Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 101/archive1

U.S. Route 101

 * Nominator(s):  Sounder Bruce  03:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hugging the Pacific Ocean for most of its 1,500 miles, this highway is both a scenic route and an engineering marvel with dozens of grand bridges, including an orange suspension bridge that you may have heard of. This article on U.S. Route 101, also known as "the 101" in the Los Angeles area and the "Redwood Highway" or "Pacific Coast Highway" in more scenic areas, was overhauled last year and I've finished some recent tweaks that I believe bring it up to FA standards. It is a summary article with three sub-articles for each of the states it passes through, so some details are left to those instead.  Sounder Bruce  03:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.


 * Lede
 * U.S. Route 101, or U.S. Highway 101 (US 101), is a north–south United States Numbered Highway that traverses the states of California, Oregon, and Washington on the West Coast of the United States - i get that the article is at United States Numbered Highway System, but do we need to state "United States Numbered..."  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved to second sentence.
 * It travels for over 1,500 miles - well, the road itself doesn't travel.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed to "runs", which some editors object to but is also valid in American English.
 * major route in the United States Numbered Highway System - do we need to say the last part of this?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Numbering section explains why this is necessary, but I have shortened it.
 * So most of the lede is fine, but it seems to pretty much only talk about it's route. There's a solitary mention of the date of it being built, and there's no info on things I'd expect of travel - things like how much they are used.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTGUIDE, much of this has to be jettisoned.


