Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 37/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 05:46, 9 March 2007.

[edit] California State Route 37

Listed as a GA, would like to bring up to FA with ongoing standardization to the article. It is currently an A-class article, with a peer review. If this passes, it will become only the second USRD article to reach FA status. Meets What is a featured article? guidelines.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 22:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Object 1. The article could do with a copyedit to bring it in line to an encyclopedic tone. 2. A short article of this type desperately needs a local map (preferably svg format). For example, "Blood Alley", "Napa River Bridge", "Marine World Parkway" has no graphical reference to aid a reader. You can put up such a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested and orphan maps. 3. Who is Jim Palos? add his occupation (businessman, farmer etc.) 4. How much was spent to build this highway? Which organisation maintains the highway? What is the annual maintainance costs incurred on the highway? 5. =State law= content can be merged with another section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no personal information about Poulos, other than him being the co-founder of the [www.frankiepoulos.org Frankie Poulos Foundation], him being 61 years old as of 7/2005 and him now living in Sausalito. --wL<speak·check·chill> 07:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The state law section is for compliance with WP:CASH. —Scott5114↗ 07:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry to be a little mean, but I always laugh when I see something like this. WikiProject guidelines are essentially the very bottom of the hierarchy of rules on Wikipedia. If WP:CASH contradicts the featured article criteria, then it's the project guidelines, not the FAC that's at fault. The state law would be better off in either the history section or the lead, and de-templatified. -- NORTH talk 08:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The section has just templates. As such that violates the Manual of style (See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs). I'm sorry, but wikiprojects should follow the given MoS. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Caltrans maintains all CA highways, as List of California State Routes shows. Thus it is redundant to note this on all articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Redundant? I don't think so. It's not explictly mentioned that Caltran maintains highways. What may be obvious to California readers may not be for people elsewhere in the world. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Someone put the caltrans reference into the infobox; hopefully that makes it clear. I see a few WP:CASH style guide changes in the future. --wL<speak·check·chill> 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Object; the history does not go back far enough. According to [1] it was defined in 1934. There may also be other problems, but this jumps out at me. --NE2 11:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Minor issues:
    • "Class 1 bikeway" is piped to Segregated cycle facilities, but that article doesn't define a "Class 1 bikeway".
      • That article just went through an overhaul, so it was removed. I may have to either call it a cycleway, or explain what a C1BW is using Caltrans sources. --wL<speak·check·chill> 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • [2] is not a reliable source.
    • There are some unsourced statements, such as "This area becomes very congested on weekends when large auto races are held at the raceway."

I don't see any references for "In 2004 and 2005, following over fifty years of complications, the remaining non-freeway section in Vallejo was built to Interstate standards as well.", only for the fact that Caltrans was planning to do this.

  • --NE2 11:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reference 6, "Perserverance", states that the freeway was nearly completed, set to open in November of that year. It is in operation now. However, I'll need go gather offline references to cite for the actual date it opened. --wL<speak·check·chill> 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You also need a source that says it was built to Interstate standards. --NE2 07:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In that exact verbatum? All sources say that it has been upgraded to a freeway or "freeway standards", which is used interchangebly with "Interstate standards", as those standards are what is used to build a freeway. --wL<speak·check·chill> 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That's not true; many older freeways, and even some brand new ones, are not built to Interstate standards. --NE2 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I've changed "Interstate standards" to "freeway", and also found a source to the freeway's opening date. --wL<speak·check·chill> 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Object WP:LEAD is inadequate, and footnotes are not correctly formatted, with full bibliiographic info. That road is a deathtrap, yet the meager lead mentions nothing about that. References should include publisher and publication date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.