The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

California State Route 67[edit]

California State Route 67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 05:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 67 has existed in some form since the 19th century, and still serves as an important connection to the San Diego mountains. This is a GA and has passed the HWY A-Class review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 67), and I feel that it meets the criteria. Rschen7754 05:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is a standard term in US, but not everywhere. A wiki link to Single carriageway or the United States section of that article would be nice.
  • Highway is a known term, and undivided as an adjective is pretty self-explanatory. Single carriageway is less well known than undivided highway. --Rschen7754 04:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reviewer means a piped link like this: undivided highway. For non-US readers (especially non-native speakers) a link couldn't hurt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a road to Julian, but from where?
  • Since it is an opinion, attribution is needed. For example, an article published in xyz newspaper said that...--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the attribution is provided in the citation. It's clearly labeled as an opinion, so this isn't a breach of NPOV. --Rschen7754 04:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great! Yes, WP:MOSQUOTE does say "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." So, even without professional English, I could do some improvement for the article :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems I came late, but WP:INTEXT puts it explicitly: "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing." Thus, the quotation here needed attribution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the expertise to comment on if that is an acceptable way. Usually quotes are immediately followed by citations. Will that by citation overkill in this case?
  • Yes, because that would result in two sentences right next to each other with the same citation. --Rschen7754 04:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked through WP:MOSQUOTE and see no requirement to do this. I would be willing to reconsider if you found a section of policy that backed up your viewpoint. --Rschen7754 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHYCITE says "Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks...".--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, doesn't insist upon citations even when it would result in two citations to the same source in a row. --Rschen7754 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added in-text "by The San Diego Union and Daily Bee" but will not be adding a duplicate citation. --Rschen7754 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"the stagecoach line connected the terminus of the railroad line in Foster to Julian". Which stagecoach line (no stagecoach line was mentioned before)? Connected the rail terminus to what? --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • These two points (this one and the immediately preceding one) arose because the article did not establish the connection between road no 3A and SR 67. Why is 3A important in the history of SR 67?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, got it.
* Road to Ramona from where?
  • "Road to _" is an acceptable convention and has been for thousands of years (i.e. Road to Damascus). And if "from where" is a concern, what other possibilities are there? We're talking SR 67, a road that clearly goes from San Diego to Ramona. Why would we be discussing the road from Escondido to Ramona? That would have nothing to do with the article. --Rschen7754 05:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • here you say SR 67 goes from San Diego to Ramona, but the article lead says it goes from El Cajone to Ramona!
  • Anyway, coming to the point, in Early days section, the term Julian road has been used and explained in the first paragraph. The term Ramona Road is used within quotes later. From what I read, Ramona Road was the name of a part of the present-day SR 67 at some point of time in history. Ramona Road was not the name of the whole road (the whole road was known as Julian Road, according to the lead and the first paragraph of this section). My question was what was the extent of Ramona Road. Sorry if you misunderstood the question due to my poor wording. The same query applies to Road 3A. Was the whole Julian Road known as 3a? Probably not. So, the history should explain that. If no data is available, that can be mentioned. Additionally, the map in the infobox does not show many towns, such as Santee, Julian, Foster; this contributes to difficulty in comprehension.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked Rschen about this at the ACR. His response was that the information about exactly what extents of SR 67 comprised the Julian Road, the Ramona road, and Road 3A is not available in the sources he has. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto, and regarding "here you say SR 67 goes from San Diego to Ramona, but the article lead says it goes from El Cajone to Ramona" - are the two statements mutually exclusive? --Rschen7754 07:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that the sources do not specify the extent of each parts, but the reader does not know. So, this needs to be explained in the article. Otherwise, the question remains that what is the relation between Ramona Road and SR 67, and between Road No 3 and SR 67. This is a content issue, not a prose issue.
  • Since you ask this, no the two statements are not mutually exclusive, but there is a possibility that San Diego to Ramona road may not go through El Cajone, but through some other town. However, this sentence is not in the article, you just casually mentioned it here. So, we can decide not to discuss the logical falacy in the statement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done and will not be done, I do not need to add "The sources did not say anything about the connection between ..." --Rschen7754 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead says that Julian road existed, that became legislative route 198, and that became SR 67. In the early history, their are more names, such as Ramona Road, 3A. How would a reader not acquainted with the history would know their relation? Please pardon me if my points here were ill-worded? But, I'd at least anticipate that you assumed good faith.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've explained it pretty well in the article. I can't really add anything else. --Rschen7754 04:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, this is a minor point. It is unlikely to affect the outcome of this FAC. Of all the points I have described, many are technical/minor which would have probably eventually come up in the discussion. Almost all of those are taken care of. The minor points that remain might not affect the outcome.
