Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 76/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 via FACBot (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2016 [1].

California State Route 76 edit

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 76 is another highway in San Diego County. It has existed in some form since the 1930s and is still used widely today. Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Small Content Comment - In the "Major Intersections" subsection, it says
 R reflects a realignment in the route since then, M indicates a second realignment, L refers an overlap due to a correction or change, and T indicates postmiles classified as temporary
And then in the following table that this is supposedly a key for, there are only R's and no-letters. I question why this is necessary at all? Is information about realigned milemarkers not available for all the intersections? Why include M, L, and Ts in the key when you don't use them? Fieari (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a template that is used across many California state highway articles. Only routes with those particular realignments will have postmiles with those particular letters. --Rschen7754 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's troublesome. The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template. That means I'm looking for "Brilliant prose", and... well, this isn't. I'd also want to know why some of the mile listings are 1964 based, and some are more accurate. This sort of information should be in a FA. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template." -> it is part of a template, see Template:CAinttop. Also, all postmiles were measured in 1964, across the state. It is when a route was realigned after that a letter is added. --Rschen7754 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fieari: In this case, after the FAC was submitted I discovered another source for the mileages, and have replaced all of them on this article. This should resolve your objections. With that being said, I am strongly concerned with the reviewing methodology of focusing on the legend for a table, rather than reviewing the other 98% of the article, the latter of which I would encourage you to focus on in future reviews. --Rschen7754 06:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rschen, that does look better. I know I only focused on this one place, but that's only because it stood out to me like a glaring thumb after only a cursory glance over the article-- that is, it didn't make any sense to me, and context did not seem apparent. Please consider this a compliment... the rest of the article did not have anything jump out at me.
Allow me to be more formal about it:
Prose Check, Pass - The article is comprehensible, with no outstanding sections that are difficult to read or confusing. The prose is flowing, and free of grammatical errors (that I could find). The article is informative, and covers the points I would expect to find in an excellent article of this sort.
I have not conducted a sourcing check. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thanks for taking a look! --Rschen7754 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that the mileage in the infobox and the major intersections table doesn't match. Is there a way this can be fixed? Dough4872 14:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article against the featured article criteria during an A-class review, as well as verifying sources in the same review. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on just the lead

  • "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a 52.63-mile-long (84.70 km) state highway in the U.S. state of California." The value–unit wording is very awkward—illogical, actually. -> "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a state highway 52.63 miles (84.70 km) long in the U.S. state of California."
  • Why is "U.S. state" linked (bunched with "California")—the state name barely needs linking, let alone a ... list of all US states???
    • I've been told that this is to provide the proper context for the reader - I think this was requested at FAC a while back for some U.S. roads article, and it is on many of those FAs. If the general practice at FAC has changed, I would be willing to adjust it. --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOSLINK discourages bunched linking, for good reason. And unfocused linking (why do readers need to look at a list of US states right there?). Anyone who asked for it to be linked should have been ignored. Scripts remove it. Tony (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed the link to U.S. state. --Rschen7754 00:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is a frequently used east–west route"—ambiguous: could refer to repeated use by the same people. "much used".
    • I'm not sure what you're getting at here - it very well could refer to repeated use by the same people (commuters, for example). Changed --Rschen7754 05:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highway serves as a major route through the region"—"is".
  • "continuing east into the community of Bonsall while providing access to Fallbrook"—while? Simpler just to write "to provide" (if that is most or all of the purpose of the continuation); or ", providing".
    • Changed to "and providing", otherwise there would be two participle phrases at the end separated by a comma. --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was officially designated as SR 76 in the 1964 state highway renumbering, though the route was known as SR 76 before then"—why "though"? Are you contraverting from the previous proposition? "was previously known" would be plainer.
    • I'm not sure that it would convey the same meaning. It was officially designated as SR 76 in 1964 (along with most state highways) under state law, but the signs on the road said SR 76 before that (a bit unusual, which is why there is a "though"). --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The unusuality is unclear to readers unless you insert that context. Why is it necessary in the lead? Tony (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Caltrans"—what is it? Better to spell out on first appearance rather than requiring me to visit the link target to see whether it's a company.

At least as far as the lead goes, the writing is not yet up to FA standard. Tony (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First section: Route description" This is the first time I've taken a good look at the text of one of these elaborate US road articles. It's challenging to write this section in particular, because of repetition temptations, a certain sameness in the sequencing, and a risk that it's at times hard-going and much less useful to follow in text than to see it on a map (or using Google Earth). I think some tips about the grammar and lexicon of these sections would be useful as a resource at the Wikiproject.

