Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 805

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

Interstate 805 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.
Toolbox

Interstate 805 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Finally back on this side of ACR... this is a significant Interstate in the San Diego area, and with the research it should be good for FA material.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 08:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM edit

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I reviewed this article at GAN literally just earlier tonight, so I can't review it here. I'll do the spotcheck instead. Since this article has 91 sources, I will review the set maximum of 20 sources. Since the majority of them are newspaper sources, I will request the nominator to email them to me later, but I have not yet decided which ones I will review. TCN7JM 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the nominator to send me the contents of sources 30-49 via email. When that happens, I can perform the spotcheck the next time I have sufficient time. TCN7JM 00:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers accompanying the sources are accurate as of this revision:

  • Source 30 –   All good
  • Source 31 –   All good
  • Source 32 –   All good
  • Source 33 –   All good
  • Source 34 –   All good
  • Source 35 –   All good
  • Source 36 –   All good
  • Source 37 –   All good
  • Source 38 –   All good
  • Source 39 –   All good

Everything's a-okay so far. I'll review the remaining ten sources at a later time. TCN7JM 03:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 40 –   Minor error:... The bid wasn't exactly $7.2M, so a word like "about" should be used. Also, while you're at it, there's a typo that I can't fix because I'm viewing an old revision. It says "bit" instead of "bid".
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 17:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 41 –   All good
  • Source 42 –   All good
  • Source 43 –   All good

This is all the more I have time for now. TCN7JM 11:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 44 –   Needs rewriting: The second time the citation is used, it seems to be implied that the portion from El Cajon Boulevard to SR 52 is the "span over Mission Valley", as neither road is mentioned at that point in the source. Otherwise, the other four times it's used are okay.
  • Source 45 –   All good
  • Source 46 –   All good
  • Source 47 –   Minor error:... Similar to the error with Source 40, the number isn't exact.
      Done --Rschen7754 05:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 48 –   All good
  • Source 49 –   Elaborate a bit:... Instead of saying the day was "just before" the dedication, I would note that it was the day before, to be exact.
    • Well, day before the planned dedication, because unfortunately the archive craps out at the time of the actual dedication. But I will adjust this. --Rschen7754 05:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Well, got that over with. I'll leave this on hold for ya. TCN7JM 04:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support TCN7JM 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872 edit

Review by Dough4872
  • I will review the article. Dough4872 00:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. A lot of the route description has phrases such as I-805 does [blah] before [blah]ing [blah]. I would consider varying the phrasing in the route description.
    Done. --Rschen7754 01:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the history, maybe you should mention what US 101 and US 395 are called now.
    Done. --Rschen7754 04:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Before the end of the year, the portion from SR 94 to Home Avenue began the bidding phase, did the road actually begin the bidding phase? Better wording could be used here.
    I don't see the problem; it indicates that it took place before the end of the year. Trying to vary the wording and all. --Rschen7754 19:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you can change it to "bidding began on the portion of SR 94 to Home Avenue". Dough4872 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly the same thing. Not making this change. --Rschen7754 02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see the issue, will fix. --Rschen7754 02:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Do you have any projected completion dates for the construction projects currently taking place on I-805?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a decent article with very few issues. Dough4872 03:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Issues resolved. Dough4872 04:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evad37 edit

