Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 78/archive3

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 SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [1].

California State Route 78

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the criteria of a FA and comprehensively covers the topic. Disclaimer: This article has failed twice because of inactivity - reviewers have not responded to addressed comments, or nobody has reviewed the article at all. Also, California State Route 78 is not the longest state route in California. Rschen7754 (T C) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this concern- This goes both ways. Other maps on road articles have been criticized for being impossible to read at small resolutions due to place names and the like. With that said, this is a relatively old map, and the newer maps created by the project tend to have more information. Dave (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can contact somebody to get this fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree that a few relevant features would be nice. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting and well-written. I believe this article satisfies the requirements. Comments The intro seems a little weak. Perhaps some mention of the sand dunes would help. I also agree with Iridescent, anyone unfamilar with the area is completely lost when only cities are used for points of reference, especially when the map is blank. The article is comprehensive, yes, but not very engaging in its current state. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map looks better. The intro is slightly better. I think three paragraphs is a good rule of thumb, however the article itself is rather small so perhaps I am being too picky. I will leave it at that. I gave the article a thorough reading this time around, and have listed some issues:

  1. "The section of SR 78 from the western junction of SR 79 to the western junction with SR 86 is legally eligible for the State Scenic Highway System;[8] however, only the section in Anza Borrego Desert State Park has officially been designated as being part of the system.[9]" - The phrase "legally eligible" seems a little ambigious. Could this be clarified? Is the entire route actually a designated scenic highway, but only a portion of it actually signed as such? If so, these two sentences should be modfied.
    Clarified. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Following this, the road follows a serpentine alignment," - Kinda lost me here. Following what? Is the road following the valley, state park, or did you mean after the road leaves the state park it follows a serpentine alignment? Perhaps some minor change here could improve readability.
    Clarified. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "the junction's name refers to the shape of the interchange as CR S2 runs concurrently in a wrong-way concurrency." - Should this link to Concurrency_(road)#Wrong-way_concurrency instead?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Before the designation of SR 78, a road known as the Brawley-Westmorland-Julian-Oceanside Highway connecting Oceanside, Escondido, Ramona, Julian, Westmorland, and Brawley existed around 1900." - This sentence is quite a mouthful. Perhaps some parentheses around the cities would help with readability.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "SR 78 was originally formed along with the majority of the Sign Routes in 1934" - What are the "Sign Routes"?
    Added an explanation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "This portion of the road was specifically designed to address the challenges of building it through sand dunes.[25]" - What were some of the challenges and how did they address them? I think this is the most interesting fact in the article yet it only garners one sentence! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added more information. All issues addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments Two suggestions to fill in what may be gaps in the article. The article mentions the road is named in honor of two people, but the article never explains who these people are, or why the road would be named after them. As the road was extended through the Imperial Valley in the 1960's, I'm guessing this road has some pretty important significance for agriculture. In fact, I'd guess the road might have been built just for that purpose, considering a significant amount of produce is grown there. Any info on that?Dave (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added info about Ronald Packard and a link. "Ben Hulse" doesn't show up on Wikipedia or Google. I'm not sure about where I would get agricultural info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was apparently a teacher turned state legislator in El Centro California, there is an elementary school in Imperial also named after him. Here's some leads [2] [3] I suspect this is the article with the key as it both mentions him and a new highway in the Imperial Valley and published in the 1956, unfortunately you're going to have to pay to read it [4]. You might talk to NE2, he's a pro of knowing what to search for to get the teaser paragraph to display all the relevant info without having to pay. Never ceases to amaze me how he does it. I'd at least talk to him about squeezing enough info to confirm this is the article you want before shelling out the cash.Dave (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the change, and would encourage more digging through old newspapers, it's a pain, but from my experience gives the most interesting info. one more comment. I'm not a fan of using the italicized 86 in the exit list. IMO its confusing. I handled a similar situation differently on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. There were some who were opposed to how I did it, but IMO it's clearer than the italics. Dave (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments-I have some concerns with this article before I will support it for FA:
  1. "state highway in the state": The use of the word "state" twice sounds a little awkward. Is there any other word that can be used?
    This is typical for a USRD article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Utah State Route 128 is an example of how I did it that passed FA muster.
      1. Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is there any more information that can be added to the lead?
    I added a bit to the lead, let me know if this helps. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "State Route 78 begins in Oceanside as a continuation of Vista Way. As it encounters a traffic signal and crosses over I-5, the route becomes a suburban freeway traveling east through Oceanside." Doesn't it begin at I-5? It sounds a little unclear in these two sentences.
    Route begins as a continuation of Vista Way, at the intersection with the ramps to I-5. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Avoid overusing "then" in route description
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. What is a "serpentine alignment"?
    Serpentine definition: of or like a serpent or snake : serpentine coils. • winding and twisting like a snake : serpentine country lanes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Clarify what a "primitive road" is.
    Removed; I don't remember what I meant when I wrote that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "A Swedish company has commenced the construction of this bypass" souds awkward. Also, when specifically did construction on the Brawley bypass begin?
    Corrected. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Are the missing postmiles in hte Major intersections table known?
    No, they are not available. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Reference 2 appears to be a personal website. However, the reference uses information from the CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC WORKS. Is there an alternate source that shows this information?
