Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 54

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California State Route 54

[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.

Promoted to A-Class. —CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Toolbox

California State Route 54 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: After a long hiatus from ACR, I bring California State Route 54, a freeway in the South Bay region of San Diego County.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Review and comments by Kevon kevono

Infobox and Intro

Route description

  • "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125] north, and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." The second comma I think is a grammar error. I'll be removing it soon.
  • Of section 1 of SR 54, does SR 54 end here or here? Of section 2 of SR 54, does SR 54 end here or here? Kevon kevono (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 09:37 (PDT) I'm confused.[reply]
    • From the article: "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125 north and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." and "SR 54 then runs concurrently with SR 94 through the unincorporated, but developed, area of Rancho San Diego, following Campo Road about one-half mile (800 m) east." Those should answer your questions. --Rschen7754 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, RD is good.

History

  • "This portion of freeway opened on September 27, 1963, and the entire project cost $2.25 million (about $37 million in 2015 dollars)" (and other sections) These money comparison facts should be updated to 2016 dollars.
  • Citation 13: Here's a link for the non-link citation: http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa196465calirich#page/n3/mode/2up
  • I fixed a space between "…accomplished in a single year by the county board of supervisors" and citation 26. You can revert it if you want.
  • "The project to convert the HOV lanes to regular mixed traffic lanes was authorized in 2006." Do you mean "The project to remove the HOV lanes was authorized in 2006."? I didn't get what you meant.
  • "As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing the part of SR 54…" Are they still considering? Oct. 2014 is a bit outdated.
  • Excellent and descriptive prose. You have really good writing skills.

Junction list

Overall

Your writing is exceptionally good. Few grammar mistakes were in the article, and this article is nearly perfect. It wouldn't be long before this article could become an FA.
Kevon kevono (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 16:28 (PDT)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: All replied to. --Rschen7754 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't reply to one question about the relinquishing thing.
Kevon kevono (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 20:25 (PDT)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: Replied now. --Rschen7754 04:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: Replied again. --Rschen7754 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevon kevono: Replied again. --Rschen7754 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Support I now support the ACR nomination. Kevon kevono (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 13:25 (PDT)[reply]

