979 → 06:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Image review - I feel the article meets the FA crtieria based on the improvements made ar ACR. I also conducted an image review at the ACR and determined that the images check out. Dough4872 01:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • What is an "undivided highway"?
    • A highway that is not divided... that has no median. This is a pretty standard term. --Rschen7754 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is a standard term in US, but not everywhere. A wiki link to Single carriageway or the United States section of that article would be nice.
  • Highway is a known term, and undivided as an adjective is pretty self-explanatory. Single carriageway is less well known than undivided highway. --Rschen7754 04:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviewer means a piped link like this: undivided highway. For non-US readers (especially non-native speakers) a link couldn't hurt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A freeway south of Lakeside was built ...". What is a freeway? A wikilink needed perhaps (for non-US readers).
  • Similarly, interchange needs wikilink.
  • "There are two interchanges: one with Broadway and Fletcher Parkway, and another with Bradley Avenue.". These two interchanges are right there at the start of SR 67, or, within El Cajon city limit?
  • "The "Julian Road" had been constructed by 1872, and was used for stagecoaches..." This name was not mentioned in the lead. What is this road? Where was it?
    • Added to lead. All that is known has been explained in the article... it's a road... to Julian. --Rschen7754 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a road to Julian, but from where?
  • "...owever, in 1883 it was described as a "disgrace to the county. It could hardly be in a worse condition... and should be repaired immediately." Who told so?
    • Whoever wrote the article. The author's name wasn't even mentioned. That's how papers before 1900 were written: very opinionated, and very blunt. --Rschen7754 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it is an opinion, attribution is needed. For example, an article published in xyz newspaper said that...--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the attribution is provided in the citation. It's clearly labeled as an opinion, so this isn't a breach of NPOV. --Rschen7754 04:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great! Yes, WP:MOSQUOTE does say "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." So, even without professional English, I could do some improvement for the article :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems I came late, but WP:INTEXT puts it explicitly: "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing." Thus, the quotation here needed attribution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...through farms, and the grade was..." What is the grade?
  • "cut on the west side of the canyon and buttressed with granite the greater part of the way." A quote without citation.
    • It goes with the citation in the next sentence. --Rschen7754 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the expertise to comment on if that is an acceptable way. Usually quotes are immediately followed by citations. Will that by citation overkill in this case?
  • Yes, because that would result in two sentences right next to each other with the same citation. --Rschen7754 04:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked through WP:MOSQUOTE and see no requirement to do this. I would be willing to reconsider if you found a section of policy that backed up your viewpoint. --Rschen7754 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHYCITE says "Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks...".--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, doesn't insist upon citations even when it would result in two citations to the same source in a row. --Rschen7754 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in-text "by The San Diego Union and Daily Bee" but will not be adding a duplicate citation. --Rschen7754 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"the stagecoach line connected the terminus of the railroad line in Foster to Julian". Which stagecoach line (no stagecoach line was mentioned before)? Connected the rail terminus to what? --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...transporting the San Diego papers to " Newspapers, right?
  • "...reducing the distance to Julian by five miles (8.0 km) and..." Distance to Julian from where?
  • "Bidding was conducted on what was known as Road No. 3A on June 30, 1920...". You mean the bidding physically took place on Road No. 3A?
    • No, of course not... who would interpret it that way? --Rschen7754 04:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bidding was conducted on what was known as Road No. 3A on June 30, 1920; however, progress on the grading of the road fell behind the county engineer's expectations by October, with only 3.5 miles (5.6 km) of the road complete." Why do you connect bidding with progress with a however? How are these two events related? Also, grading of which road? 3A?
    • Because it's proper English? they're the same road? etc. --Rschen7754 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two points (this one and the immediately preceding one) arose because the article did not establish the connection between road no 3A and SR 67. Why is 3A important in the history of SR 67?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, got it.
  • "The "Ramona Road" remained unpaved between the Mussey Grade and the road to Ballena..." What is "Ramona Road"? Not mentioned or explained before. Also, what is the Mussey Grade?
    • ... the road to Ramona? Mussey Grade wasn't explained in the source, either. --Rschen7754 04:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Road to Ramona from where?