  • "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 as part of the route,[3] and that part of the road is not in the legal definition." Would it be possible to avoid the repetition thus? "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 to be part of the route,[3] and it is not within the legal definition."
  • Road articles are tricky in that they involve extended accounts of the route; it's hard to avoid repetitive wording. Here, in what must be a sustained attempt at variety, you use a metaphor actually travelling along the route (which could be temporal or spatial—you've chose temporal here, but "quickly" isn't ideal); and "and" is probably necessary after the comma (or as a replacement for "then"): "It quickly has an interchange with I-5, then becomes a four-lane expressway known as the San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." There's more repetitive wording, too. What about: "There is soon an interchange with I-5, after which SR 76 becomes the four-lane San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." You could then use "this" instead of SR 76 again, given that SR 76 comes again soon after.
  • "It then has two overpasses"—I'd minimise this metaphorical "ownership" grammar (also in "It quickly has an interchange"). Try to avoid sequence tags like "then" wherever it works without: "There are two overpasses: one ...". The readers are by now primed for a sequence in your description, so they'll expect that the sequence in which you describe the parts of the route is the sequence of the route, and usually won't need to pass roadsigns reminding them of this. "The highway then goes through Bonsall, ..." -> "The highway passes through Bonsall, ...". Maybe preserve one of these ubiquitious thens for "then meets the northern ...".
  • "As it begins to enter rural Oceanside,"—laboured. Why not just "As it enters rural Oceanside,". I see quite a few "begins"; "starts" is also available where appropriate, for rotation.
  • "It is at this point when SR 76 becomes known as Pala Road, which narrows to two lanes ..."—"that", not "when", and "becomes known"? Perhaps simply: "At this point SR 76 becomes Pala Road, narrowing to two lanes" (but if Pala Road narrows after it starts, better ", which narrows to two lanes", making Pala Road the actor and losing the simultaneity in your meaning).
    • Made the first and last change. I'm reluctant to remove "known as" as "becomes" might make the reader think that it is no longer SR 76. I'm open to considering other possibilities. --Rschen7754 01:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It intersects Via Monserate and Gird Road south of Fallbrook before encountering the former routing of"—nice metaphorical grammar: the road is personified as the experiencer. But you wouldn't want "encountering" twice in one article.
  • "SR 76 then goes through Pala and the Pala Indian Reservation, passing by Pala Casino and intersecting CR S16, the turnoff to the Pala Mission and Temecula. Continuing to parallel the San Luis Rey River, SR 76 passes by ...". Not in love with "goes", but I suppose you've used "passes" enough (in fact, twice in the space of a few seconds—is there a list at the Wikiproject of verbs that can be rotated for this purpose?).
  • "the National Highway System,[7] a network of highways that are essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility"—I hated this. It comes from a publisher that is almost certainly engaging in political spin—the Federal Highways Administration. So they're pushing for more resources generally by playing the defense card, naturally. I believe it does not belong in this article (so ... army trucks use the highways? Got it). That highways should be good for the economy and mobility is not worth including—or is this a stock proposition and reference for all articles in the class? You might just as well write that such highways are the sites of thousands of deaths and horrific injuries each year; and that they're part of a system that keeps the US enslaved to Saudi Arabia, through the part-funding of that state's support of terrorism.
    • Not all state highways are part of the National Highway System. In my opinion, it provides a bit of an outside perspective as to which highways are considered more important than others. Outside, because the federal government and the state government (that is actually responsible for the state highways) are two different entities. If you are concerned about NPOV, I can add "considered" or similar language. --Rschen7754 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with mentioning the NHS, but the descriptor used by politicians and bureacrats brings unwanted angles. Tony (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Later: Why not just link the item: any reader older than 7 will know what a national highway system is; many countries have similar designations, by name and in funding protocols. A link alone would avoid undue detail of questionable relevance to this article, and out of context a set of misleading or unexplained epithets. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will puzzle anyone not familiar with the topic: "SR 76 is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System,[9] but it is not officially designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation.[10]" We shouldn't have to look up the references to understand it, particularly the first clause. Tony (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added "legally" to make the distinction more clear. --Rschen7754 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "Flooding in January 1916 resulted in the closing of the road that existed between Bonsall and Pala"—"of the pre-existing road between"?
  • "did not reopen until two years later" --> "did not reopen for two years"?
  • ", and" × 2 ... could one of these joiners be different to break the cascade? "The Bonsall Bridge over the San Luis Rey River was completed in 1925,[23] and opened in 1926 as the county's largest bridge at the time, and served as part of the road from San Diego to Elsinore."
  • "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933.[27] However, it was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935." ... Could conflate these two sentences to simplify the join?: "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933,[27] but was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935."
  • Like most of these points, I'm relying on your contextual knowledge to judge whether to implement or not, or to use a different solution than my suggestion: "Plans for constructing a replacement for Mission Avenue date from 1950.[35] By 1961, there were plans to ..."—avoid plans twice with "By 1961, there was a proposal to ..."? Again, sets of synonyms—a field-related mini-thesaurus—would be a great service to editors by the wikiproject.
  • Tip to everyone: use the search function to identify repetitions, at a mature stage in preparation. You'll be shocked—I am, at my own repetiions when I write. "The next year," ... "next" appears later in the same para. Make the first one "following"?
  • "the construction on"—consider losing the "the". And it's repeated two seconds later, so perhaps then "until work was underway on"?
  • plans, plans.
  • thereafter ... just "after" in the 21st century. Same for "afterward".
  • "Over the period from 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of over 1,000 accidents that occurred along SR 76 from that time period." Your repetition audit with the search function would have picked that up. Finish on "76". And your radar beam for shorter-and-straighter might have picked up the opening gobbledy: "From 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of more than 1,000 accidents on SR 76".
  • "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended extending the new highway west to Pacific Street". Bonus points for identifying "jingles" ... end/end. So ... "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended that the new highway be extended west to Pacific Street", maybe?
  • "In 1983, a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) was approved, which added more funding to". Why the hyphens? A five-cents-per-gallon tax, yes, because it's a compound adjective. But it's not here. And maybe: "In 1983, the introduction of a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) added more funding to". Simpler grammar, shorter and nicer for readers.

