Talk:California State Route 37/GA1

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

As the article currently stands, it does not meet the GA criteria: there are citation needed tags all over it, it references a SPS, and it does not have very much on the actual construction of the road, failing the "broad" criterion. Unfortunately it will need a major rewrite. Therefore, if there is no attempt made to resolve the issues within 1 week I will be reluctantly delisting the article. --Rschen7754 07:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There really isn't much information available online relating the early construction of the road, only that it existed as a toll road before being taken over by the state, and a sale listing for an ad brochure for the road published around the 1920s. I'm not sure that item would fit WP:V as a third party source. I will need to look through centry-old newspaper archives to find information and that will take some time; but if no information is found, how should we go with this? I don't want to just say the article cannot be GA'd because there was no early media coverage on the road, something out of WP's control. As for fact tags, it seems that multiple paragraphs are cited to one source, which makes it look like full paragraphs are uncited. I'll have to fix those citations, and completely remove the trivial "cars backing up" passage altogether. There shouldn't be a problem with replacing the SRS with another source. Please hold deciding until May so I can get these issues situated. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 07:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the law is a good start; you can look at cahighways.org to see when the law changes were. You can't cite that website, but it tells you what the chapter and year are so you can cite those. It's also possible to look at maps and estimate when the changes were - WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/Map database may be helpful, as may be some of the sources on the WP:CASH page. Newspaper databases are really the best bet as those provide why the road was built and other things that the above two wouldn't provide; if you're thinking of taking this back up to ACR/FAC you'll probably need to do that. But the law and maps are probably enough to retain GA status, barely.


 * I'm happy to leave this on hold as long as changes are being made. I'm doing a nationwide audit right now, so I'm checking all our GAs to make sure they're up to standards. --Rschen7754 07:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on what I understand the article fails GA based on the following:


 * Criteria #2: It includes SPSes and uncited passages.
 * ✅ The SPS source is no longer linked in the article, and all uncited passages were removed because they were redundant to an earlier section.
 * Criteria #3: Because it does not mention the original construction of the roads that comprise this route, it is not broad enough.
 * I dispute this. The vast majority of the article deals with the road being constructed as a modern highway starting from the time Caltrans took control of it. There are barely any sources relating to to roads before, other than Caltrans stating that it was known as the "Sears Point Toll Road". When this article achieved A-level status, it was written with the aim to be comprehensive in order to satisfy the FA criteria. The main aspects of the road are mentioned in the Route description section: where it is relatively located in the Bay Area, where it begins and ends, road names, classes, features, and notable locations along the route.
 * The article would not pass FA today with the early history of the road missing - for recent California road FAs you may want to look at California State Route 56 and California State Route 52, or California State Route 67 which is more analogous having existed back into the 19th century. I know it's hard to get stuff for California, but it is possible. As for GA, the article suffers from recentism - the first subsection starts with "The struggle to improve the portion of SR 37 between the Napa River Bridge and I-80 began in 1952, and lasted over 50 years.". Well, then how did the road come about? What about when the road actually entered the state highway system (it was well before 1964, that's for sure!) Unfortunately, this is C-class at best because there's too much missing from the history. --Rschen7754 09:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The article now broadly covers the history of the road from the year it was constructed (giving context through the 1915 Act and without repeating what is written in LRN 8). It also goes into moderate detail on the construction and acquisition of the Sears Point Toll Road. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 08:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a lot better now. If you can source the part with the citation needed tags I'll make a few tweaks and we can close this. --Rschen7754 08:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and close this as a keep - good work! It may need a bit more research if you're still interested in ACR/FAC, but it definitely meets the GA standard. --Rschen7754 09:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)