Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 57

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways | Assessment | A-Class Review
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.

The result was promoted -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 57

edit
Toolbox

California State Route 57 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I brought this article from B-class to GA-class, and I think that it stands a good chance of becoming A-class since all of the research has been completed.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Dough4872 00:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. "The entire route is in the California Freeway and Expressway System[4] (and is a freeway where built).", I don't think parentheses are needed here.
    Done.
  2. The sentence "The interchange, long considered a major bottleneck, was rebuilt in the 1990s and 2000s." should be moved to the history.
    I don't fully agree here - this is being used to add detail to the route description. If it was in the history, we'd have to elaborate on what the construction was. I'd like to leave that to the Orange Crush interchange article. --Rschen7754 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A few attractions near SR 57 should be added to the route description to give it more flavor. For example, the road passes near Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Honda Center in Anaheim, California State University, Fullerton in Fullerton, Brea Mall in Brea.
    Added those four, plus some missing cities (oops!) --Rschen7754 22:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also, it might help to add some more details about the physical surroundings. For example, in the suburban areas, does it pass near homes or businesses? What are the hilly areas like?
    I don't really know how useful this is, considering that this is a freeway. --Rschen7754 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I noticed some overlinking in the history, for example SR 60 is linked twice.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 19:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Has there been any changes to the route since it was completed?
    Yes, the I-210 piece as described at the end of the article.
  7. Reference 8 is a dead link. Dough4872 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... Thankfully the archive place got, but I know it's not the best thing ever. --Rschen7754 01:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied to all your comments. --Rschen7754 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basics
  • DABs are good.
  • No ALT text, but that's not exactly required at FAC these days... but it is suggested.
  • The ocregister.com link changes subdomain, so you might want to swap out the URL used for the article. Otherwise, the ELs look good.
  • I haven't checked, but I will comment to double check your non-breaking spaces.
Image review
  • You'll want to ping NE2 (talk · contribs) to get the GIS source information for the map added to its image description page. I'd recommend adding a color key as well for the map to the IDP. The map should have a caption as well.
  • It's my recommendation that at least the SR 57 marker graphic (the "shield") have its IDP changed to clarify that SPUI doesn't own the graphic, since he slavishly reproduced the work of Caltrans, and clarify that the marker is PD from them. (This is an issue project wide where people are claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that they created the work, when they only created the copy that's residing on the servers and never had any ownership interest in the underlying graphics.)
  • File:57-Lambert_on_ramp.jpg needs its copyright status clarified. Since the photo is only the sign, we need to know that the sign isn't under copyright. Given the age, it's PD unless there's a copyright notice attached to it because signs pre-1978 in the US are PD without a positive notice. (Something similar came up at the Brockway Mountain Drive FAC image review.)
  • The caption on the nighttime photo should have SR 90 abbreviated for consistency with the body of the article.
Infobox
  • is it possible to narrow down the SR 60 measurement, and maybe just add it to the total if isn't already. The length notes are slightly confusing to me, and since CA uses postmiles, I can't exactly clarify the situation using the exit list.
  • See above for the comments on the map.
  • I have some ideas on cleaning up the system "browselinks" section of the infobox, but that doesn't impact the status of this article. We can discuss that at WT:CASH later if you like.
Lead
RD
  • It might be beneficial to add in NHS designation as well, if we're going to have the other designations. Since the S&HC is mentioned in the history, it would be good to add that here as well. This whole paragraph could be shunted to the end of the RD to get the "meat" of the section up front, since the legal definitions aren't all that interesting in comparison.
  • "northwest-southeast" needs an en dash (–)
  • Is the word "interchange" ever used as a part of the name of the Orange Crush? If so, it should be capitalized, but I'll defer to local usage here.
  • If this article is headed to FAC, traffic count data would be a good thing to mention, possibly in the same paragraph as all of the legal definitions, etc. If you mention the highest and lowest values adjacent to each other, you'll avoid the comparison issue from Brianboulton at the US 2 FAC.
History
Future
  • "The most recent plans were for a toll road elevated above the Santa Ana River rather than through existing neighborhoods, only extending south to the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405) in Costa Mesa with connections to the Corona del Mar Freeway (State Route 73)." When were these plans proposed? Who proposed them?
  • "The extension was most recently considered as two 11.2-mile-long (18.0 km), two-lane viaducts, costing $950 million; the toll road franchise expired in January 2001." Again, who did the consideration and when? Who had the toll road franchise? Why did it expire?
Exit list
References
External links

