Talk:California State Route 54/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

 I will place the article on hold for fixes to be made.  Dough 48  72  02:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Should probably mention in the first sentence of the lead that the route is in California.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 18:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Environmental concerns stalled the extension of the freeway west to I-5, due to the combination of building a flood channel for the Sweetwater River with the extension." sounds confusing and needs to be reworded.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 18:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Both sides join near the junction with I-805 and continue east for several miles through Paradise Hills in San Diego" sounds weird, maybe change to "the freeway continues east for several miles".
 * Done. --Rschen7754 18:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125 north, and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa.", should probably indicate "it" is referring to SR 54.
 * Well, it's not referring to SR 54... --Rschen7754 18:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Two years later, county officials expressed concerns over the delay of getting state and federal approval, and considered building the freeway without the flood control component of the project;[23] however, the county hoped to build both projects at the same time to save $4 million in costs, even though it was estimated to require three years' worth of legislation to be accomplished in a single year by the county board of supervisors [24] in order to use the Interstate Highway System funding that was set to expire in 1972." is long and should be split. Also, the citation in the middle of the sentence not after punctuation looks weird and should be moved to the end of the sentence.
 * Split sentence; see comment below as well. --Rschen7754 18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "But later that year, it was announced that the target date for completing the system would be extended until 1974, from 1972", I would suggest rewording the end of the sentence to "from 1972 to 1974".
 * Done. --Rschen7754 18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed some redundant wikilinks in the History section, you should only link the first time the term is mentioned.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 19:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "That year, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit[46] that halted construction on the project the next year", again, a citation that should be moved to after punctuation.
 * I don't see the problem with this, personally; it makes it more clear what facts came from what. --Rschen7754 05:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * There seems to be a disagreement between the infobox and the major intersections where the eastern terminus of SR 54 is. The infobox has the eastern terminus at the El Cajon city line while the major intersections has the eastern terminus at I-8. Is the eastern terminus supposed to be at the end of state maintenance or is it supposed to include the section that the state turned over to the city?
 * I think it's fine to have it the way it is; think of it like including "old" junctions that no longer are there. --Rschen7754 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most articles about routes that were truncated do not have the former junctions included, for example Pennsylvania Route 82.  Dough 48  72  16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, but then what about California State Route 1, where random portions have been relinquished, but the city is still required to keep reassurance shields up on the relinquished portion? --Rschen7754 17:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess comparing California to Pennsylvania is like comparing apples to oranges. Since it seems random parts of routes have been relinquished, they can remain in the junction list to provide continuity and to show the historical extent of the route when it was state maintained.  Dough 48  72  17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the major intersections, you mention a gap in SR 54 between SR 125 and SR 94, but in the route description seem to imply this county-maintained section is part of SR 54. You should probably make it more clear in the route description that the county-maintained section is not part of SR 54 (though it connects the two sections of route).
 * Hm. Well, it is and it isn't. The state law considers it as part of it, but it's not really maintained by the state, and there's plenty of pieces of route still in the CA state law that were never built. I guess I'm not really sure how to handle this. Thoughts? --Rschen7754 06:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In this part of the country, many state and even U.S. Routes have gaps in state maintenance where they are maintained by the county or local government. Generally, the are still signed as part of the route making the route continous still. It appears though that SR. 54 is not signed where it is not state maintained. I guess it is okay to mention the gap in the route description and the major intersections as the legal definition still considers it part of SR. 54, though not in signage and maintenance.  Dough 48  72  16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The route description is quite short and seems a little dry. Maybe you should add a general indication of the physical surroundings the route passes through (namely suburban development). Also, you can probably mention how many lanes wide Jamacha Road is and that it is an undivided road (as you mentioned in the lead).
 * Added some detail. --Rschen7754 19:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest moving the mention of the road being undivided to the beginning of the at-grade section.  Dough 48  72  19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 19:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * All done. --Rschen7754 19:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One more concern noted above.  Dough 48  72  19:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will now pass the article.  Dough 48  72  19:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)