Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ridge Route

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 article was promoted 04:34, 30 March 2007.

Ridge Route[edit]

This was recently demoted for being not very good. I received a book through interlibrary loan and rewrote it. I feel it is now ready for FAC, and the book is due back in a week, so I would like to know before then if anything should be added or expanded. Thank you. --NE2 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a little longer per WP:LEAD as it doesn't currently summarize the whole article the way an ideal lead should. Don't make it too long of course, that's worse. Otherwise it looks really good, nice work. Without time to evaluate in depth, I'll still conditionally support. - Taxman ^Talk 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead summarizes the key points; what do you think is missing? --NE2 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:LEAD calls for 3-4 paragraphs, so expand a little bit on all of the most important topics in the article. - Taxman ^Talk 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will look into that, probably tonight. --NE2 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had an expansion written, but accidentally hit refresh and lost it. I'll give it another go after a short break. --NE2 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The intro text should mention the current status of the road. Is it still used as a through route or local route, or is it closed to traffic completely, or is it now a park? I haven't read the rest of the article yet but I'll post comments later. --Polaron | Talk 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading through the article, I am voting to support as it looks complete and well-written. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never expected that I would enjoy an article about a road that much! I would like, of course a wider variety on sources, because the article relies on 90% on one book. But ... as I said, I like it very much; therefore I support.--Yannismarou 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-written and all around a good article. --MPD^{T / C} 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With two Featured article candidacies and a review, this article sure has been through a bumpy road of its own, but it seems to have arrived here fine. Nicely done, a good read. Nall 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a little more information about the current uses of the road, or at least the segments that are left. The talk page seems to indicate that part of it is in use as a fire road. Also, when it says, "the old Ridge Route has been largely covered by construction of the Ridge Route Alternate and Interstate 5", does "covered" mean that the old road was literally buried underneath the alternate and the Interstate, or does "covered" mean that traffic is now routed onto those roads and there's no reason to use the old Ridge Route any more? Overall, though, it looks like a solid article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you look at the overlay map, portions of Ridge Route were/are now underneath I-5. Ridge Route was a two lane highway that became Highway 99 and eventually I-5. I-5 is interstate freeway with a minimum of four lanes on each side of the median that covers portions of the old routes. Ronbo76 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.