|
I will take a look at the article next. –Fredddie™ 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Lead
- Can we get some better descriptors than "Section 1" and "Section 2"?
- Done. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- "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)
- The lead doesn't really talk about the non-freeway part.
- Added to lead. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- checkY These check out. –Fredddie™ 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- RD
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Again with the physical surroundings east of SR 94.
- Added. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- History
- Mini-lead?
- Done. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- You should summarize the planned route of the South Bay Freeway.
- Added details. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- I've been more specific. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "dismayed at this" Is 'at this' necessary?
- Removed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Meanwhile, the interchange at I-805 was constructed, ..." was under construction?
- Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- "...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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What dispute and with whom?
- Clarified per above. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- What is a 'high number of traffic accidents'? Does the source say?
- Added. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- You should use some synonyms for "construction"
- Removed/reworded some instances. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- Shouldn't it be an HOV lane?
- Done. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 21:24 (PDT)
- "As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing" had considered?
- Done. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Fredddie: All done or replied to. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Fredddie: Have you had a chance to look at this? --Rschen7754 17:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @Rschen7754: –Fredddie™ 04:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Fredddie: All done. --Rschen7754 21:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
|
