Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 52/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by GrahamColm 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

California State Route 52[edit]

California State Route 52 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On March 19, 2011, I was present at the official ribbon-cutting ceremony for the completion of SR 52 from La Jolla (San Diego), where I got my undergraduate degree, to Santee. I have wanted to bring this to FA standard for personal reasons (after SR 78, my first edit and my first FA). However, SR 57 and 56 managed to get in line first... This article was heavily copyedited during its months-long ACR, and I am confident that it is very close to the FA standard. Rschen7754 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by (no pun intended!) comments I don't think that I'll post a full review and have only skimmed the article. While it appears to be very comprehensive and well illustrated (I'm a big fan of self-made photos in FACs), its prose would benefit from some extra work. Some examples:

  • "After this interchange, the freeway leaves the military base " - it's previously stated that the road runs along the edge of the base, not through it as this implies
  • "Estimates indicated that residents of La Jolla would save 80 hours a year by using Ardath Road" - I presume you mean that each resident who regularly made this trip would save 80 hours a year, and not everyone in the town as this wording implies if read literally.
  • "The U.S. Navy was consulted in the planning process due to the road's proposed routing through MCAS Miramar that would provide a delineation on further urban development." - this is a bit unclear
    • Reworded slightly; if I remember right, I was trying to steer far from the wording of the source and found it difficult. --Rschen7754 11:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was dedicated at a community celebration on July 11, 1987, and was scheduled to open to traffic a few weeks later." - did it actually open as planned?
    • There's admittedly a few places where I use "scheduled to open". What that usually means is that I couldn't find an article about it actually opening. So that means that most likely it did, but I have to go by what the sources say. (There's a few years missing in the newspaper archive I'm using, unfortunately). --Rschen7754 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. As a suggestion (I'm not at all familiar with the kind of sources available here), would annual reports from the government bodies which built/operated the road have this kind of detail? Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In other states yes, but in California no. :( --Rschen7754 07:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1987, the Santee City Council voted to commence a study of a more northern route, even though some residents and working professionals objected that this would postpone construction" - what's a "working professional" in this context?
  • "$89 million (about $214 million in 2012 dollars), compared to the river route's $121 million (about $291 million in 2012 dollars)" - what's the source for these and the other conversions in the article? (and should they now be updated to 2013 dollars?). Given that the dates the various funding was announced is included in the article, are the conversions even necessary? (I'm not sure what the convention is here).
    • That's using the inflation template, using the specific calculations for US public works projects. I doubt that the template has been updated to 2013 dollars yet. I suppose I can add a source, but that would mean adding it to every single inflation calculation, and I personally think that clutters the article. (Or they could be removed - there's no specific standard here. Most USRD FA writers include them, but I know of one prominent one who does not). --Rschen7754 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, some employees of the City of Santee were concerned that portions of the report were "outdated." - who were these employees? (I presume that you're referring to town planners and the like rather than librarians or other staff whose official duties weren't relevant!)
    • Clarified; it did identify two of them. --Rschen7754 06:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1990, the Santee City Council agreed to begin the purchase of land, over the opposition of Councilman Jim Bartell for environmental reasons." - this is unclear: did the council purchase the land on environmental grounds, or was this Jim Bartell's concern? (it would work better if you replaced the 'for' with 'on', but 'agreed' seems needlessly vague - did the council vote to do this?)
  • File:CA SR 52 Opening.JPG might benefit from being cropped to remove the empty space in the bottom third of the photo if the purpose of the photo is to illustrate the celebrations for the opening of the road - the people walking along it are hard to spot (great work with the self-made photo BTW)
    • Tried to do some cropping while maintaining roughly the same aspect ratio. --Rschen7754 10:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reactions to the extension between SR 125 and SR 67 were mixed, with reports of faster transportation through the East County area. Commuters noted that there is a rush hour backup at SR 125 headed westbound because there are only two lanes traveling west through the interchange." - this is a bit awkwardly worded, and seems to be comparing different things. Also, is the 'reports' and 'commuters noted' construction of these sentences necessary? (can you just say that traffic was faster in the East Country area but there's a traffic jam at SR 125 headed westbound?)
    • Reportedly is used because this is all according to people the newspaper interviewed. Copyedited. --Rschen7754 08:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The military erected a fence in 2002 to block a deer tunnel underneath the freeway that led into the Marine base from Mission Trails Regional Park, due to concerns that the tunnel would be used to gain unauthorized access to the base following the September 11 attacks." - this seems rather wordy, and is a bit imprecise (presumably the fence was built as part of a post-September 11 program of works to improve security).
    • Condensed, but article didn't go into specifics. --Rschen7754 07:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These examples were chosen more or less at random, and I'd suggest giving the prose a general tune up, with a focus on improving the precision of the wording used (which should also result in a slightly shorter article). I hope these comments are helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm making another pass through right now. I've made a few comments above where the awkward wording is necessary to represent the sources. --Rschen7754 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just copy edited a paragraph picked at random to illustrate the kind of wording changes which I think would be helpful (hopefully not causing a really annoying edit conflict for you, but I fear that I have - this is the diff). As noted in the edit summary, please feel free to revert some or all of it if you think it's not an improvement, but I think that those kind of changes would cut down on some redundant wording. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done a modification to the copyedit, as there were no letters that were actually published, according to the source. I'm about halfway through my final copyedit (I'll admit I jumped the gun by a few hours - I didn't expect such a quick review!) and hope to finish tomorrow. --Rschen7754 09:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • All replied to, and here is the diff with the entire copyedit I did (including your edits): [2] --Rschen7754 08:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those changes look positive, but as I haven't (and probably won't) read through the article in detail I'll leave this as drive by comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good! (after stumbling here from an FAC I just started)