  • "Road to _" is an acceptable convention and has been for thousands of years (i.e. Road to Damascus). And if "from where" is a concern, what other possibilities are there? We're talking SR 67, a road that clearly goes from San Diego to Ramona. Why would we be discussing the road from Escondido to Ramona? That would have nothing to do with the article. --Rschen7754 05:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • here you say SR 67 goes from San Diego to Ramona, but the article lead says it goes from El Cajone to Ramona!
  • Anyway, coming to the point, in Early days section, the term Julian road has been used and explained in the first paragraph. The term Ramona Road is used within quotes later. From what I read, Ramona Road was the name of a part of the present-day SR 67 at some point of time in history. Ramona Road was not the name of the whole road (the whole road was known as Julian Road, according to the lead and the first paragraph of this section). My question was what was the extent of Ramona Road. Sorry if you misunderstood the question due to my poor wording. The same query applies to Road 3A. Was the whole Julian Road known as 3a? Probably not. So, the history should explain that. If no data is available, that can be mentioned. Additionally, the map in the infobox does not show many towns, such as Santee, Julian, Foster; this contributes to difficulty in comprehension.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked Rschen about this at the ACR. His response was that the information about exactly what extents of SR 67 comprised the Julian Road, the Ramona road, and Road 3A is not available in the sources he has. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto, and regarding "here you say SR 67 goes from San Diego to Ramona, but the article lead says it goes from El Cajone to Ramona" - are the two statements mutually exclusive? --Rschen7754 07:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that the sources do not specify the extent of each parts, but the reader does not know. So, this needs to be explained in the article. Otherwise, the question remains that what is the relation between Ramona Road and SR 67, and between Road No 3 and SR 67. This is a content issue, not a prose issue.
  • Since you ask this, no the two statements are not mutually exclusive, but there is a possibility that San Diego to Ramona road may not go through El Cajone, but through some other town. However, this sentence is not in the article, you just casually mentioned it here. So, we can decide not to discuss the logical falacy in the statement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done and will not be done, I do not need to add "The sources did not say anything about the connection between ..." --Rschen7754 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The road that would become SR 67 was added to the state highway system in 1933, from El Cajon to near Santa Ysabel..." So, all this while (preceding paragraphs), what was being discussed? The general highway system development? And not specifically SR 67?
    • ...really? That's what the whole article is explaining... --Rschen7754 04:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead says that Julian road existed, that became legislative route 198, and that became SR 67. In the early history, their are more names, such as Ramona Road, 3A. How would a reader not acquainted with the history would know their relation? Please pardon me if my points here were ill-worded? But, I'd at least anticipate that you assumed good faith.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've explained it pretty well in the article. I can't really add anything else. --Rschen7754 04:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The road was allocated $830,784 in funding (about $32,417,295 in 2010 dollars) to be realigned, widened, and repaved between Lakeside and Mount Woodson in 1942, due to the construction of the San Vicente Reservoir". Not understanding how did the reservoir affect the road plan.
    • That's what the source said. --Rschen7754 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grading and paving of the 11.7-mile (18.8 km) part was scheduled for completion on December 15, 1943" Which part are you referring to?
  • "Funding was allocated for traffic signals on the portion between Main Street and Broadway in 1954" Main Streer and Broadway of which town?
    • The answer is given in the other parts of the article, and I don't think it's necessary to repeat it here yet again. --Rschen7754 04:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, this is a minor point. It is unlikely to affect the outcome of this FAC. Of all the points I have described, many are technical/minor which would have probably eventually come up in the discussion. Almost all of those are taken care of. The minor points that remain might not affect the outcome.
  • However, in my PoV, the major point that remains un-addressed is the one involving Road No. 3, Ramona Road and SR 67. This is vital because early history of this route is dependent on those entities. And the relationship between those entities and the route still remains unclear to the reader. Indeed, you can try to think of a new sentence construction, or, using an explanatory note, or any other strategy to clarify that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how you expect this to be resolved, since the information you want added isn't available to the nominator. By asking him to clarify or explain it, you're basically inviting him to make a plausible guess, which is not exactly something we want in our featured articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a little bit, but I'm not really sure what else to say. If it's in the article, it's obviously related; believe me, I'd rather not include stuff if I don't have to as I'm averaging 100 newspaper clippings per article I'm writing. --Rschen7754 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Route 198 also extended onto La Mesa Boulevard and Palm Avenue to SR 94" What is exactly meant by this sentence?