Overall, the article is good, and most of my comments are of the nitpicky variety. I'd be happy to support promotion after they're fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues replied to above. --Rschen7754 10:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from –Fredddie™ 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and infobox
  1. You could add counties to the infobox. I'm not sure if that's your preference or an old WP:CASH style.
    None of the other CA articles have them. I mean, I suppose they could be added, but if so, I'd rather it got added across the board. --Rschen7754 21:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I assumed as much. I won't force it. –Fredddie™ 21:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The paragraph that summarizes the history seems to have big jumps. That is, it goes from the 1950s to today in only four sentences. I don't know, it just seems to be missing something in between.
    The history does this too. I added the 1998 date, and the 1964 date, so it's not as bad now. --Rschen7754 05:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The two sentences about unconstructed sections could seem contradictory to some readers. The unconstructed portion of the Orange Freeway was built in the 1970s, yet there is an unconstructed section that would go to Santa Ana. Would the extension not be part of the Orange Freeway?
    Rephrased. --Rschen7754 05:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  1. Is the Orange Crush interchange still a bottleneck?
    Clarified wording; not sure if it is still today. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "SR 57 briefly passes through Placentia and Fullerton, providing access to California State University Fullerton." Does that seem redundant to anyone else? Yes, I know it's almost always called Cal State Fullerton.
    It doesn't seem redundant to me... --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The very next sentence, about going through Brea Canyon, seems to have too many commas. It may read better broken into two sentences.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Near what's summit? The canyon?!
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "A short overlap carries SR 57 traffic on the outside of SR 60." I'm having a hard time picturing this sentence. It reads like both routes share the same right of way, but not the same ribbon of pavement. That doesn't seem like an overlap to me.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "...and is a freeway where built;..." Does this mean the whole route is a freeway?
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The AADT figure lists cars only. Don't trucks use the freeway, too?
    Changed to vehicles. --Rschen7754 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come... –Fredddie™ 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History
  1. I have a feeling it's analogous to a spur route, but what exactly is a "spur of the Peninsular Ranges"?
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It was added as a branch of Route 19. Does that mean it was numbered 19 or something else like 19A?
    Numbered 19. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It should be early-to-mid-1930s as it's all one indefinite time period.
    Changed, though it conflicts with above. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we get away with dropping the time period altogether? –Fredddie™ 23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, as this is a loss of information. --Rschen7754 01:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, did some research. Since "early-1930s" is wrong, but "mid-1930s" is correct, you should use "early to mid-1930s". Or you can do whatever you want. The rules of grammar are quite flexible here. –Fredddie™ 03:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "This became part of the proposed Temescal Freeway (later Corona Freeway); a southerly extension of the Orange Freeway[23] to Legislative Route 60 (SR 1) near Huntington Beach was added in 1959 as Route 273." The post-semicolon half of this sentence seems to be a run-on.
    Not a run-on; don't see any issues. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "The last pieces of that portion were through Brea Canyon, opened March 13, 1972,[32] and the four-level Kellogg Hill Interchange at I-10, dedicated May 1, 1972, and opened soon after.[33]" This would read better as two separate sentences.
    Edited to improve flow; we lose the parallel structure if we split it. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't like the sentence fragments in parentheses. I'm OK with "Riverside Freeway (SR 91)", but not "(though the subsequent deletion from the Streets and Highways Code did not take place until 1981[34])."
    Removed. --Rschen7754 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future
  1. You should clarify; do the two 11.2-mile-long viaducts cost $950 million each or total?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The toll road franchise sentence seems odd attached to the previous sentence. Especially since the reader has had no prior knowledge of the franchise.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exit list
  1. Since it starts at postmile 10.83, should the reader assume the unconstructed part would start at postmile 0? A note clarifying this would help. I'll look at the template to see what we can do.
    In theory, yes; since it's Caltrans though, it might be a bit off. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I'm asking for clarifications and tweaks to improve readability. Otherwise, great job. –Fredddie™ 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All issues replied to. --Rschen7754 23:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/California_State_Route_57&oldid=1138363151"