Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 52

California State Route 52

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review passed with three net support votes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: On March 19, 2011 I was at the opening of the final stretch of this highway, which took over fifty years to build. I have taken the time to complete the research for a road nearby where I lived for the last four years, and I believe that it can go to FAC.


 * Note: this article is unique compared to a lot of our FAs/GAs in that it cites no maps for the history and relies almost entirely on newspaper articles. I've never done an article like this before; if reviewers could give feedback on this and on the level of detail, that would be helpful.


 * Nominated by: Rschen7754 03:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 03:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I intend on reviewing this article in the next few days. –Fredddie™ 03:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * 1) No opening date? No construction timeframe?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 04:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I could do without the construction dates in the infobox. Maybe we can work in some sort of summary/chart in the history section. –Fredddie™ 16:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose? That seems nonstandard. --Rschen7754 08:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a map showing the phases of construction in a different color? –Fredddie™ 16:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can work on that later today. --Rschen7754 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ and infobox parameter removed. --Rschen7754 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * 1) Each sentence seems to have "SR 52" as the subject. Well, yes, this is about SR 52, but a little variance would be nice.
 * 2) "through the northern part of the city of San Diego." Could we shorten that to "through northern San Diego"?
 * That could be misinterpreted; northern San Diego could mean North County San Diego. --Rschen7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Passes is used in quick succession.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I think "It took over fifty years for SR 52 to be built, ..." would be better served lower in the paragraph, but I'm not sure where. Start out the second paragraph with "Plans for a route between La Jolla and Santee date back to 1959."
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "With the" used in quick succession.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the bird still endangered? Maybe change it to "over the endangered Least Bell's Vireo songbird, which faced habitat destruction, ..."
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "The road to Mission Gorge Road opened in 1993, ..." sounds like it's a connector road from SR 52 to Mission Gorge.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to come –Fredddie™ 03:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All addressed. --Rschen7754 05:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Route description
 * 1) "...as the La Jolla Parkway"?
 * See below. --Rschen7754 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The next sentence, "The road becomes a freeway as it intersects with I-5 before entering San Clemente Canyon, designated as Marian Bear Memorial Natural Park.[2]" seems oddly constructed. I don't like the dependent clause tacked onto the back.  Let's rearrange it and make the clause a new sentence.  How does this sound?  "Before entering San Clemente Canyon, the road becomes a freeway as it intersects with I-5.  The canyon is designated as Marian Bear Natural Park.[2]"
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) *Not an issue, but is it bad that any time I see a number, 90 million years in this case, I want to use ? :)
 * 2) In the lead, you should probably define the abbreviation to the marine base. I had to look it up.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the recycling center relevant to the highway? I'm not asking for it to be removed, just curious.
 * It's pretty significant; only point of interest in that area, and relates to the history. At some point, there were actually offramps right to the landfill from the freeway, but I wasn't able to source that well enough. --Rschen7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You mention the age of rocks a lot. Are they visible from the highway?
 * Eastern part, yes, the road is carved out of them. Middle part: ✅ Western part, the article does not say. --Rschen7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "...traveling through open areas in MCAS Miramar until past I-15.[2]" I'm not entirely sure you need this part of the sentence since you start the next paragraph with roughly the same thing.
 * 2) Do you have the elevation of Fortuna Mountain?
 * Not sure where I would get that information sourced reliably; I believe it's on the sign though. --Rschen7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Have you ever seen a bike path that wasn't bi-directional? That detail seems silly here.
 * Not necessarily; bike lanes might not be bi-directional, and there could be two paths, one on each side of the freeway. --Rschen7754 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't like interchange as a verb here. Traffic can interchange, but roads cannot.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Didn't you say SR 52 was the La Jolla Parkway in the first sentence? Why isn't it included at the end?
 * It's actually not; clarified first sentence. --Rschen7754 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

More to come. –Fredddie™ 16:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All done. --Rschen7754 19:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What about #6? –Fredddie™ 20:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, rushing to get out the door this morning. Done now. --Rschen7754 08:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, again. --Rschen7754 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

7754''' 03:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * History
 * 1) I know you prefer "constructed" to "built" and other verbs, but you used  36 times and   11 times in the history section alone.  Thesaurus time!