 * Prose
 * For an FA, the article goes from a lede into a piece about how it's number isn't usual, but surely the name of the road isn't the most important thing about it. There doesn't seem to be anything outside of the lede that states what the article is about. The route description should come first  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Moved to between Route description and History sections.
 * Of these two-digit routes, the principal north–south routes were assigned numbers ending in 1.[5][6] US 101 is an exception to the three-digit rule due to its role as the westernmost major route;[7] it is treated as a primary, two-digit route with a "first digit" of 10, rather than a spur of US 1, which is located along the east coast. - I can't say I know what this means. Surely there's a better way to say it.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Without going into original research territory, I'm afraid there's not much else that can be explained here. It is as straightforward as I can make it: US 101 is treated as equivalent to a two-digit route [presumably because the country is too wide].
 * The table in route description isn't large, why is everything in acronyms? We could easily put the actual titles here.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The lengths table is consistent between national-level highway articles, such as Interstate 90 (which has far more entries). I have added abbreviation templates to help those unfamiliar with U.S. state abbreviations (which are very common ways to refer to states).
 * To me, the major intersections sections is completely unreadable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The simplified list is standard across all national highway articles in the United States, as also seen at Interstate 90. What exactly needs to be made more readable here?  Sounder Bruce  06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up this one for review. I have replied to your comments and will take a look at your nominations when I have a bit more time (between aurora-chasing and birthday-partying this weekend).  Sounder Bruce  06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to follow up and make sure that the ping went through.  Sounder Bruce  20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from Dylan620
I reviewed the GAN for this article and was very impressed—by the time my feedback was addressed, I felt that the article was quite close to meeting the FA criteria. I do have a concern regarding comprehensiveness. At the GAN, I brought up that one of the sources mentioned the "military value" of US 101; I note that there is still nothing in the article about this. Is there a way this could be incorporated? Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the source that discusses military value is focused on California, I believe it would be more appropriate to include it at U.S. Route 101 in California. It's been quite a long time since the older U.S. highways have been considered a key part of the defense network due to their relative obsolescence compared to the Interstate Highway System (which has Defense in their name).  Sounder Bruce  01:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I'm leaning toward supporting, but I'm going to take a closer look at the changes made since the GAN passed before I come to a decision. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 14:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I just looked over the updated article, and I like what I see. I am pleased that you have added alt text to each image/video and that archived URLs have been added for the refs. The added content is pertinent to the subject, and the prose modifications are improvements on the version that I reviewed for GAN. Happy to support. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 17:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Support from ZKang123
Looking over:
 * Just a bit of clarification - The Route 101 is generally a combination of various trunk roads and expressways from my understanding? No need to clarify in the article; just double checking.
 * Yes, as a non-Interstate it has plenty of two-lane undivided roads but also expands into a full-fledged freeway at several points.
 * I personally think the lead contains a bit too much information on the route description than the history, with only a brief mention of "US 101 was established in 1926".
 * Added a bit more history to the lead.
 * Also I'm unsure of the relevance of the sentences: "US 101 is a major north–south link along the Pacific coast north of San Francisco but does not serve the largest cities in Oregon and Washington; that role is instead filled by I-5, which has a more direct inland routing. The highway provides a major parallel route between Los Angeles and San Francisco, with significant freeway portions." Sounds like it might contravene WP:NOTGUIDE, and seems to be covered in the previous lead paragraphs.
 * Removed the second sentence, but the first is needed to explain why US 101 has not been converted into a full freeway.
 * For the paragraph in "Route description" beginning with "The highway is known by several names that vary between the states"
 * I think you can just split it into different sentences instead of the entire chunk being one. E.g. "The highway is known by several names that vary between the states. In California, portions of... In Oregon,..."
 * Split them all up.
 * I'm concerned that for the chunk "The highway follows the Pacific Ocean northwest from Ventura through Santa Barbara...", it doesn't seem to be cited in the NYT article ref 22.
 * Moved up the Google citation to support this part of the paragraph.
 * I think the road descriptions seem alright; I like the descriptive commentary and the style of prose. Personally I would add photos of the highway at the state crossings, if there are such photos.
 * For the Washington–Oregon border, there's nothing remarkable except for the bridge; for the California–Oregon border, there's an agricultural station and a few signs. I will see if I have photos of the latter.
 * "but a set of six ferry crossings remained that were operated by private companies until the state government acquired them in 1927." – "but six private-run ferry crossings remained until the state government's acquisition in 1927."
 * Rewrote these sentences to flow better.
 * "Other sections were realigned in the 1930s to avoid rugged terrain and use new tunnels as automobile traffic increased." – "As automobile traffic increased, other sections were realigned via tunnels in the 1930s to avoid rugged terrain."
 * Rewritten.
 * "at a cost of $25 million to construct" – "at a construction cost of $25 million"
 * Changed to "cost $25 million".
 * "at a cost of $11 million" – would prefer "for/at $11 million" since "at a cost of" is a bit redundant. Might consider for other similar cases.
 * Changed to "for".
 * "By 1936, US 101E had been eliminated" – I would have reworded it as "In 1936, US 101E was eliminated..."
 * The source does not give an exact year for when US 101E was eliminated, so I feel that using "by" is more appropriate.
 * "Portions of the highway in southwestern Oregon have also had" – I did a little trip reading this.
 * Fixed.
 * "add center bus lanes" – not sure if it's supposed to be "centered bus lanes". I know they are at the middle of the highway, but I'm unsure if it should be center or centered. Or another term be used.
 * "center bus lanes" is the common term here; the alternative is to use "median", but that implies freeway-like design.
 * "Sections of US 101 in Oregon have been rebuilt or relocated due to erosion or landslides that have damaged the highway." – remove "that have damaged the highway". I think it is obvious enough.
 * Keeping so that the reader doesn't infer that there were relocations done prior to landslides; in this case, most of the construction was reactionary.

That seems to be all from me for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have responded to all of your comments.  Sounder Bruce  06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Source review – pass
I will do a source review in a bit, after most prose comments have been addressed. I plan to do a spot-check on one of every five citations and comment on any formatting concerns.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Review as per this revision

