Wikipedia:Peer review/California State Route 78/archive1

California State Route 78

 * This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This is a GA that I would like to take to FAC. Its ACR is currently dormant, and I would like to get some feedback before I take it to FAC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article reads very well. I have a few suggestions for improvement.


 * In the infobox, the level of precision for the total length of the highway invites doubt. The source document lists segments to the third place to the right of the decimal, but it's hard to imagine that realignment or something has never thrown this off a little here or there. If the total is accurate to within five feet (about 0.001 mile), no problem.
 * ✅ I had to switch it back to the 2 decimal number anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the routes such as State Route 78 (SR 78) are given with their full names and abbreviations on first reference, while others such as Route 86 are not. It would be good to be consistent throughout. You might look at other highway articles at WP:FA to see how other editors have handled this.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * U.S. 99 is linked three times in the short "Early history" section. Once would be enough.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Time-related terms like "today" and "recent" are ambiguous. The money conversions such as "(about $27 million today" would be more clear if "today" were changed to "as of 2008". The subhead "Recent events" might become "1999–" or "Since 1999" or something similar.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the "Construction" section is an orphan that could be merged with the paragraph above it. It's not clear why Jacob Dekema, whoever he might be, is mentioned. Perhaps the paragraph could be recast as follows: "In 1969, plans to extend the freeway portion of SR 78 east from the Broadway interchange through Escondido were abandoned for lack of funding." This sentence could then fit chronologically into the paragraph above it.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the "Future" section, you might link park and ride and culvert.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the "Construction" section, it would be good to explain or link "grade-separated" and "at grade".
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would liven up the prose a bit to replace some of the "there is" and "there are" constructions with something more forceful. For example, "As late as 1919, there was no road connecting Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78; one had to travel north through Calipatria to reach Blythe" could become "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley... ".
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "One" in the sentence above is a Manual of Style no-no. Perhaps this would do: "As late as 1919, no road connected Brawley with Glamis along the route of SR 78. Before that it was necessary to travel...".
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, Citation 36 is missing its publication date even though the date, April 2005, appears on the first page of the source document. It would be good to add isbns for the maps if you have them or can find them. Just add |isbn = to the template, filling in the isbn after the equals sign.
 * ✅ except for ISBN - citemap doesn't support them, and FAC doesn't seem to think them important. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the explanatory note for the "Major intersections" table could say what the prefix letters R, T, and N stand for.
 * Already explained in the Postmile article; there's a table that defines the prefixes. --Mgillfr (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, preferably one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Much thanks for the review. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)