 * Yes, but it's a 2548 word history section; both of those combined make up about 2% of the history. Changed one of the constructed to built. If you can point to specific places where one word is overused, I'll fix it, but otherwise I don't see a problem. --Rschen7754 09:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "A ramp from I-5 southbound to Ardath Road westbound..." Southbound and westbound are adjectives, so they should come before their nouns.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) In that sentence, instead of calling it "a cliff" you should mention that Ardath Road was considerably higher than I-5 and cite it to a topography map.
 * 2) "The San Clemente Canyon Road was completed in 1967, ..." were you going to say something else but changed your mind? "The" seems out of place.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The sentence about the dirt dumping should be revised so it reads like the dumping took place first and then were ordered to remove it later.
 * ✅ but it sounds a bit awkward, and "dumped dirt" too colloquial. --Rschen7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Was I-805 actually dedicated on March 20, 1972, or just scheduled?
 * Scheduled. Unfortunately, March 20 falls into a gap in the newspaper archives. --'''Rschen
 * Iowa DOT had a brochure for the 40th and 50th anniversaries of the Interstate that listed all the dates the 10 routes here were opened. I was hoping Caltrans had something similar, but if they do, it's not online.  All but one of the hits for "I-805 March 20, 1972" are enwp or AARoads. –Fredddie™ 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Did you surround the inflation numbers with ? I ask because "about $25000 today" has no number separator.
 * Yes, but I'm not familiar with how to fix it. --Rschen7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Turns out we needed the parser function instead.  Fixed it myself. –Fredddie™ 04:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think "The second phase of SR 52 from I-805 to 1.1 miles (1.8 km) past I-15 (then U.S. Route 395)..." would sound better if I-15 and US 395 were flipped?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You should also mention when it became I-15. Maybe not an exact date, but a mention in transition can't hurt.
 * ✅ Cited when it legally switched over; further details are for the I-15 CA article. --Rschen7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "The governor at the time, Jerry Brown, ..." talking about Governors Deukmejian and Brown in close proximity like that sounds kind of like both were governor at the same time.  Just asking for a little more clarity here.  Maybe mention what year it was in the sentence I quoted.
 * Changed; what makes it more odd is that Jerry Brown came back to be the governor. --Rschen7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not familiar with the MTS or SANDAG acronyms, shouldn't you define them first? Yes, I know I could just click the wikilinks.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "As the highway was constructed on top of the Miramar Landfill, trash settling results in dips in the freeway, such as one in May 2007 that raised safety concerns. After a story on May 9, 2007 in The San Diego Union-Tribune generated complaints to Caltrans, the dip was repaired overnight.[39][40]"
 * I would revise this by introducing the dips with the newspaper article. Then mention it was built over a landfill, and subsequently fixed by Caltrans.  I started doing it, but I couldn't get wording I liked.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 07:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Went back and fixed a tense. –Fredddie™ 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "By April 1985, a second route along Prospect Avenue was proposed by Caltrans, and earned the support of the City Council.[43]" You could change it to "By April 1985, a second route along Prospect Avenue proposed by Caltrans earned the support of City Council.[43]"  It changes the action from proposing the route to earning support, which I think is the more relevant action since you're talking about the city of Santee in this paragraph.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not sure you need to use the definite article every time you mention City Council.
 * Cleaned up a few references. --Rschen7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) However, if you talk about cities as corporate entities, they should be City of Santee (for example).
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "Residents" instead of "citizens" of Santee?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 08:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Shouldn't the L in "least Bell's Vireo" be capitalized?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Shouldn't the picture be moved down closer to where you talk about the birds?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "SANDAG voted against building a full bicycle lane along the route in July 1989, citing the high costs.[70]" This seems out of place. Is there a better spot for it?
 * 2) Same with the military building a fence. Odd juxtapositions.
 * With both of those, I've organized the history geographically, so that is the most logical place (same with the widening earlier). --Rschen7754 06:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) How did El Niño delay, well, I'm not sure what it delayed?
