Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 76

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

California State Route 76

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.

Toolbox

California State Route 76 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This is a highway in the North County of San Diego, as part of my goal to get all San Diego County road articles as high as possible. Note: I have not done my usual pre-ACR tweaks (inflation, nbsp, map, OCLC) yet, but will do so over the weekend.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 20:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

edit
Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. Why is the length in the infobox and the lead different?
    Fixed, seems someone got confused by the postmiles. --Rschen7754 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You seem to overuse parentheses in the route description, particularly in the second paragraph. I would suggest rewording these sentences to not use parentheses.
    Done. --Rschen7754 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A lot of the sentences in the third paragraph of the route description read as [SR 76, the route, it, etc.] does [blah] before [blahing] [blah]. I would vary the wording here.
    Done. --Rschen7754 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The sentence "City of Oceanside plans for a road east through the San Luis Rey Valley to Fallbrook date from June 1889, and would include a bridge over the San Luis Rey River." begins awkward, I would reword.
    Done. --Rschen7754 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "legislative Route 195" shouldn't legislative be capitalized?
    No, because that is not part of the proper noun, or the then-official name. --Rschen7754 20:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. " The legal definition was updated to reflect the new designation of I-5", maybe indicate I-5 replaced US 101.
    Done. --Rschen7754 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "state senator John Stull" shouldn't state senator be capitalized?
    Done. --Rschen7754 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "two point five miles (4.0 km)" I would change this to "2.5 miles (4.0 km)".
    Done. --Rschen7754 20:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. " then-governor George Deukmejian", shoudln't governor be capitalized?
    Adjusted. --Rschen7754 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "Later that year, the California State Assembly renamed the first four miles (6.4 km) after Tony Zeppetella, an Oceanside police officer killed in the line of duty.", why is this included in the East of Oceanside section of the history when it is actually in Oceanside? Dough4872 04:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjusted. --Rschen7754 21:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. --Rschen7754 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by the Admiral

edit

Images check out. Will not review prose as I was the GA reviewer. --AdmrBoltz 18:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Floydian

edit
Review by Floydian

Since it's the only one here I can review, I will be reviewing this article. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 00:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  1. "...through Pala and before..." - Extra "and" or missing town here
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The last sentence reads odd with the "Plans are to..." part.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  1. "The roadway containing SR 76" might be better as "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation", YMMV.
    Done. --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the legal definition and the maintaining body don't recognize the segment west of I-5, you should explain why the article includes mention of it.
    Well, the distance is about a quarter of a mile... --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But do any official sources actual indicate that little chunk of road is part of CA 76? - Floydian τ ¢ 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No (see the GA review), but some maps do. --Rschen7754 23:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "SR 76 then meets the northern segment of CR S13, known as South Mission Road, heading north into Fallbrook;" maybe insert a while before "heading north"?
    Done. --Rschen7754
  4. "SR 76 intersects with the southern leg of CR S6" - the with is unnecessary
    Done. --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "East of the..., the highway then encounters the northern leg of CR S6" - you could switch out "the highway then" with "it" for conciseness and flow.
    Done. --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't believe a comma is necessary in "... while on duty, performing a traffic stop."
    Removed. --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. Delays and Postponement - "entered the bidding phase" - link bidding to construction bidding
    Done. --Rschen7754 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Caltrans engineer Jacob Dekema announced in April 1969 that the construction on SR 76 and SR 78 to the south on the portions between I-5 and US 395 would be delayed until the construction on I-5 and US 395 was underway, or at least until 1976." - I'm assuming this should be "to the south of the portions...", but either way it reads rather oddly.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "but SR 76 is not included in the system." - the jump to the present here is strange; may be better worded as "but SR 76 has not become part of the system.", or similar.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Following this..." - Shouldn't begin a paragraph referencing the previous one like this. Each paragraph should stand alone as a complete thought/concept explained. The first two sentences of this paragraph should possibly be merged into the previous paragraph.
    Done. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Widening and realignment - "Caltrans tentatively approved the first 2.5 miles (4.0 km) of the SR 76 widening project in May" - which portion was this 2.5 mile section between?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "But the next year, the City Council voted..." - would read better as "However, the following year, the City Council voted..."
    Done. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "The rerouting of SR 76 away from Mission Avenue resulted in a decrease in business for establishments located on Mission Avenue." - Find a way to remove one instance of "Mission Avenue" here
    Done. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. And actually, that last point holds true later down the paragraph, where the name is used six times!
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. East of Oceanside - There are a few instances of the tense shifting mid-sentence in this section:
    1. "The city of Oceanside proposed plans for grade-separated interchanges with College Boulevard and Melrose Drive in 2004, should the expressway through Oceanside need to be converted to a freeway."
      Done. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. "The purpose of this improvement was to reduce accidents on a stretch of road that now carries over 12,000 motorists per day, many headed for either the Pala Indian casino or a new gravel quarry that had recently opened." - was, now, headed, had.
      Done. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3. The westbound lanes between Melrose Drive and Mission Road opened to traffic in October, with the eastbound lanes scheduled to be open by November. - in this particular case it is almost outdated information. When did they end up opening?
      Updated, and added slightly newer information. --Rschen7754 22:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "in March 2009, two lanes of a new 1.3 miles (2.1 km) realigned segment of SR 76" - The convert her should be using |adj=mid|-long. Also, realigned seems redundant here.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Even after this, in 2009 the corner..." - There should be a comma after "2009"
    Done. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Junction list
Looks good.
Refs/others
  1. Refs 7 and 11 need format=pdf added
    Done. --Rschen7754 22:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ref 22: "p. Building" ?
    There was no page number, but it was in the Building section, so that is what I put. --Rschen7754 22:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's supposed to be a section parameter in the citation templates, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work right... oh well :/ - Floydian τ ¢ 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Refs 72 and 78 need the location added as with other instances of the Evening Tribune
    Done. --Rschen7754 22:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Floydian τ ¢ 20:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One response added above regarding that small quarter-mile segment. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nominator is not currently active on Wikipedia and it's been over 30 days since the last edit, I am suspending this nomination. If the nomination is not resumed by November 1, 2014, it may be failed in accordance with ACR rules. –Fredddie™ 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming. --Rschen7754 09:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie

edit
Comments by Fredddie

I'll have a look. –Fredddie™ 22:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  1. "It is a frequently used east–west route in the North County region of San Diego County that begins in Oceanside near Interstate 5 (I-5) and continues east. The highway serves as a major route through North County, connecting Oceanside with Bonsall while providing access to Fallbrook."
    Could this be reworded so North County and Oceanside aren't both repeated.
    Done. --Rschen7754 08:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Isn't it supposed to be 20th century and not spelled out?
    Done. --Rschen7754 08:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  1. As it begins to enter rural Oceanside, ... → As it leaves Oceanside, ...?
    No, should be rural Oceanside... a stretch of a few miles. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't like the comma-separated lists of intersected roads. I had to read the second half of "As it begins to enter rural Oceanside, SR 76 intersects with CR S14, Guajome Lake Road near Guajome County Park, and Melrose Drive.[4]" a couple times and cross reference the junction list to realize that CR S14 was not Guajome Lake Road.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "It then has two overpasses over Mission Avenue and El Camino Real..." I don't like two here because it reads like two overpasses for each crossroad, which was really confusing when it crosses Mission Avenue again.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. When you say "this portion of CR S13's routing is not signed on maps." are you saying that there's an implied overlap that's not signed or one of the halves are not signed? I don't think the implied overlap is worth mentioning.
    Dropped it, because it's bordering on OR. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think the sentence about Mr. Zeppetella would be better in the first paragraph.
    It's considered standard in California road articles to have all the designations at the end of the RD. --Rschen7754 08:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. A history section that long should have a mini-lead.
    Done. --Rschen7754 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Flooding in January 1916 resulted in the road that existed between Bonsall and Pala being closed; ... → closing between Bonsall and Pala; ..."
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "...though a bridge for the winter months was not in place." Was a bridge not necessary during other parts of the year?
    Rephrased, looking at the source again. --Rschen7754 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Was the road designated Legislative Route 195 but signed SR 76?
    Yes, there were two numbers for most CA roads before 1963. --Rschen7754 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The designations paragraph should be revisited as a whole. I think it's kind of hard to follow.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 08:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The delays section is fine.
  7. The sentence for Mr. Zeppetella is redundant to the one earlier.
    Removed. --Rschen7754 08:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What is TransNet?
    Tried to clarify. --Rschen7754 08:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Where you mentioned the expiration of TransNet doesn't seem like the right spot.
    There was a typo in the year in a nearby sentence, which is now fixed. --Rschen7754 08:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Pala Indian band? Is that the right word?
    Yes, it shows up in Google - it's not quite right to call it a tribe, that's too big. --Rschen7754 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Major intersections
  1. The postmile refs are out of order.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 06:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Does Old Highway 395 require a historical shield à la US 66?
    With both of them it's mostly for decoration... not signed on maps or anything. --Rschen7754 06:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Should the CRs be linked to their lists?
    Done. --Rschen7754 06:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a fine work. I do recommend going over the prose again, or have the GoCE do it, before taking this to FAC just to catch anything we may have missed. –Fredddie™ 01:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done, and I always go over the prose before FAC. --Rschen7754 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Floydian

edit

Not many online sources here that aren't simple highway inventories or legal acts. However, I've checked all the sources I can.

- 32 / 33 - checks out.
- 94 - Checks out
- 101 - All checks out
- 109 - Not seeing anything about the project finishing by the end of 2012. The second use of this ref is good though.

-- Floydian τ ¢ 18:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you more sources, if you want... I will take a look at 109 later tonight. --Rschen7754 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - unfortunately I don't have the source, so I adjusted the wording and used a different source. --Rschen7754 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I suppose it would make this more thorough, though I don't expect to find many offsets. Could you send me refs 38, 66 and 84? - Floydian τ ¢ 02:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Rschen7754 02:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 66 checks out perfect. All the info you provide in the article is also in refs 38 and 84. However, both of those appear to mention other projects that you don't mention, ie the plan to convert the section from Mission Road to U.S. 395 to expressway. I'm assuming these were just conjectures at the time and never came to fruition under those plans, or that you mention it elsewhere in the history. Either way, I'm satisfied on verifiability. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that project isn't even complete yet. :/ But yes, all significant projects are mentioned in the article. --Rschen7754 01:06, 23 August 2014 (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_76&oldid=1138363144"