Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 805
Interstate 805[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 |
---|
Interstate 805 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Finally back on this side of ACR... this is a significant Interstate in the San Diego area, and with the research it should be good for FA material.
- Nominated by: Rschen7754 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Spotcheck by TCN7JM[edit]
Spotcheck by TCN7JM
|
---|
I reviewed this article at GAN literally just earlier tonight, so I can't review it here. I'll do the spotcheck instead. Since this article has 91 sources, I will review the set maximum of 20 sources. Since the majority of them are newspaper sources, I will request the nominator to email them to me later, but I have not yet decided which ones I will review. TCN7JM 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The numbers accompanying the sources are accurate as of this revision:
Everything's a-okay so far. I'll review the remaining ten sources at a later time. TCN7JM 03:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This is all the more I have time for now. TCN7JM 11:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Phew. Well, got that over with. I'll leave this on hold for ya. TCN7JM 04:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
Support TCN7JM 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872[edit]
Review by Dough4872
|
---|
Comments:
Overall, a decent article with very few issues. Dough4872 03:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
Review by Evad37[edit]
Review
|
---|
{{Plainlist| * <line 1> * <line 2> ... }} Otherwise, the article looks good :) - Evad37 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC) |
Support - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Image review by Evad37[edit]
- File:California Interstate 805.svg: CC-BY-SA 3.0, caption is good, but alt text missing
- File:I-805 Northbound at CA 905.jpg: PD by author, caption is good, alt text is missing
- File:Interstate 805-5 Split.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0, caption is good, alt text is missing
- File:Miramar op 805.jpg: GNU FDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-2.0
but lacks source info, caption is good, alt text is missing - File:I-805 (CA).svg (infobox):
The source field of the information template should be the Caltrans drawing, and licensing should reflect why it is a free image given that the drawing is the source – is it a MUTCD PD image, or is it some other reason/permission? Does it need a trademark warning?PD-MUTCD-CA. Caption is good, alt text is good - File:I-5.svg (navbox): PD-MUTCD, alt text is missing
Concerns noted above - Evad37 [talk] 05:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- It may not be a requirement, but should probably still be added for accessibility per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images: "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Wikipedia), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent. This is because a screen reader, in order to describe the purpose of the link, will default to reading out the image filename when no alt text is available. This is usually not helpful."
- Anyway, the images are now otherwise okay, Image check done - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Review by Scott5114[edit]
- In most states, counties are listed in the infobox. I do not know if California follows a different standard here, but I have received this recommendation on my most recent ACR.
- Remember that the lead is meant to give an executive summary of the article, and thus should be readable on its own. Thus, the term "dual freeway" should either be defined in the lead, obviating the need for someone to go hunt in the article for a definition, or the sentence phrased to avoid that construction.
- The sentence about I-805 serving as a divide between rich and poor in Chula Vista seems oddly placed. If it could be expanded to a full paragraph, I would say it should be moved to the history section (since it is a characteristic of the highway observed at one point in time, and is not an inherent feature of the road), and if not, I would recommend dropping it altogether. Either way, it would probably fit better in the article about Chula Vista.
- Be careful with "the city" in the first paragraph of the route description. The phrase is used variously to refer to San Diego, Chula Vista, and National City, which could confuse less observant readers.
- The information about the Hazard Bridge feels out of place, considering I-805 only passes under it.
- By June, houses along the route were being sold in the North Park area... This reads like the houses from the freeway route were being dragged up to North Park and sold there. Consider something like By June, houses in North Park that were along the proposed route of the freeway were being sold. If sources support it, clarify that Caltrans was the one buying the houses.
- In May 1967, bidding began after construction had been delayed by that of I-5 and I-8 which had been given higher priority. This sentence is somewhat unclear. Did I-5 and I-8's bidding or construction cause the delay? A comma is needed after I-8. You may want to specify both I-5 and I-8 if both of them were given higher priority.
- The R.E. Hazard and W.F. Maxwell Companies... any relation to the Roscoe Hazard the bridge was named after?
- If the winning bid was $20.9 million, where did the $27.5 million figure come from?
- ...I-805 from north of Friars Road to north of what was then US 395 in mid-1969, which would become SR 163. May be better to say In mid-1969, bidding was to begin on 3.2 miles (5.1 km) of I-805 from north of Friars Road to present day SR 163, which was US 395 at the time or similar. This places "mid-1969" with the phrase that it modifies, instead of making it look like the mid-1969 date just applies to it being US 395.
- Might be desirable to expand on what exactly Nixon's order was supposed to affect. Was it a budgetary thing?
- By March 1970, the original section between Home Avenue and near I-8 was almost complete, and the Mission Valley portion extending north of US 395 as well as from Otay Valley Road and J Street in Chula Vista were still under construction and A second border crossing in the San Ysidro area was proposed near the Playas de Tijuana area, that would be accessible from I-805, although another alternative was considered near Brown Field; a formal study was commissioned in August: Both of these sentences share the same problem. They have too many clauses, and therefore it is easy to get lost and not follow what they are saying. In both cases, the remedy is to split them into less complex sentences.
- E.C. Young, Young and Sons, Inc., and A.A. Baxter Corporation: may be better to rearrange these so that you don't have Young twice in a row. If you list them alphabetically, you can put and between E.C. Young and Young and Sons, which, with the Oxford comma, would alleviate any confusion.
- and was to be opened from El Cajon Boulevard...
- There are some minor punctuation issues throughout the history that may need a second look.
- Does mention of the ineligibility to be a scenic highway merely confirm that Chula Vista was unsuccessful at obtaining the designation, or did it preclude them from getting it?
- Opening of the SR-94 connectors and the cost information are separate topics that should be covered in separate sentences.
- The word complete is used a lot in the Construction section. If possible, use synonyms to cut down on the number of usages.
- There were reports of motorists driving around on the closed freeway: "driving around" seems a bit informal.
- If you get a chance, a photo of the Mission Valley Viaduct would enhance the article significantly, considering it was recognized with awards. Likewise for the Eastgate Mall bridge.
- What is the "Stargazer"? A bridge? A statue? A fish? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893)?
- Characterizing a billboard as a [form] of artwork along the highway is kind of weird.
- at the northern end of I-805
- Again, "dual freeway" is rather confusing; it would be more clear to explain exactly what this consists of. One could reasonably interpret it to mean a divided highway.
- Are the February 2013 express lanes HOT lanes or more "dual freeway"?
Top quality work as always, just needs a little more polish. The only question is why am I helping CA catch up to OK on the leaderboard... :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- All done. --Rschen7754 02:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good. As for the punctuation, it was more an issue of a missing comma here and there; you should probably have an experienced copyeditor look at it with fresh eyes before sending to FAC. Other than that, all of the major issues have been addressed, so I will support this article for A-class. Well done! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
Closing notice - The article has been passed. Good work! - Floydian τ ¢ 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)