Jump to content

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]

  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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]
  • 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?

*"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]

  • 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?
* 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]
  • 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]
  • "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?
  • 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]
  • "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.
  • "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?
  • 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?
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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)
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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?
  • 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]
  • 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]

Support (having stumbled here from my FAC)

  • Is there a way to get a more exciting opening sentence?
  • Watch for some redundant linking in the article, such as San Diego River and San Vicente Reservoir.
  • " 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.
  • 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.
  • "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?
  • "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]

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."
  • "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]
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"