Talk:California State Route 46/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
It will take me maybe a day or two to complete the review. Please be patient. --Polaron | Talk 15:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lead -- Lead section lacks a summary of the history.
  •  Done --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Route description -- Generally well-written. However, it is somewhat light on detail compared to most route descriptions I have encountered, but that may be a result of the rather empty area the road passes through. If possible, can additional geographic features be mentioned, such as any named mountain peaks nearby? Also, it appears the road roughly follows the Green Valley Creek near its west end. Any additional named valleys / canyons not yet mentioned should probably be added. Since this road crosses a mountain range, it might be useful to add maximum elevations or changes in elevation, if possible. In terms of factual accuracy, can we fix the ACME Mapper links so that they both link to the actual map used to source the information. Right now, it links to the main page. There should also be a citation for the James Dean Memorial Junction designation. The route description also says it heads "to a summit north of Bluestone Ridge". Topographic maps seem to show SR 46 south of Bluestone Ridge. Can we double-check the accuracy of that statement? In terms of broadness of coverage, a few more geographic details would be preferable, including the fact that it crosses the San Andreas Fault. Also, maybe it's worth mentioning that the road passes near Camatti Park (no article), Paso Robles Municipal Airport, Wasco Airport, and Wasco State Prison (no current article). SR 46 also appears to cross a network of artificial canals near the eastern end, which might be worth mentioning. Finally, is there a reason "Antelope Grade" is bolded?
  • Antelope Grade resolved, ref found for James Dean Memorial Junction. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • ACME Mapper link fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • [1] - the statement is incorrect. Corrected. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• History -- This section is well-written, covers the essential history, and has good sources. There are a few things that are unclear and need to be clarified. The "second state highway bond issue", however, is unclear and a statement needs to explain what it is since there is no specific article about it. The extension west of US 101 (presumably this is Santa Rosa Creek Road) - was the road already graded when it was added to the route or was the extension only on paper at the time it was given? Was it an existing, usable road that was simply added to the state highway system, or was it still unconstructed? It should be clarified earlier in the paragraph that state routes were not signed until 1934. There is one point of major confusion that may or may not be an error: what is the route of LR 125? LR 125 redirects to the SR 49 article, which seems totally unrelated to this one. When was the portion west of US 101 paved? Was it paved by 1964 when SR 46 was designated? Finally, the last sentence seems to come out of the blue. It should be mentioned much earlier that SR 46 originally used Santa Rosa Creek Road and was moved to the new road in the 1970s (do we have a more accurate opening date?).
  • I'm not sure what the second state bond issue is myself. LR 125 is what is today SR 49 - should I go ahead and say something like that? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    For the bond issue, a link (internal or external) is preferable to help readers. Is there an enabling legislation you can link to? Do you know the entire route of LR 125? The confusion is how did it connect to modern SR 46? --Polaron | Talk 14:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    Yikes, it looks like I'll need to do a little map research for the second issue (western extension). Addressed the last issue (though I would have to do research for a more accurate opening date). --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    It's probably not crucial at this point whether or not the western extension was an existing road when it was added (but this will probably need to be included for A-class or FA). If you can explain how LR 125 and SR 46 are related (given that LR 125 redirects to CA 49), then that takes care of all the major issues for now. --Polaron | Talk 17:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    Rschen7754 has indicated off-wiki that he found that LR 125 is actually utilized modern SR 41 and erroneously redirected to SR 49. That redirect has been fixed. I have added a short note in the article stating that. --Polaron | Talk 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Junction list -- OK but Postmiles are really confusing. The California project should seriously think about adding a cumulative miles column.
• Other -- If the western end is indeed a two lane freeway, the article should be added to Category:Two-lane freeways in the United States. The only image is of a sign. It would be much better to have a picture of the view of the road itself. One near the mountainous part and another in the San Joaquin Valley section. This is not crucial for passing GA.
  • Don't think I can address the image issue. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    Images are not crucial for GA so not a problem. --Polaron | Talk 14:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Overall comments -- Article is well-written. Main issues for route description are: (1) the somewhat light detail, which can be remedied by mentioning more points of interest along or near the road (including named geographic features); (2) ACME Mapper links need to be fixed; (3) reference for James Dean Memorial Junction; (4) check factual accuracy of Bluestone Ridge. For the history, it is generally good but some clarifications as listed above are needed, which may require minor rewriting. I'm putting the article on hold to allow for changes. --Polaron | Talk 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I probably will need more than the standard 7 days to address this; the review came at a bad time for me. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    Not a problem. We can leave this open for an extra week or two. --Polaron | Talk 14:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

    • I hope to address this during the weekend of 1/31-2/1. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Would you be willing to strike the stuff already addressed so I can see what is left to do? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I've crossed out the items that have been fixed. --Polaron | Talk 16:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
          • All RD issues resolved. I hope to have the history stuff done by Friday. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am now passing the article after the confusion in the History section was cleared up. Congratulations. --Polaron | Talk 00:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)