Jump to content

Talk:California State Route 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleCalifornia State Route 11 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2016Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Happy to review. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Here are my comments:

  • Lead
  • "plan" looks a bit too repeated in the first few lines.
  • Don't say currently, say something like as of 2016.
  • I think it should be clear from the first line itself that the route is under construction.
  • Route description
  • Maybe History should precede this section? That's the order I have seen in similar articles.
  • State Route 11 (SR 11) is a state route in San Diego County Please mention this part as well when you begin with the main article.
  • Reword currently as suggested above.
  • History:
  • The entire road could be complete by 2017 You mean "is expected to be complete by"? I think this fact is important enough to be mentioned in the lead.
  • Are all points in the table sourced?

That should be it. I will return this weekend. I would be happy to promote this once the above points are addressed. Cheers, Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: all done. --Rschen7754 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rschen7754. I see no more issues with the article, really good work. This is promoted. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates are needed to keep this as a GA. ChessEric 01:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: using a GAR to prompt article updates is a bit like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly, especially when your nomination statement omits what updates are needed. A better tactic would have been to post a list of needed updates on the article's talk page. A best tactic would have been to make the updates yourself if you could, and request assistance on the talk page only if you could not, say if lacked access to a source or sources for information you know warrants inclusion.
Now that we're here, what needs updating? Since I'm not clairvoyant, I need you to give me some indication if I'm going to help. Imzadi 1979  07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I was bouncing around and editing many things at once and didn't put in a detailed description.
The updates are needed in the future section; it is outdated as the scheduled completion dates listed have either passed or are about to be passed. Additionally, some of the info within the section belongs in the history section. There is also, in my opinion, not enough information regarding Otay Mesa East Port of Entry border crossing, which is going to be the eastern terminus of this route. I would edit it myself, but I've also been busy with schoolwork and don't have time to look things up. However, I did find this article to help out with the update. ChessEric 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: I would reiterate the suggestion that trying some basic edits yourself would have been a much better course of action than initiating a blunt-force demotion discussion, especially since it looks like your issue is with a pair of sentences. (Please note that per WP:SS and other factors, we shouldn't add too much content about the PoE here as that is not the subject of this article.) Imzadi 1979  08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to demote it; I'm just saying some things need to be updated. You're right that the GAR was a little too much, but I also didn't want to put an "update section" tag on a GA. ChessEric 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric and Imzadi1979: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure at this point. ChessEric 20:18, 10 March 2024 (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.