 * Clarified. --Rschen7754 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Mobile homes are just that. Did you mean to say "sixty were occupied by mobile homes"?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You should inflate the $525 million figure.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 03:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Undone, apparently it's the same due to rounding. --Rschen7754 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Future
 * 1) Something is not quite right with this paragraph, but I can't figure it out. Maybe someone else will find something.


 * Exit list
 * 1) Are we waiting for CALNEXUS to give us mileposts from SR 125 to SR 67?
 * Yes; I checked on the latest edition, which came out since they opened it, and still nothing. Sigh... --Rschen7754 02:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, this should complete my review. Nice work. –Fredddie™ 02:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All done, or replied to. --Rschen7754 09:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We still need to find out for sure if that March 20, 1972, date is official. But since we're at the mercy of our sources, I'm not going to hold up the review for that.  I'll support. –Fredddie™ 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Hidden|titlestyle = background-color: #777777; color:white;|contentstyle = border:1px Blue solid;|header=Resolved issues from  Dough 48  72  23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)|content=

Comments from Dough4872
I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for ACR: }}
 * 1) Why is San Diego not linked in the infobox but Santee is?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "in the US state of California in San Diego County", suggest reordering.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "and the San Clemente Canyon Road serving as an early predecessor", what is this supposed to mean?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The sentence "The extension to Mission Gorge Road opened in 1993, and opened all the way to SR 125 in 1998." could use rewording. I would suggest changing one of the instances of "opened".
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) There seem to be a lot of instances of "SR 52" in the route description. Can some of them be changed?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "California senators Pete Wilson and Alan Cranston", are these state senators or U.S. senators?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "$2,000 (about $4.04 thousand today)" is there a better way for the conversion? $4.04 thousand sounds awkward.
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "$23 million (about $32.2 million today) was allocated by SANDAG in 1999 to purchase properties needed for the right of way." is there a way to not begin the sentence with a numeral?
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) " Over 360 properties had to be acquired in order for the freeway to be built; at least sixty properties were occupied by mobile homes" inconsistent way of writing numbers. I would recommend changing the sixty to 60.  Dough  48  72  23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The article looks good now.  Dough 48  72  23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I intend to review this article starting in the next few days.  V C  18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize it took me way more than a few days to get this review going. I will start with the infobox, Lead, and Route description.  V C  01:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * I think it would look cleaner to put the two freeway names on separate lines rather than separated with a comma.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 05:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * I see a lot of comma issues. I will come back to those when I do my final sweep.
 * Adjusted a few, but everything looks good to me... --Rschen7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would clarify that La Jolla is a section of the city of San Diego, not a separate municipality.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Construction began in 1966 with the I-5 interchange to La Jolla, and the construction of the San Clemente Canyon Road." Change "with" to "from"; also, try to avoid using "construction" twice in the same sentence.
 * Adjusted. --Rschen7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The freeway was complete all the way to I-805 in 1970" The term "all the way" suggests a long distance instead of 3 1/2 miles. I would replace it with "east", which also helps orient the reader.
 * Adjusted. --Rschen7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The extension to Mission Gorge Road opened in 1993, and completed all the way to SR 125 in 1998." The second clause of this sentence lacks a subject.
 * Adjusted wording. --Rschen7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what the subject of the second "was," in the part about SR 125, is. The only subject in the sentence is "the extension to Mission Gorge Road."  V C  04:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Rschen7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "over fifty years after construction began" Replace "over" with "more"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 07:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have more comments once I review the History section and check whether the Lead adequately summarizes the history.


 * Route description
 * I really like the geology/physical geography details. However, I think you should compile those details into a paragraph instead of having sporadic sentences. You will still need to have sporadic mentions of the geology for locations you can see stuff from the freeway, but an overarching paragraph would be more coherent for grouping the general details for the reader.
 * I'm not exactly sold on this, since this would not group all the geology/physical geography details together because of the roadside landmarks. --Rschen7754
 * Fair enough. There is not as much material as I initially thought there was, so it may be better as is.  V C  04:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "intersects with I-5" remove "with"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The freeway is just north of" Change to "the freeway runs just north of" or some similar action verb.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Rose Canyon Fault that forms Mount Soledad" I do not think this sentence is geologically correct.
