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.
Promoted to A-Class. —CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
"As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125] north, and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." The second comma I think is a grammar error. I'll be removing it soon.
From the article: "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125 north and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." and "SR 54 then runs concurrently with SR 94 through the unincorporated, but developed, area of Rancho San Diego, following Campo Road about one-half mile (800 m) east." Those should answer your questions. --Rschen775419:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, RD is good.
History
"This portion of freeway opened on September 27, 1963, and the entire project cost $2.25 million (about $37 million in 2015 dollars)" (and other sections) These money comparison facts should be updated to 2016 dollars.
I fixed a space between "…accomplished in a single year by the county board of supervisors" and citation 26. You can revert it if you want.
"The project to convert the HOV lanes to regular mixed traffic lanes was authorized in 2006." Do you mean "The project to remove the HOV lanes was authorized in 2006."? I didn't get what you meant.
The HOV lanes would not be HOV lanes anymore. "Remove" is a bit ambiguous, as it could mean that the lanes were removed entirely. --Rschen775416:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing the part of SR 54…" Are they still considering? Oct. 2014 is a bit outdated.
The intersection with I-805, SR 125, and SR 94 aren't in any location? I think the intersection with SR 94 is in the unincorporated city of Rancho San Diego.
Your writing is exceptionally good. Few grammar mistakes were in the article, and this article is nearly perfect. It wouldn't be long before this article could become an FA.
"the part of the highway east of SR 125 is undivided, ..." Undivided should be an adjective for something more descriptive (i.e. an undivided two/four-lane road)
While I don't expect turn-by-turn or even exit-by-exit coverage, "through Paradise Hills in San Diego" doesn't really tell me about the physical surroundings.
The portion about the CR S17 section is a bit misleading. You talk about it like it is both SR 54 and not SR 54. I realize that's partly because SR 54 is designated for a freeway that wasn't (or hasn't yet been) built. Do you think that section of road should be described in the RD?
The last sentence of the RD doesn't do anything for me. How about this?
"In early 2012, portions of the interchange with I-5 were among the top ten most congested segments of highway in Caltrans District 11, which includes the San Diego metro area."
I'm assuming the 'road through Jamacha' is related to SR 54, but the casual reader might not make that assumption. I don't feel like a connection is drawn between that road and to SR 54.
It is a road that runs through Jamacha that parallels the Sweetwater River from US 80 (I-8) to the Sweetwater Valley, similar to SR 54. I added "around El Cajon", but it's a bit difficult to make the connection more explicit without original research. --Rschen775406:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should summarize the planned route of the South Bay Freeway.
This sentence, "By 1961, E Street in Chula Vista continued along the Sweetwater River, ...", is this still the case? If not, you should revise the verbs in the second half so it reads in the past tense. You can probably ditch the comma when you do.
@Kevon kevono: It is the custom to let the nominator have the chance to resolve issues raised first, because they may disagree with what the reviewer has to say. AS far as Fredddie's question, I would have to look at the article and my sources again. --Rschen775405:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was flooding a problem in the area prior to the flood channel?
It's not clear from the sources, likely because the area wasn't developed at the time, though it seems to be more preemptive. I've clarified. --Rschen775401:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The county hoped to build both projects at the same time to save $4 million..." Run-on sentence.
The U.S. Congress gave approval for the project.[28] But later that year, it was announced that the target date for completing the system would be extended from 1972 to 1974.[29]→Congress approved the project in <month> 1972;[28] later that year, the target date for completing the system would be pushed back two years.[29]
The previous paragraph was just in 1972, so the next one should not start with "By 1971, ..."
The previous paragraph does mention 1972, but the articles are from 1968. It could be more clear, I suppose. Feel free to add suggestions. --Rschen775405:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did the I-5 detour signify the beginning of construction? Regardless, this could be worded better.
It does, as that is the first thing that had to be done on the construction project. I made a slight adjustment but suggestions are welcome. --Rschen775403:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to name drop the mayor of National City? How about the fire chief?
Construction resumed in early November 1989;[53] the halting of construction meant that the project had to be rebid, and one bridge was partially constructed, resulting in it being known as "the bridge to nowhere".[54] This sentence is mostly fragments.
One thing that distracted me, and I mentioned it a few times, was the use of -ing. I'm not saying that all of them are wrong, but some of them could be said better with revision. I am going to do some copyediting now of stuff that I didn't think was worth mentioning. I'll ping you when I'm all done. –Fredddie™00:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above looks fine, but a couple final comments. 1. Find a different word for funds/funding. It seems like it's the only word used to describe money. 2. Do another once-over to look for "ing". There are a couple instances where two -ing words are used in quick succession, one of them is a quote, so that's unavoidable, but the others could be revised. –Fredddie™02:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The review has been suspended for being inactive for 30 days and having outstanding comments. It may be reactivated at any time in the next 6 months. --Rschen775407:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead leaves me with one big unanswered question, "why aren't the two sections connected". The implied answer is that the middle section was relinquished to the county and now part of CR S17. I'd advise to make that explicit (if true) and if not true re-word to remove the implication.
"SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa" This is a little rough. It also seemingly contradicts the last 2 sentences in this same paragraph, which claim that Jamacha Boulevard is not SR 54. How about replacing the latter part of this paragraph with something like this, "The SR designation officially ends at the Jamacha Boulevard exit in La Presa, with a gap in the route along the county maintained portion of Jamacha Boulevard. State maintenance and the SR 54 designation resume at the intersection of Jamacha Boulevard and Campo Road. However, Jamacha Boulevard formerly carried the SR 54 designation, and is still marked as such on some maps."
What's with the bolded names near the bottom of the route description? Currently only "South Bay Freeway" redirects to SR-54. Even if the other redirects were created, the bolded instance of Jamacha Boulevard is about the 5th mention in the article (the first is in the lead). Based on what I see, I'd work a bolded "South Bay Freeway" into the lead and de-bold the rest.
"The earliest predecessor to SR 54 existed from 1908" And that earliest predecessor was? How about something like, "An unpaved road with a similar route to modern SR 54 first appeared on maps in 1908"?
"from US 80 around El Cajon" Being as how a non-roadgeek will have a tough time knowing where US 80 ran at the time, how about including the modern street name? I.E. "from US 80 (now Main St.) around"
The article has a red linked "light footed clapper rail". Being an endangered species this SURELY has an article, just under a different title. That would be like seeing a red link to Highway Mother Road 66 to a roadgeek. I'm 99.9% sure the appropriate article is Ridgway's rail, check out the article, specifically the sub-species section and reference #4 and see if you agree, and if so pipe-link it.
"SR 54 from the El Cajon city limit to I-8 to the City of El Cajon in 1999,[59] and the transfer took place that year.[4]" Is this the same relinquishment that caused the gap in route? or is this a different relinquishment? Please clarify
Vote to promote, much better. I will make an optional suggestion, consider wikilinking the first instance of Campo. I'm making this optional as there are reasons to do it, and reasons not to do it; namely the link is to the town, and the use in the article is the street (that leads to the town of the same name). Dave (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (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.
