Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 75

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review

California State Route 75 edit

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.

This article has been promoted. -happy5214 09:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

California State Route 75 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: This just passed GA, and since it's comprehensive, I believe it could go to FA. It's about the same length as the CA 67 one. Note: I have a new map uploaded, but Commons is acting strangely tonight so it won't display.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 07:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 23:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872 edit

Extended content

I will review this article. Dough4872 23:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. The sentence " In Imperial Beach, SR 75 curves to the north, becoming Silver Strand Boulevard and crossing into Coronado and continuing onto the peninsula containing Coronado Island, separated from the mainland by San Diego Bay." is very wordy.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 01:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The first contract for widening the highway between Coronado and Coronado Heights was awarded in 1944, as this part of the row was "now too narrow and dilapidated to meet traffic requirements.", is row correct or is that supposed to be road?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The inflation template should be in 2013 dollars and not 2010 dollars.
    Inflation series only goes up to 2010. --Rschen7754 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The speed limits in the article should have a metric conversion.
    Done. --Rschen7754 01:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, decent article. Dough4872 00:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Rschen7754 01:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will now support the article. Dough4872 01:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by TCN7JM edit

Review by TCN7JM

After Dough, of course. TCN7JM 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Bold the first usage of the abbreviation.
Route description
  • It's never mentioned in the beginning of this section that the route begins in San Diego, so saying "SR 75 crosses into the city of San Diego again" makes no contextual sense.
History
  • I'd spell out the single-digit numbers in the second sentence.

That's all. TCN7JM 02:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Rschen7754 02:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's still one more single-digit number I think needs spelling out. TCN7JM 02:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that that has been fixed. Great job on this article, Rschen! I support promotion. TCN7JM 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by SounderBruce edit

Just going to reserve this. SounderBruce 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the GA reviewer and seeing the images all coming up good, I support. SounderBruce 01:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evad37 edit

Resolved issues
Lead
  • "Coronado Highway" is used in |alternate_name in the infobox, but is not sourced nor mentioned anywhere in the text of the article
  • "However, none of these proposals have gained support as late as 2010." – doesn't sound right. Maybe something like "However, none of these proposals have gained support, including the latest attempt in 2010."
Route description
  • "The one-way couplet is brief, and SR 75 briefly becomes..." – consider rewording as "briefly" is only three words away from "brief"
  • "Through traffic is directed onto I-5 south or north in Logan Heights, and SR 75 ends." – consider changing "and" to "where"
  • "SR 75 is part of the National Highway System" – Consider changing to "also part of", to connect this sentence to the previous one, and so this sentence is less similar to the first one of the paragraph
History
  • Section seems under-wikilinked... Consider wikilinks where a different term may be used in other countries (eg sidewalk, traffic signals, pedestrian crossing)
  • Conversions to 2010 should probably have a footnote, such as is done in the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System article
    • I've gotten this on over 75% of the reviews that I've had over the last few months. Generally I've said that it would be too repetitive, but I'm considering adding them. --Rschen7754 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tent City in Coronado" – Either wikilink "Tent City" to the appropriate section of the Coronado article, or explain at the first mention that it's a summer resort (avoid confusion with Tent city, which is mainly about those for homeless people)
  • "Edward Butler stated that the state had the ultimate authority to decide whether or not to build the bridge, and that the city of San Diego could not interfere." – Does the source have a direct quotation that can be used, or included in the reference?
    • No, it just said "According to..." --Rschen7754 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The speed limit was decreased to 25 miles per hour (40 km/h)" – what was the speed limit prior to the decrease?
    • Unfortunately, that was not available in the source. --Rschen7754 04:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Traffic barriers along Third Street to block traffic from turning onto intersecting streets were removed in November 2004, after voters approved their removal" – consider changing the last part to ", following voters' approval" (or similar) to avoid repeating "removal"
  • "Following this, the Coronado City Council voted to abolish the Tunnel Commission." – Paragraph ends with the Tunnel Commission, which hasn't been mentioned before - when was it established?
  • "Efforts were underway ..." – by whom?
  • "It was described as a "hodgepodge ... " – change "it" to "the area" or similar
  • "In September 2012, the Imperial Beach city council raised concerns over the Caltrans decision to change the speed limit on SR 75 to 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) due to concerns about safety"
    • Change one of the "concerns" to another word
    • I assume the decision was to raise the speed limit - the article should specify this, and the amount it was increased by
    • Has anything happened since the council raised its concerns? Were the concerns raised specifically with Caltrans, or with the general public, or with other people/organisations?

- Evad37 (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll get to this over the next few days. --Rschen7754 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved - Evad37 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Scott5114 edit

Reference numbering from this version.

  • 2: good, though I'm not quite sure I understand how exactly it's referenced in the RJL.
    • It's more or less to corroborate the official length and routing of the route. --Rschen7754 09:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8: wording is very close, not sure if this is an issue since the source is PD
  • 11: source doesn't support that 6 miles of road were affected, it only mentions that 6 miles of curbing and 3 miles of sidewalk were to be installed (and that six miles may well be referring to the curbing on both sides of a three-mile segment)
  • 14: good
  • 31: good
  • 34: Website appears broken or incompatible with my OS. I selected "1967" from the "statutes" dropdown and was given a blank one-page PDF, sections of which turned yellow when moused over.
    • Emailing a screenshot. --Rschen7754 09:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • good, might want to use a more accessible link if one is available though
        • I've been unable to get a better URL, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 09:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 41: source only states that 3rd and 4th streets are truck routes, not that they're SR 75
  • 42: good
  • 43: good
  • 44: good, but "100,000 Expected to Greet Presidents" is probably a better source for the info
  • 45: good, but might want to include information on another point of opposition: if passed, Prop N would have prevented Coronado from making changes to traffic while the periphery road was investigated
  • 53: good
  • 56: good
  • 58: mentions nothing about a change in the toll rate
    • Citation was in wrong place. --Rschen7754 09:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61: good
  • 65: may want to say "the San Diego Union-Tribune described the area as...". Doesn't back up the paragraph's first sentence.
    • Done, and the first sentence is just to summarize the rest of the paragraph. --Rschen7754 09:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 68: good
  • 69: good

—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC), updated 09:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-spotcheck notes that you might want to look into:
  • "$533 thousand" is non-standard usage. Most of the time this would be written $533,000.
  • Coronado mayor's name is McNeely, not McNelly, according to ref 45.
  • "it would require approval from over 30 government agencies": thirty is such a short word you might want to spell it out.
Don't consider this a review, I just thought you might like to know. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck cleared —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/California_State_Route_75&oldid=1206625678"