 * Fixed. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Late Cretaceous rock that is estimated at 90 million years old." Replace "at" with "to be"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "SR 52 intersects SR 163, a freeway heading towards downtown San Diego." SR 163 heads both north and south from SR 52. The sentence implies the freeway only heads in one direction. I understand there is no access from SR 52 to northbound SR 163, but you should explain the interchange better.
 * Well, just north of there is the terminus with I-15, so it would be redundant. ~-Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not crazy about it, but I cannot think of a better way to phrase it.  V C  16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "SR 52 has an exit with Kearny Villa Road" Change "exit" to "interchange" or "junction" or something like that. There is another problematic use of "exit" later with regards to Santo Road.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "...Pliocene sedimentary rocks that are estimated to be 10 million years old, visible from the freeway." I would adjust this to say "...Pliocene sedimentary rocks estimated to be 10 million years old that are visible from the freeway." Also, this sentence should not be in the middle of the paragraph because SR 163, Kearny Villa, and I-15 interchanges are intertwined; you should mention the intertwining.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above is done, but I noticed "traveling through open areas in MCAS Miramar" after the I-15 reference. That sounds awkward to me. Would you be able to combine it with the earlier Miramar reference?  V C  16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reordered the sentence. --Rschen7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think the phrase is not appropriate, even though you removed the -ing construction. The freeway is in the middle of a set of interchanges here; the open area to which I think you are referring is east of the I-15 interchange or west of SR 163. I suggest removing the Miramar clause from the sentence entirely. Can you do that without losing anything important in the description?  V C  18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "with an exit to Santo Road" The use of "with" implies the interchange is an afterthought. I would change "with" to "where the highway has" or "where there is"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The freeway crosses the San Diego River and has an interchange with Mast Boulevard" One, these details are in the wrong order. Two, you make a passing reference to Mast Boulevard in the previous paragraph. I would make the full reference there and use a passing reference in the fourth paragraph, such as "East of Mast Boulevard, SR 52 crosses and begins to parallel the San Diego River."
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "SR 52 intersects with the northern end of SR 125, where traffic can continue south onto SR 125 or north onto Mission Gorge Road." This sentence is confusing. There are no ramps from SR 52 to northbound SR 125 to access SR 125's stub end at Mission Gorge Road. Rather, access from SR 52 to Mission Gorge Road is via half-diamond interchanges on either side of the SR 125 interchange, the second one indirectly via Fanita Drive.
 * Adjusted. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is still an "intersects with" in the selection. Also, there is "where SR 125 traffic can continue south onto SR 125". You should include Fanita Drive in this part of the RD because its interchange with SR 52 allows the freeway to access Mission Gorge Road.  V C  16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmph, not sure how I pulled that one off. Tried again. --Rschen7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would still bring Fanita Drive into the passage, but I am satisfied with how it is now.  V C  18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The fourth paragraph and fifth paragraphs are rather short. I would try to merge the fourth with the previous paragraph. I understand it would be hard to merge the fifth somewhere that makes sense.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

All done. --Rschen7754 08:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Diff is here: --Rschen7754 08:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope to address your replies above later tonight. In the meantime, I started reviewing the History.  V C  22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Addressed remaining comments. There are a few concerns remaining.  V C  16:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed remaining issues. Not sure if you wanted to do this separately or with the stuff below, but here's the diff: --Rschen7754 09:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing and we are done with the Route description.  V C  18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Route description fixes are done.  V C  04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * History
 * "However, SR 52 took over fifty years" Change "over" to "more than"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I-5 to I-805
 * "However, the ramps to San Clemente Canyon Road were not opened that day since aluminum guardrails" Change "since" to "because"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still see "since."  V C  20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that seems to be where my wifi crapped out and I closed the browser before saving. Done now. --Rschen7754 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Estimates indicated that residents of La Jolla would save 80 hours a year by using Ardath Road. A ramp from southbound I-5 to westbound Ardath Road was never completed because of a hairpin turn that would be necessary due to the towering cliff on the west side of I-5 that Ardath Road ascends as it continues to La Jolla.[18][19][20]" One, who estimated the time savings? Two, the second sentence sounds like synthesis. Did one of the two newspaper articles state why the ramp was never built? Three, ref 20 is a map reference, so it would not apply to the first sentence. Please be more specific in your citations at the ends of these two sentences.
