MyWiki:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 57
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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.
The result was promoted -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
California State Route 57
[edit source]{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=California State Route 57}} California State Route 57 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: I brought this article from B-class to GA-class, and I think that it stands a good chance of becoming A-class since all of the research has been completed.
- Nominated by: Rschen7754 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
- "The entire route is in the California Freeway and Expressway System[4] (and is a freeway where built).", I don't think parentheses are needed here.
- Done.
- The sentence "The interchange, long considered a major bottleneck, was rebuilt in the 1990s and 2000s." should be moved to the history.
- I don't fully agree here - this is being used to add detail to the route description. If it was in the history, we'd have to elaborate on what the construction was. I'd like to leave that to the Orange Crush interchange article. --Rschen7754 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- A few attractions near SR 57 should be added to the route description to give it more flavor. For example, the road passes near Angel Stadium of Anaheim and Honda Center in Anaheim, California State University, Fullerton in Fullerton, Brea Mall in Brea.
- Also, it might help to add some more details about the physical surroundings. For example, in the suburban areas, does it pass near homes or businesses? What are the hilly areas like?
- I noticed some overlinking in the history, for example SR 60 is linked twice.
- Has there been any changes to the route since it was completed?
- Yes, the I-210 piece as described at the end of the article.
- Reference 8 is a dead link. Dough4872 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Basics
- DABs are good.
- No ALT text, but that's not exactly required at FAC these days... but it is suggested.
- The ocregister.com link changes subdomain, so you might want to swap out the URL used for the article. Otherwise, the ELs look good.
- I haven't checked, but I will comment to double check your non-breaking spaces.
- Image review
- You'll want to ping NE2 (talk · contribs) to get the GIS source information for the map added to its image description page. I'd recommend adding a color key as well for the map to the IDP. The map should have a caption as well.
- It's my recommendation that at least the SR 57 marker graphic (the "shield") have its IDP changed to clarify that SPUI doesn't own the graphic, since he slavishly reproduced the work of Caltrans, and clarify that the marker is PD from them. (This is an issue project wide where people are claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that they created the work, when they only created the copy that's residing on the servers and never had any ownership interest in the underlying graphics.)
- File:57-Lambert_on_ramp.jpg needs its copyright status clarified. Since the photo is only the sign, we need to know that the sign isn't under copyright. Given the age, it's PD unless there's a copyright notice attached to it because signs pre-1978 in the US are PD without a positive notice. (Something similar came up at the Brockway Mountain Drive FAC image review.)
- The caption on the nighttime photo should have SR 90 abbreviated for consistency with the body of the article.
- Infobox
- is it possible to narrow down the SR 60 measurement, and maybe just add it to the total if isn't already. The length notes are slightly confusing to me, and since CA uses postmiles, I can't exactly clarify the situation using the exit list.
- See above for the comments on the map.
- I have some ideas on cleaning up the system "browselinks" section of the infobox, but that doesn't impact the status of this article. We can discuss that at WT:CASH later if you like.
- Lead
- The abbreviation in the lead sentence should be in bold, but not the parentheses, since there are redirects from that format to this article.
- U.S. state doesn't need to be linked since the value is in the link to California. (Tony1-ism)
- You aren't using the abbreviations for Interstates in the prose, but you do in the infobox and exit list. Please add them and use them in the text.
- Once you introduced the SR XX convention for abbreviating state routes in the lead sentence, you should be using it throughout the article consistently.
- The word "century" isn't capitalized per the examples in MOS:DATE.
- "... and has been studied, most recently as a toll road above the Santa Ana River." I think there should be a comma after "recently".
- RD
- It might be beneficial to add in NHS designation as well, if we're going to have the other designations. Since the S&HC is mentioned in the history, it would be good to add that here as well. This whole paragraph could be shunted to the end of the RD to get the "meat" of the section up front, since the legal definitions aren't all that interesting in comparison.
- "northwest-southeast" needs an en dash (–)
- Is the word "interchange" ever used as a part of the name of the Orange Crush? If so, it should be capitalized, but I'll defer to local usage here.
- If this article is headed to FAC, traffic count data would be a good thing to mention, possibly in the same paragraph as all of the legal definitions, etc. If you mention the highest and lowest values adjacent to each other, you'll avoid the comparison issue from Brianboulton at the US 2 FAC.
- History
- You aren't consistent with Interstate abbreviation usage; as above, I'd just abbreviate them always after the first mention for consistency.
- Now, I'm assuming that you switched to Route X in the history for the pre-1964 nomenclature, so I'm not recommending that you abbreviate them as SR X.
- "early-to-mid 1930s," I think that should be "early- to mid-1930s,", but double check.
- "and the four-level Kellogg Hill Interchange at I-10, dedicated May 1, 1972 and opened soon after." needs a comma after the year.
- Future
- "The most recent plans were for a toll road elevated above the Santa Ana River rather than through existing neighborhoods, only extending south to the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405) in Costa Mesa with connections to the Corona del Mar Freeway (State Route 73)." When were these plans proposed? Who proposed them?
- "The extension was most recently considered as two 11.2-mile-long (18.0 km), two-lane viaducts, costing $950 million; the toll road franchise expired in January 2001." Again, who did the consideration and when? Who had the toll road franchise? Why did it expire?