    • Route 198 also extended onto La Mesa Boulevard and Palm Avenue to SR 94. --Rschen7754 04:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the early history section reads like a collection of random facts, lacking cohesiveness. The section is very difficult to understand for this choppiness. This fails to meet criterion 1a.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replied to most of the first half; most of your concerns so far are ill-founded. --Rschen7754 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replied to as many as I can, but frankly I'm not very motivated to reply to any more as this seems like copying and pasting random sentences taken out of context and nitpicking at them. --Rschen7754 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In regards to the AGF concern above, I'm not quite convinced that the reviewer has enough comprehension of the article; this isn't Simple English Wikipedia, and we can assume that the reader has a basic comprehension of English. I'll address the ones that I can address without "dumbing down" the article, but I don't think the rest of the comments will be actionable. --Rschen7754 05:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not use a professional level of English. I am extremely sorry if that is causing lack of comprehension in this article. Of course, please do not decrease the quality of prose if my queries falls short of professional level of English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean no offense by this, but if you are unable to use a professional level of English, perhaps FAC reviewing on the English Wikipedia is not the best idea, or at least reviewing prose the way that you are doing. --Rschen7754 07:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can offramp be wikilinked? Is it off-ramp or offramp? Which one is more appropriate?
  • Probably not. A google search on "offramp" (the way it is written in the article) does not provide any easily accessible definition. The online version of Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for "offramp". It does have an entry for "off-ramp" which defines what it is. Since I do not use professional level of English, I cannot say if "offramp" is wrong, but certainly suspicious. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that because I have used such a ramp while driving. But is the term "offramp" or "off-ramp"? No problem while speaking, but written form should be the correct one. Both may be correct, in which case there is no problem. But, Merriam-Webster does not have "offramp". May be they prefer off-ramp?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen off-ramp, anywhere. --Rschen7754 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, whether proper usage is offramp or off-ramp really shouldn't matter to whether the term is linked or not. A term is linked when it may be unfamiliar to the reader; this one, though, should be obvious. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I have struck through the wikilink point. But the new point is which is grammatically more appropriate? (if both are ok, no problem). Just for convenience (Rschen said he never saw off-ramp), I linked the Merriam-Webster entry above; here is the usage in NY Times. There are many such usage, Chicago Tribune, LA Times etc.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not really a dependable source for this issue. A well-established dictionary is. Merriam-Webster (which AFAIK is a dependable dictioonary for AMerican English) does not list offramp, they list off-ramp. And that NYT article was mentioned merely because you told you never saw "off-ramp" anywhere. There are many more examples. Looking awkard is not the concern, grammatical correctness is. Again, if offramp is academically acceptable (dictionary etc), I have no problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (2001) shows "offramp", no dash, defined as "a road leading off a main highway, freeway, etc.". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is TransNet?
  • Sorry, but this is not clarified. Just the word "tax" has been added. What is TransNet? You are certainly not referring to Transnet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that needs a wikilink, even if red.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a good idea, because if an article was created about TransNet, it would surely be deleted. --Rschen7754 20:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please explain the term in the article in some way so that any reader (not from that geographical area) can understand what it is.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a bit of clarification. If someone does not know what a sales tax is, I do not know what to say. --Rschen7754 20:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales tax is understandable. But what is TransNet? Again, there may be various ways to explain that, such as, within parenthesis, or, by an explanatory note.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the term reputation properly used here? The road was known as Slaughterhouse alleyway ? Is that considered as reputation ( which usually means fame, although other meanings are possible)
  • Something can certainly have a poor reputation for whatever reason. One of my coworkers has a reputation for staying home "sick" a lot, for instance. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, should "poor reputation" be more appropriate here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is apparent from the context. --Rschen7754 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • access date is missing in citation 29 (the 1944 road map). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any specific reason why "Safety concerns" comes sandwiched between "Freeway construction" and "Further developments"? "Freeway construction" tells the history upto about 1980, and Further development carries the history forward from 1983. Why the "safety concern" comes in between these two chornologically linked subsections?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topical organization as opposed to chronological organization. It's better to keep the material on similar topics together as it is more understandable. --Rschen7754 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Major intersections section, the first sentence "Except where prefixed with a letter, postmiles were measured on the road as it was in 1964, and do not necessarily reflect current mileage." probably needs a citation.
