Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/California State Route 78

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
A-Class review
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result of the discussion was promote to A-class. --Polaron | Talk 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 78

California State Route 78 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
Nominator's comments: This article recently passed GA, but I think there's enough info to possibly send it onward.
Nominated by: --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment

This is a good article but does cross one of my pet-peeves with many USRD articles, red links that are unnecessary. I would advise to search the important terms for all red linked articles to see if the article exists, but under a different title, for example, Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range does exist, as does Chocolate Mountains and Battle of San Pasqual. With some minor changes to text, a lot of these red links could be turned blue or eliminated. I doubt some of the creeks are notable enough for articles and could be potentially de-linked. Also the italicized 86 in the Major intersections is never explained.

talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

What is the status of this review? I have addressed the major objections... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with minor nitpick - Overall, it's a good article. I just have one minor nitpick: in the lead: "The route travels through the heavily populated cities of northern San Diego County before turning into a highway running through the mountains to Julian." It isn't a highway in the cities of San Diego County? This sentence may need to be reworded to make it a bit clearer. - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody's wondering why this is still here - this is just in case the ACR fails. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I just spent the last hour or so reading this, so here are my thoughts (mostly in order of appearance).
Resolved issues from --LJ (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox map could use either shields or a statewide locator inset so that the average person can determine where SR 78 is in relation to other points of reference. Also, the county/state lines on the map aren't at MTF standards (I had to look hard and read the RD before realizing a line was actually the AZ border). I won't let the map issue get in the way of my support of this article, but it would be good to see these things corrected.
      • I don't think I can take care of this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use of term "commissioned" twice in the second paragraph of the lead. I'm not sure on the status of this word being a neologism when used in the highway sense, but it might be better to replace it with something else ("constructed", "designated", etc.) if this article is to go any higher.
    • To me, talking about the legislative definitions at the beginning of the route description, especially when the route has yet to be fully described, seems backward. I realize this is a
      CASH
      standard, but it still seems awkward when reading.
    • Link "County Route S3" here.
    • The part about the Juan Bautista de Anza Nat'l Historic Trail in the first paragraph of the RD may be better presented where it occurs in the route, as opposed to the separate mention here.
      • I think that it is better with the rest of the designations. In regards to the legislative definitions, it's a new thing we're trying at CASH and hasn't been implemented in most of the articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second mention of the "Anza Borrego Desert State Park" needs a hyphen.
      • Done, and unlinked second mention. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • SR 78 is a freeway from its western terminus in Oceanside to its junction with Broadway in Escondido. It begins at a nonstandard interchange with I-5 and Vista Way, which involves a traffic signal.[10] SR 78 then travels east through Oceanside, loosely paralleling Buena Vista Creek before entering Vista. This could be rewritten to sound less weird. "SR 78 begins in Oceanside as a continuation of Vista Way. As it crosses over I-5, the route becomes a freeway as it travels east through Oceanside. The freeway loosely parallels Buena Vista Creek before entering Vista." Also, is there an article on the creek that can be linked?
      • Done. As far as the link to the creek (which has no article), I had to remove that link earlier in this ACR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After that, the freeway abruptly ends at the intersection with Broadway, after the Centre City Parkway interchange (I-15 Business). Rearrange to avoid use of "after" twice. "After passing the Center City Parkway (I-15 Business) interchange, the freeway abruptly ends at the intersection with Broadway."
    • General comment: Use of directional terms (left, right) with compass terms (north, east, etc.) parenthetically should be avoided. I would stick to using compass terms, to better relate in prose the directions the route takes. Make sure this is corrected in all instances.
    • SR 78 becomes a serpentine road... "Serpentine road" is a bit unusual. "follows a serpentine alignment" perhaps?
    • SR 78 then leaves Ramona as Julian Road, which continues on a winding mountain road through Witch Creek... try "alignment" instead of "road", since Julian "Road" appears already.
    • SR 78 and 79 run concurrently across the headwater... "SR 78 and 79" doesn't read well. Try "the highway runs concurrently with SR 79..." There are 2 instances of this. Also, "headwater" needs an "s".
    • ...SR 78 heads northeast as winding Banner Road through Whispering Pines. Rearrange as "...SR 78 heads northeast as Banner Road, winding through Whispering Pines."