Review by Fredddie

[edit]
Comments by Fredddie

I will take a look at the article next. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  1. Can we get some better descriptors than "Section 1" and "Section 2"?
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't feel like the lead is long enough; more the first paragraph than the second.
    Added to lead. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "the part of the highway east of SR 125 is undivided, ..." Undivided should be an adjective for something more descriptive (i.e. an undivided two/four-lane road)
    I'm not sure the number of lanes can be sourced (if it is even the same the whole length), so I edited accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The extension of the freeway west to I-5 was delayed because a flood channel for the Sweetwater River was built with the extension." What?
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The lead doesn't really talk about the non-freeway part.
    Added to lead. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
checkY These check out. –Fredddie™ 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RD
  1. Watch the ", with <verb>-ing" clauses. See how the sentence changes by removing the with?
    Seems to be resolved already. --Rschen7754 02:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I don't expect turn-by-turn or even exit-by-exit coverage, "through Paradise Hills in San Diego" doesn't really tell me about the physical surroundings.
    Added. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The portion about the CR S17 section is a bit misleading. You talk about it like it is both SR 54 and not SR 54. I realize that's partly because SR 54 is designated for a freeway that wasn't (or hasn't yet been) built. Do you think that section of road should be described in the RD?
    Made the distinction more clear. --Rschen7754 02:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Again with the physical surroundings east of SR 94.
    Added. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The last sentence of the RD doesn't do anything for me. How about this?
    "In early 2012, portions of the interchange with I-5 were among the top ten most congested segments of highway in Caltrans District 11, which includes the San Diego metro area."
    Adjusted. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. Mini-lead?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm assuming the 'road through Jamacha' is related to SR 54, but the casual reader might not make that assumption. I don't feel like a connection is drawn between that road and to SR 54.
    It is a road that runs through Jamacha that parallels the Sweetwater River from US 80 (I-8) to the Sweetwater Valley, similar to SR 54. I added "around El Cajon", but it's a bit difficult to make the connection more explicit without original research. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You should summarize the planned route of the South Bay Freeway.
    Added details. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This sentence, "By 1961, E Street in Chula Vista continued along the Sweetwater River, ...", is this still the case? If not, you should revise the verbs in the second half so it reads in the past tense. You can probably ditch the comma when you do.
    I doubt it still does. I've revised accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Where were the at-grade intersections along the freeway?
    I don't know, but apparently all the intersections were at-grade. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Did SR 54 replace SR 280 entirely? Route 280 is only mentioned once and the 1964 renumbering page doesn't mention either highway.
    I think Rschen7754 meant Legislative Route 280, not State Route 280. SR 54 was signed while it was probably Legislative Route 280. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 21:24 (PDT)[reply]
    @Kevon kevono: It is the custom to let the nominator have the chance to resolve issues raised first, because they may disagree with what the reviewer has to say. AS far as Fredddie's question, I would have to look at the article and my sources again. --Rschen7754 05:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been more specific. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Was flooding a problem in the area prior to the flood channel?
    It's not clear from the sources, likely because the area wasn't developed at the time, though it seems to be more preemptive. I've clarified. --Rschen7754 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "The county hoped to build both projects at the same time to save $4 million..." Run-on sentence.
    Adjusted but it's a bit awkward still, I'm afraid. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The U.S. Congress gave approval for the project.[28] But later that year, it was announced that the target date for completing the system would be extended from 1972 to 1974.[29]→‎Congress approved the project in <month> 1972;[28] later that year, the target date for completing the system would be pushed back two years.[29]
    Adjusted a bit, but see reply to the next one. --Rschen7754 20:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The previous paragraph was just in 1972, so the next one should not start with "By 1971, ..."
    The previous paragraph does mention 1972, but the articles are from 1968. It could be more clear, I suppose. Feel free to add suggestions. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "dismayed at this" Is 'at this' necessary?
    Removed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Meanwhile, the interchange at I-805 was constructed, ..." was under construction?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "...due to a lack of funding and a shift in priorities to maintenance from the building of new road.[37]" From should come before to.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You should either abbreviate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or revise so you don't repeat yourself.
    Done. --Rschen7754 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Did the environmental impact report suggest changes to the route? I have to assume no because the next paragraph starts with construction beginning.
    The role of the EIR is implied a few sentences later with the wildlife preserve creation. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Did the I-5 detour signify the beginning of construction? Regardless, this could be worded better.
    It does, as that is the first thing that had to be done on the construction project. I made a slight adjustment but suggestions are welcome. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Is it necessary to name drop the mayor of National City? How about the fire chief?
    I think the mayor is important enough; the fire chief, probably not. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. What dispute and with whom?
    Clarified per above. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. What is a 'high number of traffic accidents'? Does the source say?
    Added. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. You should use some synonyms for "construction"
    Removed/reworded some instances. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Construction resumed in early November 1989;[53] the halting of construction meant that the project had to be rebid, and one bridge was partially constructed, resulting in it being known as "the bridge to nowhere".[54] This sentence is mostly fragments.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Shouldn't it be an HOV lane?
    Done. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 21:24 (PDT)[reply]
  23. "As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing" had considered?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overall comments