 * Source didn't say who gave the estimate. Shuffled some of the cites around, and removed 18 entirely as it wasn't necessary. --Rschen7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "On November 18, San Clemente Canyon Road was connected to I-5 when the aluminum guard rails arrived." You may want to add "installed" or similar after "arrived." Someone at FAC might be picky.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It took some thinking for me to figure out that San Clemente Canyon Road was the precursor to the freeway. It is not clear from the History whether the road predates the designation of the legislative route or whether it was built at that time. Was it a two-lane road? Please integrate these missing details into the part before you describe its upgrade to a freeway.
 * Moved a sentence. I tried doing a separate search on this and came up with little. --Rschen7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Prior to current ref 18, "The original goal was to connect the interchange with San Clemente Canyon Road, which served as a predecessor to SR 52 and and plans were to widen the road to four lanes and designate it as SR 52." This is a run-on sentence and it has a double "and."  V C  20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Rschen7754 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 1967, there was opposition expressed to the construction of the Soledad Freeway, because some citizens wanted the land to be used for a park, and because they did not view the freeway as "necessary"." One, who expressed opposition to the freeway? Two, whenever a quote ends a sentence, the end quotation mark should be outside the period.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "That year, citizens opposition expressed" It looks words like are in the wrong order.  V C  20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Rschen7754 23:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Formal bids began in February 1969 for the first section of SR 52 in between I-5 and I-805." The word "in" is not necessary prior to "between."
 * Done. --Rschen7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason the dollar sign is wikilinked?
 * Removed. --Rschen7754 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no references for the 2012 inflation figures in this section and in later sections.
 * FAC hasn't complained about it with CA 56, and it's considerably messy to have a cite that is unnecessary when it's assumed that it is calculated off the template. --Rschen7754 23:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Hopefully this will not be an issue at FAC.  V C  20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I-805 to Santo Road
 * "however, construction did not begin for over ten years" in the first paragraph and "over 99 percent" in the third paragraph: Change "over" to "more than"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "On June 30, 1988, at 5:58 pm local time" The exact time seems like an unnecessary detail. Did anything extraordinary happen at or before that time? Like, the San Diego Chicken breaking through a wall or something crazy like that?
 * I don't think it's overkill, personally. --Rschen7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is overkill in the absence of any event that specifically occurred at that exact time or something that explains the timing.  V C  20:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Rschen7754 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "A story on May 9, 2007 in The San Diego Union-Tribune generated complaints to Caltrans regarding dips in the freeway that raised safety concerns. As the highway was constructed on top of the Miramar Landfill, settling trash resulted in the dips. Following publication, the dip was repaired overnight."
 * I was skeptical, but you have the newspaper editions to back this up! The first and second sentences sounds awkward for causation reasons. The first sentence implies the dips raised safety concerns; it was the complainers (was it the newspaper staff or readers who wrote in?) who raised the concerns. The second sentence implies the settling trash caused the dips. I suggest: "In a story on May 9, 2007, The San Diego Union-Tribune raised safety concerns regardings dips in the freeway where it had been constructed on top of the Miramar Landfill. The dips, which were caused by settling trash, were repaired overnight by Caltrans."
 * Reworded. --Rschen7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Planning for eastern portion
 * Inflation dollar values need to be referenced throughout this section.
 * See comment above. --Rschen7754 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "By April 1985, a second route along Prospect Avenue, proposed by Caltrans, earned the support of the City Council;[45] however, there were concerns about the route requiring the demolition of many small businesses." There were concerns by whom?
 * Rewrote sentence. --Rschen7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "In January 1987, the Santee City Council voted to commence a study of a more northern route, even though some believed that this would postpone construction." Who were these "some"?
 * Added. --Rschen7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "In the same month, the mayor of La Mesa, Fred Nagel, started a petition drive supporting the extension of the freeway." La Mesa is not along the route of the freeway. Do you have any details on why Nagel supported the freeway through a neighboring city?