    • SR 78 intersects with County Route S2 (CR S2) in what is known as Scissors Crossing, referring to the shape of the interchange as CR S2 runs concurrently in a wrong-way multiplex. This sentence confuses me. It needs parentheses and/or clarification to make the intended meaning clear.
    • "Anza Borrego Desert State Park" should have a hyphen to avoid a redirect.
      • Cannot find it in the route description. I may have removed the link.
    • SR 78 and 86 Again, revise this (2 occurrances) to read more clearly.
    • BIG NITPICK: In the entire route description, I only found one sentence that did not use the term "SR 78". Using the two-letter abbreviation all the time is very repetitive and, when considering other highways mentioned in the prose, gives the text a blocky look that gets difficult to read after a while. Other terms to consider using in the prose when talking specifically about SR 78: "State Route 78", "Route 78", "the road", "the highway", "the freeway", "the route", "it", etc. With other intersecting/overlapping routes, it may be helpful to use the full name of the other route at its first appearance (i.e. "State Route 86") and then use an abbreviation ("SR 86") on subsequent uses, again to avoid the overuse of "SR" and "CR" throughout. I feel this is a major prose issue that should have been addressed previously and must be corrected before the article is promoted to A-class.
      • Changed some instances described above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before the designation of SR 78, a road known as ... and Brawley around 1900. Need to insert "existed" before "around" ,or replace "around" with "by".
    • Dab "U.S. Route 395" to the CA article.
    • SR 78 turned south on Ash and rejoined the current alignment of the highway. "Ash" needs a street suffix.
    • The Vista Way Freeway opened in April 1962 between Interstate 5 and Melrose Drive, but was not entirely grade-separated. Was it called "Vista Way Freeway" at that time? Seems like "Vista Way Expressway" may have been its name, as alluded to earlier.
    • (about $27 million today) Use "about $27 million in 2008 dollars" (or whatever year is appropriate).
    • Before the interchange was constructed, the intersection between SR 78 and College Boulevard was at-grade. This helped to improve traffic flow for students going to the college. It is logical to assume the interchange was previously an intersection. Combine this to avoid stating it obviously. "The interchange, previously an at-grade intersection, improved traffic flow to the college."
    • ...of building it through sand dunes. [25]Following this... Fix spacing of citation and adjacent sentences.
    • Delink "Jacob Dekema", unless he is particularly notable for some reason.
      • Done. (He was responsible for building a lot of San Diego freeways and has I-805 named after him, but I can't source it or write an article.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...the bypass does not exist today. [29] Finally... Fix spacing of citation and adjacent sentences.
    • The paragraph about the standoff really doesn't seem notable, other than it took place on SR 78. Since it doesn't add that much to the article, I would suggest its removal.
    • however, it has since been replaced by a park and ride. Reword for clarity: "however, it was removed to construct a park and ride lot."
    • After it rains during the desert monsoon season, these washes can be left with several inches of water, sand, and rock debris. Rearrange for flow: "During the monsoon season, these washes...inches of water, sand and rock debris following rainstorms."
    • The article could use more pictures, but I won't oppose its promotion due to a lack of photos.
Overall, I think the article is pretty good. It needs prose cleanup as outlined above, especially regarding the "SR 78" repetition issue. I would support promoting the article once these concerns are resolved. --LJ (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issues addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On first look, all my issues/comments appear to have been addressed--except for some instances of the "left (north)" issue found in the last RD paragraph. I will probably support the article's promotion, but I would like to look at it one more time after the issues below are addressed. --LJ (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed last paragraph. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Now that all the review comments have been addressed, I took another look at the article and have no major issues with it in its current form. --LJ (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from SriMesh
Comment A lot of good information in the article about an intersting route. A few fixes IMHO like these may help.
  • Remove comma after and... road, and the portion from Julian to U.S. Route 99
    • In this instance, the commas set off an appositive. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the word a in this segment....following a realignment since 1964
  • the first instance of U.S. say United States (U.S.)
    • I assume you mean in the lead - corrected that one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are Oceansie, Blythe, Brawley, Escondido and Julian are they all cities? I see Brawley is stated in the lead to be a town.