One thing that distracted me, and I mentioned it a few times, was the use of -ing. I'm not saying that all of them are wrong, but some of them could be said better with revision. I am going to do some copyediting now of stuff that I didn't think was worth mentioning. I'll ping you when I'm all done. –Fredddie™ 00:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: All done or replied to. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had been waiting for you to finish up, but I'll look it over in the coming days. –Fredddie™ 04:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Have you had a chance to look at this? --Rschen7754 17:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The long and short answer is no. However, now that I know you're interested, I will look it over soon. –Fredddie™ 17:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Were you planning on looking at this? If not, I may consider withdrawing and going to FAC. --Rschen7754 20:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above looks fine, but a couple final comments. 1. Find a different word for funds/funding. It seems like it's the only word used to describe money. 2. Do another once-over to look for "ing". There are a couple instances where two -ing words are used in quick succession, one of them is a quote, so that's unavoidable, but the others could be revised. –Fredddie™ 02:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: –Fredddie™ 04:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: All done. --Rschen7754 21:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Dough4872

[edit]

Comments:

  1. File:California 54.svg - PD-MUTCD-CA
  2. File:California State Route 54 map cropped.svg - cc-by-sa-4.0, GFDL, has sources
  3. File:CA 54 eastern terminus.jpg - cc-by-sa-4.0
  4. File:CaliforniaRoute54a.jpg - PD-user-en
  5. File:SR 54 and SR 94.jpg - GFDL, cc-by-sa-all
  6. Captions look fine. Dough4872 01:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Moabdave

Lead:

  • The lead leaves me with one big unanswered question, "why aren't the two sections connected". The implied answer is that the middle section was relinquished to the county and now part of CR S17. I'd advise to make that explicit (if true) and if not true re-word to remove the implication.

Route description:

  • Westfield Plaza Bonita wikilink?
  • "SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa" This is a little rough. It also seemingly contradicts the last 2 sentences in this same paragraph, which claim that Jamacha Boulevard is not SR 54. How about replacing the latter part of this paragraph with something like this, "The SR designation officially ends at the Jamacha Boulevard exit in La Presa, with a gap in the route along the county maintained portion of Jamacha Boulevard. State maintenance and the SR 54 designation resume at the intersection of Jamacha Boulevard and Campo Road. However, Jamacha Boulevard formerly carried the SR 54 designation, and is still marked as such on some maps."
  • What's with the bolded names near the bottom of the route description? Currently only "South Bay Freeway" redirects to SR-54. Even if the other redirects were created, the bolded instance of Jamacha Boulevard is about the 5th mention in the article (the first is in the lead). Based on what I see, I'd work a bolded "South Bay Freeway" into the lead and de-bold the rest.
  • wikilink Caltrans in the phrase "Caltrans District 11" (It's wikilinked in the infobox but not in prose)

History:

  • "The earliest predecessor to SR 54 existed from 1908" And that earliest predecessor was? How about something like, "An unpaved road with a similar route to modern SR 54 first appeared on maps in 1908"?
  • Now SR 54 (IMO, that just adds confusion as the previous sentence is set in 1908 and the next in 1990)
  • "from US 80 around El Cajon" Being as how a non-roadgeek will have a tough time knowing where US 80 ran at the time, how about including the modern street name? I.E. "from US 80 (now Main St.) around"
  • The article has a red linked "light footed clapper rail". Being an endangered species this SURELY has an article, just under a different title. That would be like seeing a red link to Highway Mother Road 66 to a roadgeek. I'm 99.9% sure the appropriate article is Ridgway's rail, check out the article, specifically the sub-species section and reference #4 and see if you agree, and if so pipe-link it.
  • "SR 54 from the El Cajon city limit to I-8 to the City of El Cajon in 1999,[59] and the transfer took place that year.[4]" Is this the same relinquishment that caused the gap in route? or is this a different relinquishment? Please clarify

Finished. Best of luck. Dave (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Moabdave: All done and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 17:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked some wikipedia time out early next week. I'll finish this up then. Dave (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to promote, much better. I will make an optional suggestion, consider wikilinking the first instance of Campo. I'm making this optional as there are reasons to do it, and reasons not to do it; namely the link is to the town, and the use in the article is the street (that leads to the town of the same name). Dave (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (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_54&oldid=1087816175"