Still only 2/3 of the way through. This is hard labour, but I've put in the effort in the hope that you might use the experience to lead others to systemically improve this class of articles. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

Just a few minor points.

  • "begins in Oceanside near Interstate 5 (I-5) and continues east. The highway is a major route through the region, continuing east into the community of Bonsall": repetition of "continues east"/"continuing east". How about "through the region, passing through the community of Bonsall", since the first "continues east" gives us the direction?
  • Suggest giving the year when Tony Zeppetella was killed; it's 2003, from a quick Google search, and should be easy to cite.
    • Done, it's mentioned in the cited source so no citation was added. --Rschen7754 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were concerns that construction would be delayed due to the state financial crisis": I'd suggest a link for "state financial crisis" but I can't find anything suitable -- California state finances ought to be the right article, but it doesn't mention anything prior to 2004, so ignore this if you can't find a better target.
    • I couldn't find anything, though it certainly seems notable for an article. --Rschen7754 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a few decades of litigation": the first mention of a lawsuit I see is February 1990, so I think "a few decades" is an overstatement unless I missed an earlier mention.
  • "in the event that the expressway through Oceanside would have had to be converted to a freeway": not sure what this is telling me.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Was there an image-licensing review I missed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image review from the A-Class review is out of date and should probably be redone. --Rschen7754 00:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make an image review this afternoon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:California 76.svg: Free file on Commons with a valid license, using it in the infobox as the identifier is good. Source link broken, though. Same considerations apply for the other two highway icons at the bottom of the infobox,
  • File:California State Route 76.svg: Free file on Commons, a map of the route in question is definitively pertinent. Are there licenses for the underlying map?
  • File:Californiahighway76a.jpg: Free image on Commons, no evidence of copying from non-free source, EXIF missing. Putting it next to the paragraph on where the highway passes through Oceanside seems pertinent to me.
  • File:CA SR 76 at SR 79.jpg: Free file on Commons, valid EXIF and no concerns that I can see. SR 79 is mentioned in the adjacent paragraph.
  • File:CA 76 Mission Avenue.JPG: Same as above. The photo is of an old routing and in the pertinent section, so no relevance concerns.
  • File:Least Bell's Vireo USGS WERC.jpg: Free image on Commons, from a public domain source. The image is of a bird which is discussed in the adjacent section, so pertinence seems to exist.
  • File:CA 76 Bonsall.jpg: Same as the other two files with "CA 76" in the name. The road passes through Bonsall, not sure if that is the ideal section.
  • Other files in the box: Same considerations as "California 76.svg" - a bunch of broken links merit remedy.

ALT text for accessibility reasons is desirable, but I don't see any reason to fail this on file issues other than the licenses for the map in "California State Route 76.svg". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The GIS data is PD, as it comes from the US or California state government. I'm not sure how to note this on Commons. --Rschen7754 02:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could use commons:Template:Licensed-PD, I believe, filling in the license for the drawing itself and for the source map, which if it was created by the California state government would be commons:Template:PD-CAGov. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Adjusted. --Rschen7754 07:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems like that issue is handled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 20 November 2016 (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_76/archive1&oldid=1087819952"