Formatting issues:
 * An issue to speak of is the use of Google Maps (see WP:RSP for the consensus on GMaps) as a citation (ref 21) when describing the route. Perhaps just cite a geographically accurate map from another source, such as a transit authority or government agency, or even just a more geographically accurate map already on Wikimedia?
 * As Imzadi1979 mentions, there was no clear consensus against its use, as linked at RSP. It is being used to cite details that are not able to be shown in adequate resolution on the respective state maps or national atlases, which is common due to how large the United States is, and used in tandem with state maps. The Google Maps data is generally accurate due to its sources (which are listed in the dynamic view), as already mentioned. Frequently, county and city government maps (the likely alternative, in the dozens) may have errors or inaccuracies that Google does not due to its ability to update based on reviewers responding to feedback from the public or governments themselves; they also vary widely in quality based on the budgets given for GIS departments, which may range from dozens of people in an urban county or just one duty for a lone employee in a rural one.
 * I'm not partial about this, but why are some work/publisher wikilinked (refs 1, 8, 95) and others (ref 17 - Los Angeles Times and 111) not similarly linked? I would advice wikilinking for all cases (given no one "reads" the entire references section, so even if you can 100% always determine what is the "first" link, readers won't see it.), or at least in the first mention of each source (especially for Los Angeles Times - noticed it instead got initially referenced in ref 78). Again, however, I'm not so particular personally.
 * The LA Times link was misplaced due to the Numbering section being moved further down the article. I have also added a link to first use of the Chronicle, but don't see the issues with 95 and 111 that are being described.
 * The inset link for Ref 47 is dead
 * The insets seem to work fine for me, both with and without a VPN.
 * For Ref 51, I guess you got the actual page number of the actual newspaper it was published then?
 * Yes, as I originally saw the article in NewsBank but am unable to link directly to it without going through troublesome hoops.
 * Personally I find it a bit of an odd decision and not sure if it's standard to first show the full citation in an earlier ref (ref 48) then using sfn for subsequent references of other pages back to the report (ref 59); I thought reports or books are usually under a separate subsection and then use sfn from there. I was also a bit confused when I hovered over Gratreak et al. (2015) of Ref 50 and assumed having to refer to page 22 instead of page 20. Similarly for Husing refs 95, 96, 98.
 * This format is generally accepted in other FAs due to its simplicity; as this article doesn't have many reports or publications that are cited, a separate section would be overkill.
 * Just a quick query tho - why are some live refs also marked dead, like ref 90? I understand also providing archive links to bypass the paywalls, but some are still alive and well and don't need to be marked dead for now (like ref 87). For ref 1, it's also not helpful to link to the web archive version as the map doesn't work as well.
 * Not sure why the templates are defaulting to showing the archived link, but I have forced it to allow live links to stay as-is.
 * For ref 144 don't you mean page 3 and not B? Or is it B numbering per the original newspaper? Noticed similarly for ref 70 which said p58 per newspapers.com instead of V18
 * Some newspapers of the era had "second front pages" or image pages that would have lettered pages rather than numbers, so B is indeed the page number for 144. For the second, the printed page number is V-18; Newspapers.com is rarely accurate with their page numbers, which are counted based on the microfilm reel and thus won't count skipped numbers, page sections, or a variety of other things that are common to find in old scans. For example, some newspapers have multiple daily editions that have been uploaded but redundant pages are omitted to prevent index pollution; as a result, sometimes a page A18 can be labeled "page 2" if the first 17 have been skipped.
 * Also not exactly part of source review, but is it possible to shift the lengths table to the right instead?
 * It's part of the template and seems to be meant to prevent it from pushing down images in the Route description table; sandwiching isn't a big deal due to how narrow the table is on most screen sizes.
 * All refs are to local news sources or government agencies. Not many other issues on their reliability etc


 * I understand the clarifications, especially for the use of Google Maps. No other issues with the formatting then. I will continue my spotchecks some time during the week.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecks: Will check the remainder over the next few days.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1, 6, 11, 16, 26, 31, 36, 51, 56, 61, 66, 71, 76 check out
 * 16 doesn't directly reference the highway, but the highways part of the route
 * 21 – see formatting issues comment
 * 31 supports the tolled part, 32 for the location of the bridge
 * 41 doesn't mention the South Fork Eel River, but supports statement for running parallel to the Avenue of the Giants
 * 46 archived URL throws up an error: This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. I can AGF that the ref supports this statement nevertheless
 * Unfortunately, all Gannett newspaper websites have been broken on the Wayback Machine.
 * 56: I think it's best to change the archive URL to the archive today link because the web archive link doesn't work as well.
 * Per WP:LINKVIO, I don't think we should be linking directly to archives that bypass paywalls.


