Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/California State Route 37

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result of discussion was demote. There's no reason this article can't come back to ACR in the near future though once there are active editors working on it again. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 37 (-2 net support votes)[edit]

California State Route 37 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
Nominator's comments: This article was a FAC that failed. It is also an A-class article that is pre-ACR. As activity on this article has ceased, I'd like to see what remains before sending it to FAC and to see if it should remain at A-class.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 (T C) 20:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have found quite a few problems and I haven't completely reviewed the article yet, I will take another look once these have been addressed.

  • Opening sentence doesn't really say what it is. I would recommend "State Route 37 (SR 37) is a state highway in the northern..."
    • Fixed.
  • Check for redundancies...just in the lead "currently" and "the whole of" needs to be removed.
    • Fixed those two... I'm probably going to have to copyedit the article.
  • 2nd paragraph of lead "turned parts of the land," make parts singular, sounds awkward as is.
    • Corrected.
  • 2nd paragraph of lead change "home of endangered" to "home to endangered"
    • Corrected.
  • Not sure where we stand on bolding, so not sure if "Blood Alley" should be bolded or not.
    • Replaced with quotes... not sure if that's correct.
  • The last paragraph/sentence of the lead is referenced twice and these references aren't used in the body. Ensure this information appears in the body and not just the lead. Also, may want to either expand this paragraph or incorporate it elsewhere; one sentence paragraphs aren't a good thing. Also, ensure all citations appear after the punctuation, not before as ref 4 currently does.
    • See below.

I haven't checked the prose of the rest, but here are some general observations of the rest of the article:

  • Route description
    • 1st paragraph is unreferenced
    • Last sentence of second paragraph is unreferenced
  • History
    • 1st paragraph is unreferenced
    • Any reason why reference 6 appears in the middle of the sentence? The rest of that paragraph is unreferenced.
    • The last sentence of the article stuck me as odd "The project was completed in the summer of 2005,[8] and fully open to traffic on August 20, 2005.[11]" Isn't August 20, 2005 also in the summer of 2005? Do you have a more exact time period for the first part? June of 2005 or something similar?
  • The "Other Names" section should be incorporated into the "Route description". That section title is a MoS problem in of itself.

**Incorporated into lead... is that ok? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. --Holderca1 talk 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry about the delay. I do plan to address these over the weekend. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After today I will be traveling to Europe and will be unable to work on this until mid-June. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see some things that I don't like in the prose. I freely admit that these are my take on the MOS and other people may have different interpretations. however, I have to vote oppose until sourcing issues are addressed.

  • IMO Blood Parkway should not be bolded (colloquial name) already bolded below as a section heading. Also I don't think putting a section heading in quotes is appropriate. I wouldn't bold any nickname that's not notable enough to be mentioned in the lead, but I know there's some diehards in this group that take a different view on that one.
  • Overuse and misuse of parenthesis. I'd change to commas or make separate sentences.
  • Sourcing issues: Some sources are missing publisher information, also cahighways.org may be an WP:SPS.
  • The linkchecker they use at FAC (and many people use at GAC) is rejecting two links as dead. This will have to be addressed. Also I challenge the validity of using the highway conditions website (whose content can change hourly) as a source. Dave (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs more early history on the toll road. --NE2 11:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to time constraints I am unable to work on this until late September. What should we do about this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it with the glacial pace of the A class review process right now, nobody will probably even notice.Dave (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the consensus here is that it should be demoted, but it should definitely be brought back here once someone's willing to work on it actively. I'll probably close this out after this weekend if no one objects. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/California_State_Route_37&oldid=227072629"