Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 67

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

California State Route 67

edit
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 article was promoted. SounderBruce 01:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

California State Route 67 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This just passed GA and I believe could go to FAC. P.S. This is pretty short, unlike CA 52 and CA 56, and the upcoming I-8.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 02:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872

edit

Note: this review needs 3 more supports and a spotcheck before promotion. --Rschen7754 09:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie

I can't believe I haven't looked at this until now. –Fredddie™ 01:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead
  1. California State Route 198 doesn't redirect here, so why is it bolded?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doesn't say when it became SR 67.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Notorious" may go against WP:PEACOCK or MOS:OPED especially since that word is only used once.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Has the new SR 52 interchange made a difference in road safety?
    The two aren't and never were related. --Rschen7754 23:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "A freeway south of Lakeside was built in the late 1960s, and opened to traffic in 1970. Since then, the road north of Lakeside has become known for a high number of traffic accidents and related fatalities. Caltrans has made several attempts to remedy the problem and make the road safer. A new interchange with SR 52 was opened in 2011."
    The juxtaposition of the two sentences underlined sure makes it seem like they're related. Now, since I thought the two were linked, I would imagine some readers would, too. –Fredddie™ 11:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed entirely. --Rschen7754 23:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Route description
  1. I don't know if I'm wrong or not, but the RD strikes me as short.
    See below.
  2. Generic comment about scenery...
    I've added some details to the RD. However, having hiked through the area myself and driven through there, it's just brush once you leave the city. In Southern California, outside the cities and designated forest areas, it's all piles and piles of desert brush. --Rschen7754 22:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. You should change all the 2012s to {{CURRENTYEAR}}.
    This is actually to make sure the article is up to date, as advised by Sandy. --Rschen7754 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The road that would become SR 67 was added to the state highway system in 1933, from El Cajon to near Santa Ysabel.[12] The route was designated as Route 198 in 1935,[13] and consisted of Maine and Woodside avenues in Lakeside[14] and Magnolia Avenue in the city of El Cajon all the way to U.S. Route 80 (US 80) at Main Street; at this time, the entire route had been paved.[15][16]"
    You could almost add the part of the second sentence before ref 13 to the first sentence and start the second sentence with "It consisted..."
    Done. --Rschen7754 09:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "...using the old railroad tracks.[14]"→"...using the old railroad right of way.[14]"
    The source used right-of-way so that would be plagiarism. --Rschen7754 23:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh. I don't think you would be tarred and feathered over that. There are only so many ways to describe the places on which trains travel. However, cars don't drive on train tracks, so your wording just seems wrong. Maybe the solution is to put it within quotation marks. –Fredddie™ 13:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --Rschen7754 21:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What purpose were the "yellow, non-reflectorized markers interspersed with raised yellow dots"?
    Added. --Rschen7754 08:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "By December 1968, the freeway..." to the end of this paragraph reads like a bulleted list.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 08:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like the crash statistics, but there isn't much context here. Is 413 crashes in that 1996–99 time period a lot?
    The article wasn't specific - I get the feeling they went through the CHP raw records. --Rschen7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Early 80s to mid 90s doesn't strike me as "recent", but I don't have an alternate suggestion.
    Changed. --Rschen7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SANDAG should be defined.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "The road sustained damage in the 2003 Cedar Fire, with burned guardrails and signs.[52]" Was the road itself damaged or just the guardrails and signs?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were right; this was shorter than the last! –Fredddie™ 02:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to be adding some material to the article sometime after the 11th, so I probably will not be addressing these comments until then. --Rschen7754 23:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made all the changes; however, the first section of the history has had substantial material added, so I would appreciate a second check of that part. --Rschen7754 09:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing sticks out at me. I'll support. –Fredddie™ 05:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by TCN7JM

edit
Review by TCN7JM

I will review this article. –TCN7JM 01:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • It then becomes a highway through the eastern part of Poway – What type of highway in particular? Just stating that it "becomes a highway" is vague and confusing.

Route description

  • entering the town of Moreno. SR 67 enters the rural area east of Sycamore Canyon County Open Space Preserve – From the way this is structured, it looks like you're referring to Moreno as the rural area.
  • In the last second of the second paragraph, I'm not really sure what "intersects to the northwest" means.

History

  • A road existed to Julian by 1872 – From where?
  • Second sentence makes no sense. I think you're missing a word.
  • Why do you need stagecoach wikilinked in two straight paragraphs?
  • This might just be me, but that fourth paragraph seems a bit short to stand on its own. Is there any way you could merge it with a different paragraph or does it have a good reason for standing alone?
  • I recall looking over this article before you sent it to GAN, and mentioning that the chronology of the first sentence of the very last paragraph was question. This still concerns me. Reading over this sentence, it still looks to me like the construction began in 2008, was delayed by funding issues, and then was resumed after the funding issues were resolved two years earlier.

