Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 57/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:22, 12 August 2012 [1].

California State Route 57 edit

California State Route 57 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 09:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge this article is complete, having gone through GA and an A-class review. Disclosure: While I took the article through GA and the A-class review that took over a year, User:NE2 (now semi-active) wrote the majority of the article. Rschen7754 09:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and would be happy to see its promotion. It is complete, well-written, and well-illustrated. Dough4872 19:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Supported below Starting a review, will make some copyedits as I go. Feel free to revert them if they don't seem to be improvements. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SR 57 is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System through Brea Canyon, between SR 90 and SR 60,[7] though it has not officially been designated by Caltrans as such." Might want to add a brief explanation of the Scenic Highway system here.
  • I'd suggest putting an "and" instead of a dash here "the connected San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the second issue. I see your point on the first; thinking about the best way to do this. --Rschen7754 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, first point addressed. I didn't explain the nomination process further since SR 57 did not complete the process successfully, and since Caltrans would not post online why SR 57 failed, or if it even started the process (the state is not in a good place financially right now). --Rschen7754 05:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, so I've heard. Ok, fixes look good thus far.
  • Sorry for the delay, I finished my read through. Overall this is pretty well written, just a few small comments on prose.
  • You have "Also in [year] a couple times fairly close proximity in the History section, I'd suggest rephrasing one.
  • "At the time of the 1964 renumbering, when the entire route, except Route 240, which was still part of I-210, was redesignated SR 57, none of these proposed freeways had been built;" Could this be rephrased a little to use less punctuation? I feel like the 5 commas here are a bit too much (I'm often guilty of overusing commas myself).
  • There's some repetition of the word "portion" in the third paragraph of the history sentence, is there a good way to avoid that?
  • Not a big deal, but is there a good way around the WP:PLUSING here? "with the entire project costing $950 million." Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, this looks to me like it meets the FA criteria in terms of prose/MOS etc. I'm not familiar with the specific conventions of the roads project, but as long as they are satisfied I think this is good for promotion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness.

  • FN13: formatting
  • Fn21, 31: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken a look at 13 and made a fix - is this what you wanted? As far as 21 and 31, I did not add those to the article, and I've tried Newsbank and Proquest and came up short. I'll leave a message for NE2 and see if he has anything. --Rschen7754 23:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—I did one as part of my comments in the ACR late last year, and all images used in the article are unchanged since then. Any issues were resolved at the time. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—as I mentioned above, I reviewed this article for its ACR earlier this year. I see no reason not to support its promotion at this venue. Any issues that might exist are minor, and I'm confident they can be resolved satisfactorily. Imzadi 1979 → 03:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Speaking as a non-American, I don't think you need to say "the U.S. state of" California, better to just link California.
  • "The final portion of the Orange Freeway that has been completed was not built until the early 1970s" -- can we trim to "The final portion of the Orange Freeway was not completed until the early 1970s"?
  • Doesn't look like this had a spotcheck of sources in earlier reviews, so like to see one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed (added present-day to the second one since technically, part of SR 57 isn't completed; I have my doubts as to if they ever will complete it though). --Rschen7754 07:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I will be out of town starting this evening until Sunday (Pacific time) and unable to reply. --Rschen7754 19:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks—I'm picking five non-map sources at random that are available online to verify information and paraphrasing. (Our prose descriptions based on a map, being our editor's own words can't really plagiarize/close-paraphrase a visual medium like a map.)
    • For fns 7 through 9, the statutory reference in the Streets & Highways Code for the Scenic Highway System checks out, as does the second that confirms its not listed as such. No close paraphrasing here. (These three were done together as they jointly cite a single sentence.)
    • Fn 14, the Official Automobile Blue Book Volume Eight, checks out for both V and CP.
    • FN 29, the statutory route definitions enacted in 1963 pass both V and CP checks.
    • FN 38, the Los Angeles Times article from 1986 checks out for both V and CP for the information it supports. (I will AGF that fn 39 is only needed to support the proposed extension to SR 73 as the rest of the sentence is fully supported by fn 38.)
    • FN 41, the Los Angeles Times article from 2003 also checks out for V and CP. In addition, fn 42 from the Orange County Register is good as well. (jointly checked)
    In total, I've checked 8 sources and all pass the expectations for verification and plagiarism/close-paraphrasing that I've experienced here at FAC. I did apply a few minor updates to some citation formats for consistency-related issues, but all minor. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/California_State_Route_57/archive1&oldid=1138456912"