 * Done. --Rschen7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In June, the CTC staff..." I suggest putting the year after the month because this is a new paragraph and it may be helpful to remind the reader that we are still in 1987. Same goes for the beginning of the fourth paragraph.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "...regarding the San Diego River crossing, since construction might result..." Change "since" to "because" and remove the comma.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Other proposed routes considered by Caltrans included passing through a local golf course, which generated public opposition." Do you know the number of other proposed routes? Is this the golf course, Carlton Oaks, that is on the opposite side of the river from the built freeway?
 * Added additional article and material. --Rschen7754 09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "There were concerns that the issue would affect the city council elections." Who had these concerns?
 * Added. --Rschen7754 10:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "In March 1989, the Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to the project, on the conditions of altering the route to be east of the center of the town" The orientation is confusing. The freeway passes to the south of the center of Santee, right?
 * Clarified. --Rschen7754 10:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still confused by "to cross the San Diego River east of the center of town." Does SR 53 cross the San Diego River at a place other than southeast of Mast Boulevard?  V C  04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified again, not exactly. Any more and I'd be plagiarizing the source. --Rschen7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence still does not make sense to me based on looking at a map, but I am not sure what to do. I will let FAC deal with it.  V C  18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Santo Road to Mission Gorge Road
 * "The military erected a fence in 2002 to block a deer tunnel underneath the freeway that led into the Marine base." Where was this tunnel located?
 * Added a little, but the source wasn't too clear, and probably wasn't too clear due to WP:BEANS. --Rschen7754 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood regarding the beans. "Mission Trains Regional Park" sounds like an interesting place.  V C  04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify the exact endpoint of this new section? Did it end at the half-diamond interchange with Mission Gorge Road or some point to the west?
 * Done, still need to add page/section numbers for new source. --Rschen7754 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. --Rschen7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The new lane was opened on May 8, 2007" The word "was" is unnecessary.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mission Gorge Road to SR 67
 * "with many homeowners along the south side of Mission Gorge Road being forced to move out of the way of the freeway construction." Do you mean the north side of Mission Gorge Road?
 * Clarified; it is south. --Rschen7754 00:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Twenty-three million dollars (about $32.2 million in 2012 dollars) was allocated by SANDAG" Passive voice. Changing to active voice also eliminates needing to spell out the cost.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The work began in May 2006, but increasing construction costs were another challenge faced in 2007." Is this the work on Forester Creek? Clarify. Do the increasing costs refer to the creek work or highway work? These should be separate sentences if they are not related, or combine the second clause with the last sentence of the paragraph.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "taking money from a planned reversible lanes project on SR 52." Do you know for which stretch of SR 52 the project was planned?
 * Future section explains this, but the source I found for this particular point doesn't specifically link the two. --Rschen7754 07:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Heavy construction" of SR 52 from SR 125 eastward to SR 67 began in February 2008, delayed by funding issues that were finally resolved in 2006 with voter-approved statewide transportation bonds." This reverse chronology is confusing. Can you rewrite the sentence to be forward chronological. It may be helpful to combine the budget woes of this sentence with those of the last two sentences of previous paragraph to make it flow forward chronologically.
 * Fixed. --Rschen7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Over 360 properties" Change "over" to "More than"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The official "ribbon cutting" ceremony took place on March 19, 2011 on the freeway at the Cuyamaca Street interchange (exit 17)." You should remove (exit 17) for consistency because you do not use exit numbers anywhere else in the prose.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the last paragraph, were there any reports on how traffic was impacted on I-8? You mention I-8 in the previous paragraph and follow up on all relevant routes except I-8.
 * Did a check just now, and no. AADT doesn't have 2012 up yet, which would be the relevant date. --Rschen7754 10:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have finished reviewing the History section.  V C  21:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. It's the end of the quarter for me, so it might take me up to a week to get to this. --Rschen7754 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All done. Diff (includes lead/RD changes round 2): --Rschen7754 10:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, again. Diff: --Rschen7754 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked over the History changes and there are still a few things left to resolve. I am also going to look through the References section, check images, and check the Lead again shortly.  V C  04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be good now. --Rschen7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * History is done!  V C  18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikilinking
 * I intend to check the wikilinking when I do my final sweep. Do you have a particular scheme (once per article, once per section, once per subsection) I should keep in mind as I check for consistency?  V C  04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do once per article, not including the RJL or lead. BTW, did you know about User:Ucucha/duplinks.js? --Rschen7754 04:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not know about the duplinks script. I will look into adding it before I do my wikilink review. I have reviewed the images and exit list.  V C  18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is only one duplicate wikilink noted from the duplinks script: San Diego is wikilinked twice in the Lead.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are three redlinks: Fortuna Mountain, Political Reform Act, and TransNet. Are the latter two likely to ever be populated? If not, I would delink them.