  • What is "a large open space"? Is it really just as plain as the description suggests?
  • "Before entering San Clemente Canyon, the road becomes a freeway as it intersects I-5. The canyon is designated as Marian Bear Natural Park" - so the canyon has two names? Why not say something like "Before entering San Clemente Canyon, also known as MBNP, the road becomes..."?
  • "the highway passes through an area with Pliocene sedimentary rocks estimated to be 10 million years old that are visible from the freeway" - the writing could be more concise here, since it mentions the roadway twice. It just doesn't seem up to the level of elsewhere in the article.
  • "the freeway leaves the edge of the military base" - unless I'm mistaken, you never mentioned a base elsewhere in the article. I know this refers to "Marine Corps Air Station Miramar", but it'd be good to see the clarification of it being a "military base" somewhere else. IDK, not a biggie, but it struck me as odd.
  • "between Santo Road and Mast Boulevard. Access to the path is from Santo Road and from Mast Boulevard" - seems a bit redundant - could you rewrite the latter sentence to avoid re-mentioning both roads?
  • I'm curious why you felt it was worth mentioning that it's not part of the National Highway System?
    • A lot of highway articles mention that just to be complete. --Rschen7754 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see an indication anywhere why the original western portion of the road was built in the first place? I expected to see that at the beginning of the history section. Unless, is it - " to connect the interchange with San Clemente Canyon Road"?
    • More or less - providing increased access to the area and to La Jolla. I don't think I could clarify based on my sources. --Rschen7754 05:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "80 hours a year" - should that be "80 hours per year"?
  • Did the citizen opposition affect any of the progress of the Soledad Expressway?
    • It doesn't seem like it did - found no articles on extended litigation as happened in later years. --Rschen7754 05:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(about $36.1 million in 2012 dollars)" - I suggest you use the inflation template to include the current year, since right now it's stuck in the past :P
    • The public works series has to be updated for 2013; seeing as it's February I get the feeling that it hasn't been updated yet. --Rschen7754 05:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, construction did not begin for more than ten years" - any reason? (funding?)
  • I'm curious - was it ever proposed to continue eastward toward I-8? Even if there's unofficial rumors or something that can't be put into the article, after reading the article, I'm curious now :)
    • I've never heard anything, either as a local resident or in my research for this article. The goal was always La Jolla to Santee, as was mentioned at the final opening ceremony. --Rschen7754 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a good article. Almost ready to support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Activity note: I will be offline for the rest of today, Tuesday, and most of Wednesday. I will be back on Thursday. --Rschen7754 23:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back now. --Rschen7754 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Compare FNs 9 and 10
  • Compare FNs 7/8 and 14/15
    • They're different in that one set looks at the law as it currently is, and one looks at the statutes that were passed in a certain year for historical purposes. --Rschen7754 21:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 6 and 20
  • FN 39 and similar should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/California_State_Route_52/archive1&oldid=1138456894"