Talk:California State Route 125/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and returning to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you indicate when issues have been addressed by adding comments and possibly the ✅ template. I am not in favour of using strikethough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Route description

 * although the southbound roadway ends at Otay Mesa Road... As someone with no knowledge of the geography, I need a bit more help here. Suggest "...ends at Otay Mesa Road, 1.1 mi to the north..."
 * Added, but omitted the length as an unnecessary detail. --Rschen7754 03:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  the unincorporated area What is an unincorporated area? Is there a wikilink for it, or can a few words of explanation be added?
 * Link added. --Rschen7754 04:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The route is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System, but it is only a scenic highway from SR 94 to I-8 as designated by Caltrans, meaning that it is a substantial section of highway passing through a "memorable landscape" with no "visual intrusions", where the potential designation has gained popular favor with the community. This doesn't quite read right. Suggest "The route is eligible to be included in the State Scenic Highway System..." This is the first mention of Caltrans, so should be California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Can you have a go at reworking this? I think the "meaning that..." bit needs to go with the State Scenic Highway System. Then the fact that it is only partly scenic can be linked to the favour with the community. It would then form two sentences rather than one very long one.
 * Done the first two, but I think the "meaning that" should stay as is since it goes with the Caltrans program rather than the legislature. --Rschen7754 03:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Planning and Poway extension
 * At the beginning of that year... I think this needs to be "At the beginning of 1964", or it is difficult to work out which year we are talking about by the time we get to "the next year" at the end of the paragraph.
 * Adjusted. --Rschen7754 06:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SR 125 was lengthened by the Legislature to extend to the border It is unclear which border. Please expand.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 06:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In August, the CHC announced... The acronym CHC has not previously been introduced. It needs to be expanded, with (CHC) after the first usage.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 06:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...to ask for the construction of this portion of SR 125 and other freeways, due to concerns about the... This is a very long, rambling sentence. Suggest ..."to ask that this portion of SR 125 and other freeways be constructed. They had concerns about the..." would read better.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 21:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By 1981, the environmental impact report Should be "an environmental impact report", as this is its first mention.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 21:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 *  rather than terminating the route in the southern part of the city like that city wanted. "City" is used repetitively here. Suggest "rather than terminating the route further to the south as Poway had requested." That also fixes the ugly use of "like".
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 21:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Construction from SR 52 to SR 54
 * A year later, the city of Santee expressed concerns about expanding SR 125 and SR 52 to Santee without ensuring that connecting both those roadways to SR 67 first, due to increased traffic; This doesn't quite make sense. Have a go at improving the grammar.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...was finished at the beginning of 2001, with the segment north to Navajo Road to open later that year... This is a long rambling sentence, and is a single sentence paragraph. Suggest "...was finished at the beginning of 2001. The segment north to Navajo Road was due to open later that year..."
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * South Bay Expressway
 * more than one high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction on I-805 so reduce competition Should that be "to reduce"?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 07:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * CTV spent $14 million on Little League fields, parks, and trails due to the construction of the road. Was this spent on creating new facilities, or improving existing ones? Please clarify.
 * Reworded. --Rschen7754 23:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The environmental concerns that were resolved by the developer for $3.07 million and an agreement to work outside breeding times for the endangered species involved in May of that year; This doesn't quite make sense. Try reworking it.
 * Removed extra "that". --Rschen7754 23:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some community groups also opposed the project. Suggest removing "also", as nothing similar precedes it.
 * Moved to a different paragraph. --Rschen7754 23:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Bankruptcy
 * however, the toll machines resulted in complaints due to the low height and needing exact change. Does not read well. Suggest "however, complains were made about the toll machines, due to their low height, and the fact that they only accepted the exact amount of the toll." or somesuch.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In late 2009, the resulting South Bay Expressway partnership "resulting" is inappropriate here, and should be removed.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The EBITDA for the fiscal year... This is too technical for a road article. Suggest "The gross earnings (EBITDA) for the fiscal year..." or somesuch.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Objections raised to the purchase during the negotiation phase included a loan from the federal government of $1.5 million to complete the purchase This reads like the loan objected. Try expanding a little to make better sense.
 * Added the missing word. --Rschen7754 05:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SANDAG claimed at the time that they would reduce the tolls ... The San Diego Union-Tribune criticized the decision ... to increase tolls. This needs linking together better. Suggest "However, when they raised tolls instead of decreasing them, they were criticized by the San Diego Union-Tribune..." for the second half.
 * Reworded. --Rschen7754 05:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Due to toll reductions in 2012 that were 25 to 40 percent less than their privately owned amounts, Doesn't read well. Suggest "that were 25 to 40 percent less than when the road was privately owned,".
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was estimated that the road would be fully paid off in 2014. Since we are now in 2017, do we know if it has actually been paid off?
 * This should actually have been 2042. Now fixed. --Rschen7754 00:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tolls

 * The first paragraph is a single sentence. Can the first two paragraphs be linked together?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 02:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Future
 * ok

I will move on to reviewing the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead serves to introduce and summarise the main points of the article. It feels a little sparse, considering the length of the article, but lead length is a bit of a magic art, rather than a precise science. However, I think it should at least mention some of the environmental issues surrounding the construction of the South Bay Expressway, as they are quite prominent in the article, but are not mentioned at all in the lead.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 18:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I have now completed the review. Do let me know if there is anything you do not understand. I am putting the article on hold. If you need more than 7 days to fix it, just let me know. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All done, and thanks for pointing out the continuity issues (I wrote this article in small bits over a period of 18 months, which led to a lot of the oddities). --Rschen7754 05:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that all of the issues have been addressed, and am therefore pleased to award the article GA status. Congratulations. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)