  • Is the word however needed in this sentence...However, it was not commissioned east of
    • Yes, as it shows a contrasting statement. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How come SR is given as the abbrev in the lead, and then SR is used in the article all the way through correctly, however Interstate ## I-## is given as the abbreviation in the lead, and used in the lead as such, correctly...and then in the article Interstate is spelled out? or sometimes spelled out as Interstate 5 and in the same paragraph I-5...and sometimes in the article I and sometimes interstate.
  • Can the auto tour route not be after historic trail, as it sounds kind of redundant... Historic Trail auto tour route
    • It is not, as the trail was not designed for automobiles. The roads do not follow the trail exactly. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will plunk this highway into a map soon, but is this right that a stretch of highway goes from the western junction to a western junction.... western junction of SR 79 to the western junction
    • Yes - both SR 79 and SR 86 run concurrently with SR 78 at different points. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a at a nonstandard interchange oh I see the which segment is at the end of the statement. Perhaps this could be re-worded to have the description of the interchange after the interchange itself is mentioned.
    • I think I corrected it earlier in this ACR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it is more like an essay with this beginning....Those continuing on SR 78
  • There was just a segment where the road went through parks and forests...What is this place name..., town, city, park or forest...Banner Road through Whispering Pines.
    • I don't understand.-Rschen7754 (T C) 02:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't sure what Whipering Pines was...town, park etc.
        • Removed phrase; it appears that there is a Whispering Pines somewhere else in the state. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The County Route S3 (CR S3) defines the abbreviation....so does it need to be defined again...intersects with County Route S2 (CR S2)? There is not even an abbrev given later for town via County Route S3.
  • Put the middle of the sentence reference after Brawley at the end of the sentence.SR 78 from Escondido to the east of Brawley,
  • Repeat of above...mid sentence citation, and Interstate spelled out Interstate 5 and Melrose Drive'...Riverside county line into Blythe
  • The first time currency is mentioned do $, and if you use the inflation conversion template the editors don't have to keep coming back year after year to re-do the inflation factor if the economy changes....$3.9 million (about $27 million today)...what year was the today in which this portion of the article was written? ...use the conversion template here as well....$800,941 at the time (about $4.97 million in 2007)...The U.S. dollar wikilink is only needed once.
  • then-new..this does say the intent of the message, but I don't know if it is proper grammatically.
  • Should the future plans section incorporate the future road section template
    • I don't think so, since the road is entirely constructed; these are relatively minor changes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • R and N reflect mileage following a realignment since 1964; ... T for temporary, R for realignment what does N mean?...As there is an italicized blurb explaining the table, could the column labeled # also be explained?
    • I fixed it. --
      blab to me) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I would support promoting the article once these concerns are resolved. I didn't look at references yet but the GA probably did that. I'll double check the other GA, FA, A criteria later. Just read the interesting article this time through. SriMesh | talk 07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I plan on addressing these comments later in the week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, you are certainly busy these days  :-) SriMesh | talk 07:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All comments replied to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support Good luck on your further ventures.SriMesh | talk 22:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved issues from  — master sonT - C 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing: I've begun reviewing this article, but I'm not finished as of yet.  — master sonT - C 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Master son
    • Infobox
      • I would consider having "deleted" be renamed as "former". (Nothing to do with the article, but still...)
        • The article is called "deleted". --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead Section
      • The route travels as a freeway through the heavily populated cities of northern San Diego County before turning into a highway running through the Santa Rosa Mountains to Julian. Following this, SR 78 enters Imperial County and travels through the desert near the Salton Sea before turning north to Blythe. I seem to have reservations about routes traveling. perhaps the following:
        The route is a freeway in the heavily populated cities of northern San Diego County and a ?-lane highway in the Santa Rosa Mountains and eastward to Julian. In Imperial County, SR 78 traverses the desert near the Salton Sea before turning north to Blythe.
        • The ? is either 2 or 4 (I don't know which one it is). Highway is vague - of course its a highway;)
    • Route Description
      • SR 78 then travels east through Oceanside, loosely paralleling Buena Vista Creek before entering Vista Again, a road travels? (of course this might come back to bite me in the face;)) This occurs many times through the route description.