Review
Lead
  • "...the eastern areas of the Greater San Diego area..." – 'areas' is used closed to 'area', consider using a different word
  • "...before reentering San Diego." – The previous sentences do not indicate that the road left San Diego
  • In the infobox, the existed dates are 1959 – present, but 1959 isn't mentioned at all in the lead
Route description
  • "...County Route S17 (CR S17), also known as Bonita Road,...", "SR 94, also known as the Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway", "SR 163, also known as the Cabrillo Freeway" – consider rewording one or more of them to be less repetitive
  • "It then intersects El Cajon Boulevard before passing under the Hazard Memorial Bridge that carries Adams Avenue and going over Mission Valley" – is a bit long without punctuation. It is also not clear whether the bridge carries Adams Avenue over I-805 and Mission Valley, or if I-805 passes under the bridge and then goes over the valley.
  • "I-5 at the I-805 merge was built to be 21 lanes wide when the widening project was completed in 2007" – sounds a bit awkward. Suggest rewording, perhaps something like "I-5 at the I-805 merge was built to be 21 lanes wide, following the completion of a widening project in 2007".
  • How many lanes did I-5 have before the widening project?
    • I don't have the information since I haven't looked at the I-5 stuff yet... and it should really go in the I-5 article if the info is found. --Rschen7754 07:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: I-5 is linked three times in the route descriptions
    • Ran the duplicate link script. --Rschen7754 05:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History – Construction
  • Per MOS:BOLD, Route 241 and Inland Freeway should not be in boldface
  • "(a distance of 3.5 miles (5.6 km))" – brackets inside brackets doesn't look good. Suggest using |disp=or in the convert template, or reword to remove the outside brackets
  • "However, it was discovered that this would add $10 million..." – superfluous, suggest changing to "However, this would have added $10 million..."
  • "L Street" - change the space to a non-breaking space (&nbsp;)
  • "by then, the estimate for completing the entire freeway had slipped to 1975." – Recommend changing 'estimate' to something more specific like 'estimated date'. Also, slipped from when?
  • "Estimates on the Mission Valley bridge had slipped to July 1972 by March" - 'July 1972 by March' sounds awkward, move 'by March' to the beginning of the sentence or otherwise rephrase it. Also, it is very similar wording to the previous sentence, try other wording such as 'expected' or 'anticipated', and 'delayed' or 'postponed'.
  • "The portion of the freeway from Otay Valley Road to Telegraph Canyon Road opened during the year." – Start of a new paragraph, the actual year itself should be mentioned
  • "...there were reports of motorists driving around on the closed freeway, which the California Highway Patrol did not support." – Was it actually illegal/prohibited? The title of ref 60 says "Unopnened 805 Usage Prohibited" (is the first word a typo?), but from this sentence, it sounds like the highway patrol just recommended against driving on the closed freeway
– Recognition, artwork, and architecture
  • American Society of Civil Engineers should be mentioned at the first use of ASCE instead of the second
  • "...with its columns that look similar to cathedral windows, with arch-like shapes etched into the textured concrete." Suggest changing the second 'with' to 'and'
– Expansion
Exit list
  • Where there are two roads in the destination column, should they be separated with a "/" instead of a comma? I can't actually see any such requirement in MOS:RJL, but {{Jct}} uses a slash...
    • I've generally seen it with commas, but I could be wrong. --Rschen7754 07:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location is blank for exits 7C and 8, shouldn't this be a single cell?
Infobox
  • Instead of <br>'s, use
{{Plainlist|
* <line 1>
* <line 2>
...
}}
for the major junctions list, per WP:PLIST
Done. --Rschen7754 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article looks good :) - Evad37 (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll be replying over the next few days, I'm out of town now. --Rschen7754 07:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done. --Rschen7754 08:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Evad37 edit

  • File:California Interstate 805.svg: CC-BY-SA 3.0, caption is good, but alt text missing
  • File:I-805 Northbound at CA 905.jpg: PD by author, caption is good, alt text is missing
  • File:Interstate 805-5 Split.jpg: CC-BY-SA 2.0, caption is good, alt text is missing
  • File:Miramar op 805.jpg: GNU FDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC-BY-2.0 but lacks source info, caption is good, alt text is missing
  • File:I-805 (CA).svg (infobox): The source field of the information template should be the Caltrans drawing, and licensing should reflect why it is a free image given that the drawing is the source – is it a MUTCD PD image, or is it some other reason/permission? Does it need a trademark warning? PD-MUTCD-CA. Caption is good, alt text is good
  • File:I-5.svg (navbox): PD-MUTCD, alt text is missing

Concerns noted above - Evad37 [talk] 05:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alt text is not a requirement for FAC any longer. The other issues have been addressed. --Rschen7754 05:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a requirement, but should probably still be added for accessibility per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images: "For images that link to their image description page (which is nearly all images on Wikipedia), the alt text cannot be blank nor should the alt parameter be absent. This is because a screen reader, in order to describe the purpose of the link, will default to reading out the image filename when no alt text is available. This is usually not helpful."
Anyway, the images are now otherwise okay,   Image check done - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Scott5114 edit

