Talk:County Route S18 (California)

Is this correct?

"the only major route that allows motorists to drive through, in, and out of the Santa Ana Mountains." Well, there's also the Ortega Highway. Looking at the cited reference (which is a personal story), it seems the writer was referring to "entirely within Orange County". The east end of the Ortega is not in Orange County. But that distinction is lost in the wording of this article.

Not sure of the best fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.193.2 (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Where should El Toro Road be categorized to? -- Artisol2345 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I got it; never mind. Artisol2345 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Rschen, why do you believe that El Toro Road should be merged to County Route S18 (California)? 68.4.104.141 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles describe the same stretch of road. Furthermore, El Toro Road may not be notable by itself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

All of El Toro Road is part of CR S18; this probably calls for a merge. Is the road particularly "notable", or is it just a standard suburban arterial? --NE2 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, but then I don't live in Orange County. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I do live in Orange County, and I know of El Toro Road. But only half of CR S18 travels on El Toro Road. Do you still believe it calls for a merge? AL2TB Gab or Tab 01:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, thats basically what NE2 said above... --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NE2 uses a higher level of vocabulary than me. I could not comprehend the words "suburban arterial" accurately. And no, the dictionary did not help either. I'm just in 10th grade... AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles merged. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:County Route S18 (California)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   This article's prose quality is beautiful, especially for a county route

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There is no history pre-2008 in the article - it says 1970 in the infobox, but there has got to be more history pre-2008. There is now some pre-2008 history.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not as far as I can see

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   This article has been stable, as well as quiet.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Not applicable per below.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No pictures, not even a map of the highway

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article meets almost all of the criteria. There are no pictures, but I won't fail or On-hold the article for it. I do wish to see a map request in the next few days however. Anyway, fix the comments listed above and I will pass this article. Thanks. ^Mitch32^contribs 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One comment. In the sentence, The route follows in a convoluted pattern from State Route 133 in Laguna Beach to State Route 55 near Orange, "convoluted" is very POVish, and not suitable for an encyclopedia. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the pictures; I'm not a photographer. However, I'll see what I can do about the pre-2008 history. Can you please hold this GA Review until next Monday? I'm kind of busy this week in school, doing homework, and studying for tests. And I really don't have time to address the problem right now. And yes, my username used to be formerly Dabbydabby. Dabby (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Convoluted" - POV removed and sentence reworded. Dabby (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Delisted. Imzadi 1979 → 08:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:County Route S18 (California)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

My main issue with this article is that as of this diff is that references 3, 4, 10. 11, 15, & 29 are cited to images / street view, and 5, 20, & 21 are not reliable sources. If this article can be cleaned up I support retaining the article's GA status, else the article will be demoted. --Admrboltz (talk)

I agree. The multitude of Google Maps references could be combined together, and using the aerial view with labels instead of the map view in the link will reference the physical surroundings. As it stands, the Google Maps references should be using {{google maps}} instead of {{cite map}}. The current method is linking Google Maps in ever citation, a clear case of WP:OVERLINKing. Several newspaper names are used, but not in italics, and second usages of newspaper names should not be linked. Source #2 needs section numbers/inset names. If a link target is a PDF, |format=PDF should be added. Not all browsers can read PDFs nor do they all insert the PDF icon after the link. There's no publisher or author information on footnote 28. (If retained, the title needs to bre re-rendered in Title Case, not ALLCAPS. Actually the other titles need to be redone in Title Case instead of Sentence case.)

The map needs work. It provides no context... which line is S18? Where is this map located? The writing quality could be improved. It's still not well written from its aborted FAC nomination. I suggest a copy edit. Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"The route follows in a boomerang-like pattern" - wha?

Knowing who the editor of this article was, this likely needs cleanup; I haven't read the article, but it's highly probable. --Rschen7754 07:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There's been a lack of activity or interest for improving this article to retain it's GA status. I'd like to suggest that we move to demoting/delisting it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the only reason I'd be interested in saving this is rel WW, and this is the only CACR standalone remanining. Not good signs for it staying a GA. --Rschen7754 06:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Smerging to list article

I summarized and merged this into California County Routes in zone S#S18 by copying the lead and the junction list, updating the infobox. If any additional content should be moved over, it's all available at this revision of the article. Keep in mind that it is now part of a list, and most of the information from the previous article was not needed in the list version of the article and the article was so poorly written that it was delisted as a Good Article with many issues. Please do not recreate this article without discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 08:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)