Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/California State Route 78


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

Result of the discussion was promote to A-class. --Polaron | Talk 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

California State Route 78
review
 * Suggestion: No suggestion given regarding A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: This article recently passed GA, but I think there's enough info to possibly send it onward.
 * Nominated by: --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; source the entire RD, preferably at the end of each paragraph. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's basically the same sources over and over again... --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but at least one source per paragraph to verify the content is usually required. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good; I'll try to review the article in full soon. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - An image of the road itself would be nice. ComputerGuy 18:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, maybe I could get one this weekend. Thanks for the reminder. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Not a very good one; my camera ran out of batteries and I had to use my laptop camera. Maybe next time it'll be better... --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good article but does cross one of my pet-peeves with many USRD articles, red links that are unnecessary. I would advise to search the important terms for all red linked articles to see if the article exists, but under a different title, for example, Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range does exist, as does Chocolate Mountains and Battle of San Pasqual. With some minor changes to text, a lot of these red links could be turned blue or eliminated. I doubt some of the creeks are notable enough for articles and could be potentially de-linked. Also the italicized 86 in the Major intersections is never explained.Dave (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I believe I fixed the issues... it look good? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah Support. I did find a couple of nit pick items, but not enough to merit an oppose. Source 5- This should be downcased, per MOS:CAPS under the All Caps section. Also some people at FAC have a real issue with "wordy words" like Although. you might want to go through and cut some of those out.Dave (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note, the word "although" is generally allowed. It's the words that imply a POV which are discouraged. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the status of this review? I have addressed the major objections... --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with minor nitpick - Overall, it's a good article. I just have one minor nitpick: in the lead: "The route travels through the heavily populated cities of northern San Diego County before turning into a highway running through the mountains to Julian." It isn't a highway in the cities of San Diego County? This sentence may need to be reworded to make it a bit clearer. - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If anybody's wondering why this is still here - this is just in case the ACR fails. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - This article is too good to be a good article. – CG 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, because it failed two FACs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could mean that it is too good to be a good article but not good enough to be a featured article? -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess. CG: We don't like Support Good job! ~ because it doesn't reflect that you even read the article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments I just spent the last hour or so reading this, so here are my thoughts (mostly in order of appearance).


 * On first look, all my issues/comments appear to have been addressed--except for some instances of the "left (north)" issue found in the last RD paragraph. I will probably support the article's promotion, but I would like to look at it one more time after the issues below are addressed. --LJ (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed last paragraph. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Now that all the review comments have been addressed, I took another look at the article and have no major issues with it in its current form. --LJ (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support promoting the article once these concerns are resolved. I didn't look at references yet but the GA probably did that. I'll double check the other GA, FA, A criteria later. Just read the interesting article this time through. SriMesh | talk  07:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I plan on addressing these comments later in the week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, you are certainly busy these days :-)  SriMesh |  talk  07:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All comments replied to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to support Good luck on your further ventures.SriMesh | talk  22:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Overall it's decent. I concur on prose issues above (hence why this was shorter ;) ) and would like to see the improvements before I offer my support. —  master son T - C 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All comments replied to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good here - Support. I would ask that we consider renaming Deleted state highways in California to Former state highways in California and changing the Infobox reference (along with others).   —  master son T - C 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally done replying to comments. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article looks good now. I will Support it. Dough4872 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, I think we have broken a record for the number of comments on an ACR. Thanks everyone. :) It will probably take me a week or two to address everything, however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.