  • In most states, counties are listed in the infobox. I do not know if California follows a different standard here, but I have received this recommendation on my most recent ACR.
    • Done; most of CA doesn't have them, but there's no reason not to add them. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that the lead is meant to give an executive summary of the article, and thus should be readable on its own. Thus, the term "dual freeway" should either be defined in the lead, obviating the need for someone to go hunt in the article for a definition, or the sentence phrased to avoid that construction.
    • Added a link. I really don't think that it can be avoided without either adding in a bunch of extra stuff, or removing a critical detail. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about I-805 serving as a divide between rich and poor in Chula Vista seems oddly placed. If it could be expanded to a full paragraph, I would say it should be moved to the history section (since it is a characteristic of the highway observed at one point in time, and is not an inherent feature of the road), and if not, I would recommend dropping it altogether. Either way, it would probably fit better in the article about Chula Vista.
    • I see your point, but there's not a good place in the history to put it. I've changed how it was worded in the RD to make it mesh better. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful with "the city" in the first paragraph of the route description. The phrase is used variously to refer to San Diego, Chula Vista, and National City, which could confuse less observant readers.
  • The information about the Hazard Bridge feels out of place, considering I-805 only passes under it.
    • That article actually redirects here. It's also a quite significant bridge architecturally, I believe. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By June, houses along the route were being sold in the North Park area... This reads like the houses from the freeway route were being dragged up to North Park and sold there. Consider something like By June, houses in North Park that were along the proposed route of the freeway were being sold. If sources support it, clarify that Caltrans was the one buying the houses.
  • In May 1967, bidding began after construction had been delayed by that of I-5 and I-8 which had been given higher priority. This sentence is somewhat unclear. Did I-5 and I-8's bidding or construction cause the delay? A comma is needed after I-8. You may want to specify both I-5 and I-8 if both of them were given higher priority.
  • The R.E. Hazard and W.F. Maxwell Companies... any relation to the Roscoe Hazard the bridge was named after?
    • Kind of doubt it, papers didn't say much, and he can't hold those two jobs at once due to COI stuffs. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the winning bid was $20.9 million, where did the $27.5 million figure come from?
    • Well, that was what they budgeted for the job, but nobody bids that much of course. Clarified a bit. --Rschen7754 10:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I-805 from north of Friars Road to north of what was then US 395 in mid-1969, which would become SR 163. May be better to say In mid-1969, bidding was to begin on 3.2 miles (5.1 km) of I-805 from north of Friars Road to present day SR 163, which was US 395 at the time or similar. This places "mid-1969" with the phrase that it modifies, instead of making it look like the mid-1969 date just applies to it being US 395.
  • Might be desirable to expand on what exactly Nixon's order was supposed to affect. Was it a budgetary thing?
  • By March 1970, the original section between Home Avenue and near I-8 was almost complete, and the Mission Valley portion extending north of US 395 as well as from Otay Valley Road and J Street in Chula Vista were still under construction and A second border crossing in the San Ysidro area was proposed near the Playas de Tijuana area, that would be accessible from I-805, although another alternative was considered near Brown Field; a formal study was commissioned in August: Both of these sentences share the same problem. They have too many clauses, and therefore it is easy to get lost and not follow what they are saying. In both cases, the remedy is to split them into less complex sentences.
  • E.C. Young, Young and Sons, Inc., and A.A. Baxter Corporation: may be better to rearrange these so that you don't have Young twice in a row. If you list them alphabetically, you can put and between E.C. Young and Young and Sons, which, with the Oxford comma, would alleviate any confusion.
  • and was to be opened from El Cajon Boulevard...
  • There are some minor punctuation issues throughout the history that may need a second look.
    • Not sure what you mean, could you be more specific? --Rschen7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does mention of the ineligibility to be a scenic highway merely confirm that Chula Vista was unsuccessful at obtaining the designation, or did it preclude them from getting it?
    • Removing entirely; not very useful. --Rschen7754 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opening of the SR-94 connectors and the cost information are separate topics that should be covered in separate sentences.
  • The word complete is used a lot in the Construction section. If possible, use synonyms to cut down on the number of usages.
  • There were reports of motorists driving around on the closed freeway: "driving around" seems a bit informal.
  • If you get a chance, a photo of the Mission Valley Viaduct would enhance the article significantly, considering it was recognized with awards. Likewise for the Eastgate Mall bridge.
    • Hoping to do this next week. --Rschen7754 22:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "Stargazer"? A bridge? A statue? A fish? USS Stargazer (NCC-2893)?
  • Characterizing a billboard as a [form] of artwork along the highway is kind of weird.
    • Well, art is subjective... and has aesthetic qualities. --Rschen7754 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the northern end of I-805
  • Again, "dual freeway" is rather confusing; it would be more clear to explain exactly what this consists of. One could reasonably interpret it to mean a divided highway.
    • Added a bit more to clarify. --Rschen7754 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the February 2013 express lanes HOT lanes or more "dual freeway"?

Top quality work as always, just needs a little more polish. The only question is why am I helping CA catch up to OK on the leaderboard... :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done. --Rschen7754 02:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. As for the punctuation, it was more an issue of a missing comma here and there; you should probably have an experienced copyeditor look at it with fresh eyes before sending to FAC. Other than that, all of the major issues have been addressed, so I will support this article for A-class. Well done! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:44, 13 December 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.

Closing notice - The article has been passed. Good work! - Floydian τ ¢ 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Interstate_805&oldid=1141873929"