- Exit list
- Does the postmile log reflect the unbuilt section of SR 57? If it does, maybe you can add it into the exit list like Minnesota State Highway 610?
- Just a reminder, but exit numbers should have a non-breaking space between the word "exit" and the number in the notes. I didn't check if you did this it not.
- Since US 91 and US 101 aren't mentioned in the text, I'd try to work a mention into the prose so that these abbreviations aren't the only isolated mentions of a US Highway in the article.
- References
- It's always helpful to have an office/dept./bureau/subdivision of the organization or even just "Staff" for an author on corporately authored works. The other option is to repeat the publisher for the author.
- It would be nice to clean up the SH&C formatting to be a little more consistent with the other references. For instance, you've used the HMTL title of the page, but I'd prefer to use the title from the top of the text since it's a bit more "user-friendly" to have "Streets and Highways Code Section 250–257" over "CA Codes (shc:250-257)".
- The various acts being cited feel like they're not consistently formatted like the other sources, and they're missing information. The legislature should be mentioned in there somehow, probably as the author. Is there a state office that publishes copies of enacted laws/acts that can be listed as the publisher?
- Another personal preference, but if Caltrans has section names for their website, you might include them as the work in the template for the citations.
- Maps should have cartography information added where possible.
- FN 6 needs a page number. (Nikkimaria will ping you on this at FAC.)
- FN 8 should indicate it's a PDF using the format field in the template.
- FN 9 should be reformatted to be more complete, like a book citation.
- For any maps originally on paper, please make sure that you have section numbers if the map has sections. (It's a perennial FAC question, but of course not all maps have them.
- FN 17 should have the link to the paper name piped, and the location repeated in the location field.
- FN 19 needs the PDF indicator.
- FN 27 needs a page number and the paper's location.
- FN 30 needs a page number
- FN 33 needs the PDF indicator.
- FN 37: even though the paper name includes the county, I'd give the city as a location as well. Oh, and it needs to be moved to the work field from publisher so that it's italicized.
- FNs 39 and 40 are part of the CalNEXUS program, so I'd indicate that as the work.
![[1]](http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/droz-laca33n.jpg){kind=link}
- External links
- I'll try to add the OSM box for you.
- I'd modify the display of the links to match the article's nomenclature over how the sites do it. After all, the article should be consistent with itself in terms of its content, and how the other sites do it doesn't matter.
Overall, the article is good, and most of my comments are of the nitpicky variety. I'd be happy to support promotion after they're fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Support—everything looks good and I'm happy to see this promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 02:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Lead and infobox
- You could add counties to the infobox. I'm not sure if that's your preference or an old WP:CASH style.
- The paragraph that summarizes the history seems to have big jumps. That is, it goes from the 1950s to today in only four sentences. I don't know, it just seems to be missing something in between.
- The two sentences about unconstructed sections could seem contradictory to some readers. The unconstructed portion of the Orange Freeway was built in the 1970s, yet there is an unconstructed section that would go to Santa Ana. Would the extension not be part of the Orange Freeway?
- RD
- Is the Orange Crush interchange still a bottleneck?
- "SR 57 briefly passes through Placentia and Fullerton, providing access to California State University Fullerton." Does that seem redundant to anyone else? Yes, I know it's almost always called Cal State Fullerton.
- The very next sentence, about going through Brea Canyon, seems to have too many commas. It may read better broken into two sentences.
- Near what's summit? The canyon?!
- "A short overlap carries SR 57 traffic on the outside of SR 60." I'm having a hard time picturing this sentence. It reads like both routes share the same right of way, but not the same ribbon of pavement. That doesn't seem like an overlap to me.
- "...and is a freeway where built;..." Does this mean the whole route is a freeway?
- The AADT figure lists cars only. Don't trucks use the freeway, too?
More to come... –Fredddie™ 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- History
- I have a feeling it's analogous to a spur route, but what exactly is a "spur of the Peninsular Ranges"?
- It was added as a branch of Route 19. Does that mean it was numbered 19 or something else like 19A?
- It should be early-to-mid-1930s as it's all one indefinite time period.
- "This became part of the proposed Temescal Freeway (later Corona Freeway); a southerly extension of the Orange Freeway[23] to Legislative Route 60 (SR 1) near Huntington Beach was added in 1959 as Route 273." The post-semicolon half of this sentence seems to be a run-on.
- "The last pieces of that portion were through Brea Canyon, opened March 13, 1972,[32] and the four-level Kellogg Hill Interchange at I-10, dedicated May 1, 1972, and opened soon after.[33]" This would read better as two separate sentences.
- I don't like the sentence fragments in parentheses. I'm OK with "Riverside Freeway (SR 91)", but not "(though the subsequent deletion from the Streets and Highways Code did not take place until 1981[34])."
- Future
- You should clarify; do the two 11.2-mile-long viaducts cost $950 million each or total?
- The toll road franchise sentence seems odd attached to the previous sentence. Especially since the reader has had no prior knowledge of the franchise.
- Exit list
- Since it starts at postmile 10.83, should the reader assume the unconstructed part would start at postmile 0? A note clarifying this would help. I'll look at the template to see what we can do.
Mostly, I'm asking for clarifications and tweaks to improve readability. Otherwise, great job. –Fredddie™ 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support, looks good. –Fredddie™ 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support, I read through it and can't find any issues. — PCB 02:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. 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.