 * @ZKang123: I just wanted to drop a note that there is no consensus on Google Maps. (See WP:GOOGLEMAPS for the specifics.) In this article, I should note that SounderBruce has linked to the satellite layer in Google Maps, which uses imagery from NASA and several other sources, and not just Google's cartography. A best practice would be to pair that citation with the appropriate official state department of transportation paper map, but that should not impair the usage of the citation alone.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Responded above. Thanks for the source review.  Sounder Bruce  01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecks continued still with this version:
 * 81, 86, 91, 96, 101, 106, 111, 116, 121, 126, 131, 141, 156, 161, 166, 171, 176 checks out
 * 86 doesn't exactly mention the El Camino Real, but 87 does.
 * I assume that red highlighted coastal route from San Diego to San Francisco is the 101 in Ref 91.
 * 121 doesn't mention the act but 122 does.
 * 136 doesn't support "as I-5 had replaced the stretch to San Diego"
 * Using another source to support that statement.
 * 146 is an offline source. I shall assume AGF. 147 checks out.
 * 151 is offline. Is it possible to share a screenshot of the excerpt?
 * This link to NewsBank should work temporarily; I cannot generate a stable link that can be used in the article, however.
 * 161 supports on the traffic congestion problem. I suppose the article's express lanes refers to the HOVs.
 * "A similar widening east of Santa Barbara began construction in 2008" But in ref 181 it says 2005. Unless this is a different or more general widening work.
 * Replaced these sources to be more clear; it seems the 2005 date is for when the interviewed person joined the planning team.  Sounder Bruce  06:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Finished source review.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok everything checks out. Pass.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Generalissima

 * File:Highway 101 at night in Los Angeles.jpg is a properly licensed, own work image. Clearly suitable to the article. Properly captioned and alt-text is provided.


 * File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Marshall’s Beach, March 2018.jpg. License, suitability, caption, and alt-text all check out. It is left-aligned which is slightly cautioned against (but not explicitly opposed) by MOS:IMAGELOC. However, since it is not in danger of sandwiching anything, I think it's okay here.


 * File:Beach north of Cape Sebastian.jpg. Properly licensed, suitable, good caption and alt-text.


 * File:US 101 northbound approaching downtown Aberdeen, WA.jpg. I am now fascinated about the logistics on how this image was taken. Relevant, well-captioned, and has alt-text.


 * File:U.S. Route 101 flight over Elwha.webm Ooh, a video! License, suitability, and caption check out. It doesn't appear to have alt-text, which I think would be good to add (even though, strictly speaking, MoS does not require videos to have alt-text). Also, it's left-aligned, and close enough to the prior image to cause sandwiching issues on some wider monitors running the vector skin. I'd move it to the right.


 * File:101 Solana Beach.jpg. License, caption, suitability and alt-text check out.


 * File:HUMBUG MOUNTAIN - NARA - 520143.jpg. Ditto.


 * File:Hyde Street Pier - San Francisco (5765732935).jpg. Ditto.


 * File:Astoria - Megler Bridge in 2009.jpg. Ditto.


 * File:Oregon Coast Highway Washout.jpg. Ditto.


 * Seems like there's just the video to slightly fix here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The video has been moved to the right. I had already included ALT text for the video file, but it seems to not be supported; I think it would be fine to keep it there just in case it can be used in the future.  Sounder Bruce  02:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. Well, Support on image review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

 * Is a page range available for Bearss? Similarly for cite 44.
 * Found a copy of the same Bearss document in the Internet Archive with page numbers; for citation 44, I plan to drive down to the university library and look at their copy in the next few days.
 * References: article titles should be in a consistent case - sentence or title - regardless of how they appear in their original.
 * Converted all that I could see on a few sweeps.
 * Caption: "A washed-out section of US 101 near Newport, Oregon". Could when the photo was taken be mentioned? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Year added. Thanks for the comments, .  Sounder Bruce  22:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)