 * Regarding the second, I got the impression that it was quite a big deal from the source. The third should be as well, as it was a significant initiative. --Rschen7754 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I brought up Political Reform Act because it sounds so generic. I did a search and it does seem to be the primary topic should an article be created, so it can stay. However, you should provide context, something like "a 1974 act of the California Legislature that did X, Y, and Z." A search for TransNet mostly brought up Transnet, a South African company. TransNet as used here seems to be a county-level thing; I do not think it is notable enough for its own article. I recommend removing the link and providing context.  V C  04:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 08:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going back to the infobox, San Diego is linked once but Santee is linked twice. For consistency, either link each city once or link all of them.  V C  21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Images
 * The image at the top of the Route description has a very noticeable splotch in the center and several other minor splotches. Would it be possible to shop it?
 * I can try, but my concern is the visible dashboard in the bottom. It is a fairly bad picture and I could consider replacing it. However, all of my photos are of the new portion... --Rschen7754 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My main concern is the splotches because they are easily seen without expanding the image. The dashboard is more subtle and will probably not cause a ruckus at FAC. Are you going to have a chance to get to San Diego anytime soon to take photos?  V C  19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried in September but couldn't find a good place to get off at (I'm the driver and generally don't want to take pictures on the road). Do any of the pictures at look good, or should I try and fix the one we have? --Rschen7754 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The ones you have are all of the opening of the eastern end. You should try to fix the splotchy one.  V C  19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed the splotch in the center portion of the sky. I've also cropped the worst of the splotching out near the edges. --Rschen7754 21:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the caption of the construction progress map, the route should be abbreviated SR 52 for consistency.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In the caption of the Bell's Vireo, "least" should be capitalized, right?
 * Done. --Rschen7754 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The images look fine with regard to copyright, but maybe someone else should have a look to confirm.


 * Exit list
 * There are several links in the Destinations column that redirect to other articles in ways that are redundant or misleading. To wit:
 * La Jolla Parkway redirects to Southern California freeways
 * San Diego Freeway redirects to Interstate 5 in California
 * Convoy Street redirects to Kearny Mesa, San Diego
 * Cabrillo Freeway redirects to California State Route 163
 * Escondido Freeway goes to a disambiguation page.
 * The last one can probably stay as is in case someone changes the dab page to an article on the freeway. However, the others should be delinked or changed to something that makes more sense.
 * All pulled. Don't want to encourage further forks of the same article. Unfortunately, a lot of the CA pages are like this thanks to AL2TB. --Rschen7754 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All replied to. --Rschen7754 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Future
 * "Caltrans recommends adding two more lanes in between I-5 and I-805" Remove "in" before "between"
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * References
 * Ref 2 needs an en dash instead of hyphen in the page range.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 needs a page number.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Still needs a page number.  V C  14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Crud, added it to the wrong reference. Fixed now. --Rschen7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In Ref 13, use pp. instead of p. because you have multiple pages.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You use MDY format for dates in most references, but DMY is used in Ref 19, Ref 73, and Ref 102.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 23:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of the newspaper references that do not have an author are in one format and the ones with authors are in another format. When you do not know an author, you should use "Staff." That may solve the problem.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 34 still needs to be altered. Ref 34 also lacks "The" in the newspaper name; you use "The" in other instances of The San Diego Union.  V C  14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another newspaper inconsistency is capitalization in article titles. Some titles are in sentence case (only first word and proper nouns) and some are title case (all words except and, with, etc.). Either capitalization scheme is fine, but you should use one scheme and stick with it.