    • That is from a template and is in all California road articles that are FA. In other words, all California highways are like that - it's part of a standard template and we risk overciting here. --Rschen7754 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, under the column Postmile, what does the letter "R" stand for? It has not been explained in the text or the table.
  • Also, at the end of the table (last row) where the color coding is described, there is one item "incomplete access". What does that mean? (an appropriate wikilink/piped link will be great).--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done it means access is incomplete. --Rschen7754 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just came back incidentally, and noticed this point. I googled "incomplete access highway", the first few results included wikipedia articles Limited-access road and List of controlled access highway systems. I think this is not what is meant by incomplete access in the table. Can you please state what is "incomplete access" for highways in the table?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specifics of each incomplete access junction are mentioned in the notes, so this is redundant. --Rschen7754 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deriving from the table, incomplete access junction means a junction where exit/entrance ramps for all direction are not present, right? Is that a standard definition in California state routes, or in general for roads? I did not come across such a definition in my limited google search (I did not go through all the search results). Can you please provide a reference for such a definition, or, such an use of the phrase (incomplete access junction)? It sound like a technical term (like Limited access highway or HOV lane), but it is not a commonly used term, at least according to google search.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, man, incomplete access means that access is not complete. I will not be changing it, and am quite frustrated at this last-minute response. Rather than risk getting nasty in any future replies, I will not be responding further. --Rschen7754 00:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I did not realise this was last-minute (the FAC delegate recommended copyedit in his comments, so I thought this FAC was still ongoing). It is completely ok if you are unwilling to reply. A Limited access highway is a highway whose access is limited, that is not a definition. The wikipedia article article goes on to describe what things are limited to get access to the highway. We come across terminologies which subject experts know very well, but layman does not know (for example, difficult terms in physics or medicine articles). Those terms are either wikilinked or explained, so that interested reader can understand those. Similarly, "incomplete access" (just like "limited access" or HoV) appears like a technical term. As a subject expert, you might think why won't anyone understand that simple term? But everyone does not have the knowledge and expertise on highways as you do. That is why I was asking for a wikilink or explanation of the term (for example, state highway is wikilinked appropriately in the lead of the article for the ease of understanding of everyone, although it is imperative that highways maintained by the state government is state highway). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
  • Most images are missing alt text.
    • Alt text is no longer a FAC requirement. --Rschen7754 16:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it is not needed. Actually there is still the Alt Text viewer there in the FA review tool box, so I thought it is still recommended. My mistake.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be an idea to improve the image captions. WP:CAPTION says, "Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking especially at pictures and captions. For those readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, they will not find it unless it is in the caption—but do not tell the whole story in the caption—use the caption to make the reader curious about the subject." It also says, "While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial ("People playing Monopoly"), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text ("A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today."). More, "The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say "William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government." Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is." Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make sure that I am reading it correctly, "This portion was signed as the Sign Route 67 highway by 1962, from Campo Road to US 80. In the 1964 state highway renumbering, Route 198 was renumbered as State Route 67; the portion south of I-8 was renumbered as SR 125." That implies US 80 became I-8, right?
    • Yes, that is correct, in fact, both changes happened in the same bill. --Rschen7754 22:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question, "By December 1968, the freeway was complete from I-8 to Woodside Avenue; the Woodside Avenue grade was smoothed out during the widening of the road in early 1970." You mean the grade of Woodside Avenue was smoothed out during the widening of SR 67? Do they run parallel and very near to each other, that's why needing the smoothing out?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smoothed out in this case means making the grade less steep. --Rschen7754 22:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on prose based on preliminary sample: what does "however" add in this extract: 'The "Julian Road" had been constructed by 1872, and was used for stagecoaches;[9] however, in 1883 it was described as a "disgrace to the county. It could hardly be in a worse condition... and should be repaired immediately." '? Open to changing my mind, but this was the first thing I looked at and it doesn't meet standards. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're opposing over one sentence that was already fixed? --Rschen7754 19:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an observation: the sentence was fixed after the oppose by this editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (not a review) - Per WP:ELLIPSES, any ellipses not in a quote should be given a leading non-breaking space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only ones I can find are in the references - is that what you mean? --Rschen7754 22:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, "disgrace to the county. It could hardly be in a worse condition... and should be repaired immediately." No leading space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, although it is in a quote... --Rschen7754 23:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was it originally there, or did you / another editor add the ellipses? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just looked at the source again, and I added it when I omitted part of the quotation. --Rschen7754 23:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Alright, so having the space here is correct (in my above statement I meant "if the ellipses is not part of the original text which is quoted", sorry for being unclear) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (having stumbled here from my FAC)

  • Is there a way to get a more exciting opening sentence?