    This appears to be a verbatim copy of a document from them; apparently this is okay per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. For the map references, is there additional information that needs to be included such as the scale of the map and the cartographer? In the case of many of the gas station maps, there is usually a cartographer who makes the map for the gas station.
    Typically the scale isn't necessary. I don't know if the cartographer is specifically necessary, but I will go to the library tomorrow and pull that up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the scale and cartography for all the maps I could find. I couldn't find some of them; maybe somebody checked them out or they got misfiled. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The link in reference 25 comes up as "403 Forbidden"
    A fee is required to view the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Reference 38 links to a page telling how the articles from the IHT are being moved
    I can't find the new article; we may have to wait until the articles finish being moved to fix it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Reference 41 and 43 are the same, they can probably be merged into one reference
    Oops. Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The article needs more pictures. If possible, try to obtain some pictures of the route. You can also try looking on Flickr for pictures with suitable copyrights. For the history section, you can use a cropped image from this 1947 USGS Map, a PD image, to show the pre-freeway routing of CA 78 Dough4872 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I can get more route pictures soon. I'll look into getting the history map though. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the history map. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All comments addressed or replied to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - All of my major concerns have been addressed. However, it would be nice for more images to eventually be added to the article. Dough4872 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  1. The eastern terminus at I-10 stated in the infobox is incorrect. SR 78 does not end in Blythe; it should say that SR 78 ends near Blythe.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Where does reference #1 (bridge log) state total mileage? The source only gives county-based postmiles. Due to realignments at some junctions, you can't just simply add all the county postmiles up in order to get the total mileage.
    But the equations correct for this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What equations? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None are necessary for SR 78, if there aren't any in the bridge log. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you just saying that a reader has to add up all the county postmile equations together to come up with the total mileage? I wouldn't think they'd do that There should be a reliable source that directly states the total mileage. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition is perfectly fine to get mileages. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, realignments may affect accurate addition. I'm more inclined to support using the trucklist rather than the brdige log. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want to use a possibly imprecise (3 decimal place) number that doesn't include the SR 86 segment? And don't use the argument that you can add a two-decimal number to a three-decimal number and not lose any precision. (A three decimal number is not available). --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The mileage that was in the article may already be possibly imprecise, because you just added them up despite realignments and temporary connections at some junctions. Show me how you arrived at the length of 215.39 mi using the bridge log. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, if you used the trucklist mileage, while it may not include the SR 86 overlap, you can just make a little note below the mileage and say (includes XX mileage from SR 86). This should not affect the amount of precision taken from the trucklist and bridge log. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You just add the mileages in San Diego, Imperial, and Riverside counties plus the overlap mileage. In this case, no correction for realignments is necessary. (If there was, there would be a listed equation such as "R0.00 is 1.49". There isn't for SR 78 - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd11.pdf). There are not multiple possible answers for the addition of four numbers, and this isn't first year calculus. New York State Route 28 does the same and is a FA. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
    And NY SR 28 also made a little note adding the I-595 overlap mileage below. Did the total mileage of SR 28 included the mileage with the I-595 overlap? If not, can't we do this same type of format for SR 78 (this is what I'm suggesting all along)? (And obviously, this isn't first year calculus; we aren't dealing with derivativs or integrals.) -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 16:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (reset) You miss the point: the average adult can be given the same numbers and get the same result. The question is, why do we need to use your format for the article? You are suggesting a solution to a problem that does not exist. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This was originally NE2 (talk · contribs)'s format of the article; look at California State Route 139's mileage formatting as an example. We want to give as much precision as possible. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But that precision cannot be achieved if you cannot get the total length of the route to three decimal places. Readers don't care about the length of SR 78 if it doesn't include the SR 86 overlap. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why there is a separate note that says {plus XX mi on SR XX). As precision to three decimanl places cannot be maintained, that's what the little note is for. That's where readers can directly add up the mileage values (hence the "plus" in the note). -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't addressed my argument. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is: would you rather have readers figure out the source themselves (adding mileages), or would you at least let readers verify based on the information that is visible to them? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a red herring: regardless of what we do, they can verify the source with the citation. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This article lacks amount of good-quality images.
    Yeah... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I take it that FAC is not that concerned about this at all? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 16:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for everyone, but it doesn't concern me. All the FA criteria says is "It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate […]" – there's no minimum number of images or a requirement for images-for-images-sake when they're not necessary. – iridescent 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the proviso that the distances issue immediately above this is resolved. I'm going to take factual accuracy on faith, as I've no intention of scrutinizing maps or adding up mileage totals. That aside, I know from experience how hard it is to make non-glamorous roads readable and comprehensive without veering off into either irrelevant trivia or overspecialized technicalities, and I can see no issues at all with this one. – iridescent 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall; pls just scan that URLs have accessdates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (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_78/archive3&oldid=1138456926"