        • I've seen worse; I'm not sure what to change it to if it needs to be out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • SR 78 intersects with County Route S2 (CR S2) in what is known as Scissors Crossing, referring to the shape of the interchange as CR S2 runs concurrently in a wrong-way multiplex. Is Multiplex still considered a
        Neologism
        ?
        • I don't think so after the second arbitration case; I don't like using that word in an article, but I didn't know how to mention the wrong-way portion of it. Fixed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • History
      • No road connected Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78; it was necessary to travel north through Calipatria to reach Blythe. Seems there's something important about the fact that no road connected the two cities along this route. Perhaps maybe mention that theres no direct route rather than mentioning the route number?
      • Sign Routes - Is that a California term?
      • Interesting on how http://www.gbcnet.com/roads/ca_routes_1934.html is a source here. I'm not saying change it, but I'm intrigued. :) One thing I didn't find though is a bibliography of where he got his info from, but there are some blurbs (not on the page referenced) about it coming from CalTrans.
        • This appears to be a verbatim copy of a reliable source. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with LJtheFro on the repetitive use of "SR 78" in the article.
    • Major Intersections
      • Are there postmiles available for CR S32 (Butters Road) and CR S33 (Green Road)?
        • No, as the stretch is not freeway, and these are county routes.

Overall it's decent. I concur on prose issues above (hence why this was shorter ;) ) and would like to see the improvements before I offer my support.  — master sonT - C 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good here - Support. I would ask that we consider renaming
      Former state highways in California and changing the Infobox reference (along with others).  — master sonT - C 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Resolved issues from Dough4872
  • Comments - I have a few concerns with the article before I will support it for A-Class:
  1. In the route description, try not to use "SR 78" in almost every sentence.
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The first sentence appears to be a summary of the whole route. Do you think you can distribute the information into later paragraphs?
    Addressed above -
    WP:CASH standard. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. The sentence "Those continuing on SR 78 must make a right turn (south) onto Broadway and drive through downtown Escondido." sounds a little awkward. Try rephrasing.
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it nessecary to use phrases like "turns left (east)" to indicate turns in the route?
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. What is a "serpentine road
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "winding Banner Road" sounds a little awkward. Try rephrasing.
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The sentence "SR 78 intersects with County Route S2 (CR S2) in what is known as Scissors Crossing, referring to the shape of the interchange as CR S2 runs concurrently in a wrong-way multiplex." needs to be rephrased. Also, use "concurrency" instead of "multiplex" as mulitplex is considered a roadgeek term.
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In the route description, you seem to mainly indicate the towns and roads SR 78 encounters. Is it possible to mention more information about the physical environments the route passes through? (urban, suburban, desert, mountains, etc...)
    Added a few words describing the highway; let me know if more is needed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. What was the routing of the Brawley-Westmorland-Julian-Oceanside Highway between Westmorland and Brawley
    Basically through the cities; the map I saw wasn't very detailed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The sentence "No road connected Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78; it was necessary to travel north through Calipatria to reach Blythe." sounds awkward
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Is it nessecary to have US 99 in parentheses after U.S. Route 99
    Per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "(in Brawley)" should not be in parentheses
    Addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. In phrase "turned south on Ash" indicate what kind of road Ash is
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. In phrase "for a cost", change "for" to "at"
    Addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. In third paragraph of Construction section, why do you go out of sequence for historical information, jumping from 1965 back to 1959?
    Spatial versus chronological organization. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Use the {{future road}} template at the beginning of the Future section
    Commented above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. References should not be in the middle of the sentence; move to the end
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Are any exact dates known for the proposals in the Future section?
    I don't think so; with the state's budget crisis, these dates would probably be meaningless if they were known. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Remove "about twenty-two months" from last sentence of Future and remove parentheses around "until February 2010"
    Done. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. If possible, try to add more pictures to the article
    Addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Is the exact postmile known for the intersections with Plaza Drive, CR S32, CR S33, and the points at which the freeway begins and ends? Dough4872 (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Plaza addressed. Rest addressed above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally done replying to comments. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good now. I will Support it. Dough4872 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I think we have broken a record for the number of comments on an ACR. Thanks everyone. :) It will probably take me a week or two to address everything, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/California_State_Route_78&oldid=1126878705"