    • I'm at a bit of a loss here, there's not that much exciting about SR 67... --Rschen7754 06:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for some redundant linking in the article, such as San Diego River and San Vicente Reservoir.
    • Checked with a script and fixed. --Rschen7754 06:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It runs from Interstate 8" - is "runs" the best word? Seems a tad vernacular. Why not something more basic like "exists"?
  • " the route becomes known as Main Street" - perhaps remove "known as" to make it more concise?
  • "SR 67 begins as a freeway known as the San Vicente Freeway at I-8 and turns to the north near the Westfield Parkway shopping center in El Cajon." - although that isn't too long, I feel like it packs a lot of info, so it might help being reordered a bit to emphasize what's important. Something like "SR 67 begins at exit 17B on I-8 in El Cajon, and known as the San Vicente Freeway, it turns to the north near the Westfield Parkway shopping center." The current wording seems on the bland side, no offense.
    • Done; part of the redundancy was in attempt to pacify the reviewer above. --Rschen7754 06:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you call it "the Julian Road", instead of "Julian Road"?
  • "what was known as the Julian road, Road No. 3A" - inconsistent here if it's "road" or "Road"
    • The newspaper was regularly inconsistent about what it called the road, and the capitalization. I've changed everything to the nomenclature of "the Julian road" since that was its definition - a road to Julian. In those days "the Julian road" or the "Oceanside road" etc. usually meant going from the nearest high population city (in this case San Diego) to the named city. --Rschen7754 08:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about $38,610,000 in 2010 dollars" - why not 2013 USD? Also, specify USD.
    • The inflation templates only go up to 2010 unfortunately. I'm not sure if USD is best here, seeing as it is on an entirely American subject. --Rschen7754 03:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A contract for construction of a left-turn lane at the Lakeside Avenue intersection was awarded to Asphalt Inc. for $23,645 in 1971 (about $204,156 in 2010 dollars)." - this seems trivial. Is this level of construction work standard in road articles?
    • Removed as I'm not exactly sure what I was thinking there - it's not even in the right place if it was notable enough. --Rschen7754 06:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complete from I-8 to Woodside Avenue; the Woodside Avenue" - any way to remove the Woodside Avenue redundancy?
  • "Traffic jams were prevalent on October 21 and 22 in 2007, during the 2007 Southern California wildfires" - you should probably pipe the wildfires article, since that doesn't seem like a proper title (nor is it the title of the article anymore).

All in all pretty good! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review! Will work on this. --Rschen7754 05:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done. --Rschen7754 08:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the quick replies! And no worries about the opening, I often have the same difficulty with hurricane articles, heh. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- I'm afraid I'm not that thrilled with the prose, looking at the lead and few other spots, and suggest it could do with an independent copyedit...

  • For a start, can we avoid using "state" three times in the first sentence? I think we can assume people have heard of California and recast it as "State Route 67 (SR 67) is a state highway in San Diego County, California."
    • I was told to do this back at FAC in the old days, so I guess I'm still in the habit... changed. --Rschen7754 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It begins at Interstate 8 (I-8) in El Cajon to Lakeside..." -- I don't follow how it can begin in somewhere to somewhere else...
  • "On October 21, 1885, the county Board of Supervisors agreed to a realignment of the Julian road in what was known as the Bernardo District onto what was private property" -- Do we need two instances of "what was"? If there was a place called Bernardo District that no longer exists under that name, fair enough using it there, but I think it's pretty normal to expect that if a public road goes on private property it will no longer be private property...
  • "Head-on collisions are another source of crashes. Contrary to this, Caltrans did not view the road as unsafe according to official metrics." -- "Contrary to this" sounds odd to my ear, why not "Despite this"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done, and looking for a copyeditor. --Rschen7754 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see you've made a number of tweaks and trims based on our discussion elsewhere, and based on those changes and a further quick scan I think the prose has improved sufficiently for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/California_State_Route_67/archive1&oldid=1140135397"