Major intersections

That's all he wrote! –TCN7JM 03:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Looks great! I support. –TCN7JM 06:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Scott5114

edit

oh if you insist

  • It then becomes an undivided highway through the eastern part of Poway and becomes Main Street in the town of Ramona before ending at SR 78. Describing three locations that the route serves in one sentence is probably a bit much, and makes it feel like a runon sentence. Try splitting it up into two sentences, or use punctuation, like a semicolon (or even commas!) to help give the reader a mental stopping point so they can reflect on what it is they just read. This is somewhat like the boulevard sentence from SR 282, and it might be something to consciously look for when writing in the future.
    Done. --Rschen7754 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand East County is a local colloquialism for the eastern part of San Diego County, but that may not be clear to all readers, even with the link. They may think that East County is, itself, a county, or perhaps the name of a city. Consider eschewing its use for something more explanatory, such as the eastern half/portion of San Diego County.
    Done. --Rschen7754 00:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route existed as a railroad corridor since the turn of the 20th century...—something's off here. The route has existed sounds better, but may not be what you're trying to say. Or maybe replace since. I'm having trouble articulating what the problem is, other than just a vague sense that it doesn't sound quite right.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a highway was built by 1913, and was designated as Legislative Route 198 in the state highway system by 1935, to become SR 67 in the 1964 state highway renumbering. Again, too many clauses here, especially with the semicolon in the sentence. At least they have commas this time. I recommend breaking off the last clause as its own sentence, since there's an interval of almost thirty years there, so it would make a good place for a sentence break.
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [T]he road north of Lakeside could mean any given road north of Lakeside. Might want to specify that you mean the portion of SR 67 north of Lakeside.
    Clarified. --Rschen7754 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interchanges with Broadway / Fletcher Parkway and Bradley Avenue occur as the freeway leaves the El Cajon city limits—What purpose does the slash serve? Is that the name of the street, "Broadway/Fletcher Parkway", or do you mean that the two are reached by the same interchange? If the latter, is it just Broadway or Broadway Parkway? Slashes are ambiguous in prose. As a noun, can an interchange really occur?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It comes to an interchange... What does, the city of Santee? Gillespie Field? The El Cajon city limits? Oh, right.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The freeway ends and SR 67 turns north into a conventional highway at Mapleview Street... Pretty impressive feat, turning the entire concept of one of the cardinal directions into a highway! SR 67 turns north as it transitions into a conventional highway or something would be better.
    Done. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a few red links here, some of which are especially long, which might look bad if you intend to pursue a FAC. The geographical ones should be easy to stub out; see Ottawa, Oklahoma as an example of what you can do with just a map and a coord.
  • It might be better to restructure the traffic count sentence thusly: In 2011, SR 67 had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 83,000 between Broadway and Bradley Avenue (the highest AADT for the freeway portion), and 18,400 between Rio Marta Road and Poway Road.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What caused the deterioration of the Julian road? Lack of maintenance, poor construction, or were the stagecoaches beating it up?
  • Might want to explain what portions of the modern highway correspond to the "Julian road", "Road 3A", and the "Ramona road", or if they were the same thing, if that information is available.
  • Consider rounding the inflation statistics to avoid false precision.
  • What does "declaring something to be a boulevard" mean? Is it funding-related, or that it meets a specific design standard? If it would have little tangible difference on the driver of the day, might want to leave it out.
  • The demand for more water in San Diego might have led to the construction of the reservoir, but other than that, it doesn't seem pertinent to SR 67. Ditch it.
  • Why is "right-of-way" in quotes?
  • Are the raised yellow dots prototypical Botts dots?
  • Following a March 2009 fatal crash, some of the victims filed a lawsuit against Caltrans.. Aren't the victims of a fatal crash dead? Perhaps you should substitute survivors.

Overall, not bad; just some small details that need to be polished. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the recent fixes, I now believe that I can support this article. Good work, sir. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Imzadi1979

edit

Looking at this revision, I'm going to spotcheck the following footnotes:

  • fn 10
  • fn 17
  • fn 24
  • fn 31
  • fn 38
  • fn 45
  • fn 52
  • fn 59
  • fn 66
  • fn 72

Imzadi 1979 → 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All items check out. There are two items that should be updated through.
  • Fn 17 is for a source published on July 1, 1920, but the bidding mentioned in the article happened the day before, so our article should use a June 30 date.
  • Fn 38 ("Road Funds Allocated") is referencing the continuation of an article from page B1 on B6. That probably should reference the full article with both page numbers, and whatever the headline is on page B1.
Other than these two minor changes, the rest of the spotcheck is good. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes look good. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 26 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/California_State_Route_67&oldid=1206625524"