 * I'm generally going off how the article capitalizes it. --Rschen7754 02:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to alter capitalization to fit the appropriate style when you are transcribing titles. The MOS implies you can use either scheme, but you should keep it consistent.  V C  14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not convinced that the citations need to be that consistent. Nobody's said anything at the CA 56 FAC. --Rschen7754 03:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think they should all be in the same format, but I will kick the issue to FAC.  V C  22:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 21 is missing an OCLC number.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OCLC is wikilinked in most of the references. Is it the template that does that or can the wikilinking be turned off in all but one of them?
 * That is the template. --Rschen7754 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Google Inc. is wikilinked, unlike all other sources that can be wikilinked like the newspapers. I do not have a problem with this, but this is something that someone may complain about at FAC.
 * That is also the template. --Rschen7754 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 30 has an extra space in the article title.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In Ref 58, is page II4 (eye eye four) correct?
 * Yes, this is correct. --Rschen7754 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref 80 should have a non-breaking space in Dec. 16.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an extra space in the title in Ref 100.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In Ref 112, you set the author's initials without periods. You should insert periods because you use them in initials elsewhere.
 * The source actually uses them without periods in this case. --Rschen7754 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but the MOS says to use periods after initials.  V C  14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Spellcheck
 * I dropped the text into MS Word to run spellcheck, and I found the following errors:
 * Genesee has an extra 's' in one or two of the uses in the Route description.
 * Still an extra 's' out in the wild.  V C  14:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Rschen7754 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, again. --Rschen7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an instance of "report report" under Planning for eastern portion.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Course" is misspelled in Ref 67.
 * Done. --Rschen7754 02:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The author's last name is misspelled in either Ref 71 or Ref 72.
 * Fixed. --Rschen7754 02:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: I will be out of town December 23–26. I will have computer access, but I will be slower to respond.  V C  19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All done. --Rschen7754 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, again. --Rschen7754 04:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead revisited
 * I do not have any specific comments, but I do have a general one. This Lead seems short and unbalanced compared to the rest of the article. This article has a short to medium-sized Route description and a long History, yet the paragraph in the Lead that summarizes the history is not much longer than the first one. Someone may complain about this at FAC. Can you try to expand the history part of the Lead?  V C  19:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added more. --Rschen7754 01:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks better. I think more can be added, but it is mostly a perception thing. I am not sure how a four-line second paragraph will fly. I know I am not being very helpful, so I will check this off and let you reflect on it before you send this to FAC.  V C  04:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I did some copyediting before I hit Support. Please check to make sure I did not adversely affect anything. Great job!  V C  02:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: seems like this article is pending VC's review, an image review, and a spotcheck before promotion. --Rschen7754 09:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:California 52.svg - Shield released as PD by Caltrans.
 * File:California State Route 52.svg - CC-BY-SA 3.0 by author, has GIS data.
 * File:California state route 52.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0 by author.
 * File:California State Route 52 history.svg - CC-BY-SA-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 by author, has GIS data.
 * File:BellsvireoF1.jpg - Released into PD by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 * File:CA SR 52 Opening.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0 by author.
 * Images check out good.  Dough 48  72  03:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck
I'll do the spotcheck. It should be done either tonight or tomorrow. – TC N7  JM  02:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Source 40 (Bus transport feedback): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 41 (Problem with dips): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 42 (Dip repaired overnight): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 43 (Initial eastern portion planning): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 44 (Santee opposes plans): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 45 (Prospect route supported): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 46 (Petitioning the route): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 47 (River route is more costly): One word added to sentence for verifiability, no plagiarism
 * Source 48 (Town Center development): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 49 (Lakeside): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 50 (FHWA dislikes report): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 51 (Santee OK's northern study): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 52 (Route 52 study results): Verifiable, no plagiarism (only copied words are in quotes)
 * Source 53 (Route 52 decision near): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 54 (La Mesa): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 55 (Price comparison): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 56 (El Cajon): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 57 ("Outdated" report): Verifiable, no plagiarism ("outdated" is used in quotes)
 * Source 58 (CTC gets petitions): Verifiable, no plagiarism
 * Source 59 (Funding for Route 52 opposed): Verifiable, no plagiarism

There, that's twenty sources. Should be enough, no? Well, great job!

Support – TC N7  JM  16:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.