  • However, in my PoV, the major point that remains un-addressed is the one involving Road No. 3, Ramona Road and SR 67. This is vital because early history of this route is dependent on those entities. And the relationship between those entities and the route still remains unclear to the reader. Indeed, you can try to think of a new sentence construction, or, using an explanatory note, or any other strategy to clarify that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how you expect this to be resolved, since the information you want added isn't available to the nominator. By asking him to clarify or explain it, you're basically inviting him to make a plausible guess, which is not exactly something we want in our featured articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a little bit, but I'm not really sure what else to say. If it's in the article, it's obviously related; believe me, I'd rather not include stuff if I don't have to as I'm averaging 100 newspaper clippings per article I'm writing. --Rschen7754 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not use a professional level of English. I am extremely sorry if that is causing lack of comprehension in this article. Of course, please do not decrease the quality of prose if my queries falls short of professional level of English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean no offense by this, but if you are unable to use a professional level of English, perhaps FAC reviewing on the English Wikipedia is not the best idea, or at least reviewing prose the way that you are doing. --Rschen7754 07:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not. A google search on "offramp" (the way it is written in the article) does not provide any easily accessible definition. The online version of Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for "offramp". It does have an entry for "off-ramp" which defines what it is. Since I do not use professional level of English, I cannot say if "offramp" is wrong, but certainly suspicious. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that because I have used such a ramp while driving. But is the term "offramp" or "off-ramp"? No problem while speaking, but written form should be the correct one. Both may be correct, in which case there is no problem. But, Merriam-Webster does not have "offramp". May be they prefer off-ramp?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen off-ramp, anywhere. --Rschen7754 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, whether proper usage is offramp or off-ramp really shouldn't matter to whether the term is linked or not. A term is linked when it may be unfamiliar to the reader; this one, though, should be obvious. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I have struck through the wikilink point. But the new point is which is grammatically more appropriate? (if both are ok, no problem). Just for convenience (Rschen said he never saw off-ramp), I linked the Merriam-Webster entry above; here is the usage in NY Times. There are many such usage, Chicago Tribune, LA Times etc.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not really a dependable source for this issue. A well-established dictionary is. Merriam-Webster (which AFAIK is a dependable dictioonary for AMerican English) does not list offramp, they list off-ramp. And that NYT article was mentioned merely because you told you never saw "off-ramp" anywhere. There are many more examples. Looking awkard is not the concern, grammatical correctness is. Again, if offramp is academically acceptable (dictionary etc), I have no problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition (2001) shows "offramp", no dash, defined as "a road leading off a main highway, freeway, etc.". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this is not clarified. Just the word "tax" has been added. What is TransNet? You are certainly not referring to Transnet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that needs a wikilink, even if red.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a good idea, because if an article was created about TransNet, it would surely be deleted. --Rschen7754 20:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please explain the term in the article in some way so that any reader (not from that geographical area) can understand what it is.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a bit of clarification. If someone does not know what a sales tax is, I do not know what to say. --Rschen7754 20:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales tax is understandable. But what is TransNet? Again, there may be various ways to explain that, such as, within parenthesis, or, by an explanatory note.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something can certainly have a poor reputation for whatever reason. One of my coworkers has a reputation for staying home "sick" a lot, for instance. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, should "poor reputation" be more appropriate here?--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is apparent from the context. --Rschen7754 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just came back incidentally, and noticed this point. I googled "incomplete access highway", the first few results included wikipedia articles Limited-access road and List of controlled access highway systems. I think this is not what is meant by incomplete access in the table. Can you please state what is "incomplete access" for highways in the table?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specifics of each incomplete access junction are mentioned in the notes, so this is redundant. --Rschen7754 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deriving from the table, incomplete access junction means a junction where exit/entrance ramps for all direction are not present, right? Is that a standard definition in California state routes, or in general for roads? I did not come across such a definition in my limited google search (I did not go through all the search results). Can you please provide a reference for such a definition, or, such an use of the phrase (incomplete access junction)? It sound like a technical term (like Limited access highway or HOV lane), but it is not a commonly used term, at least according to google search.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, man, incomplete access means that access is not complete. I will not be changing it, and am quite frustrated at this last-minute response. Rather than risk getting nasty in any future replies, I will not be responding further. --Rschen7754 00:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I did not realise this was last-minute (the FAC delegate recommended copyedit in his comments, so I thought this FAC was still ongoing). It is completely ok if you are unwilling to reply. A Limited access highway is a highway whose access is limited, that is not a definition. The wikipedia article article goes on to describe what things are limited to get access to the highway. We come across terminologies which subject experts know very well, but layman does not know (for example, difficult terms in physics or medicine articles). Those terms are either wikilinked or explained, so that interested reader can understand those. Similarly, "incomplete access" (just like "limited access" or HoV) appears like a technical term. As a subject expert, you might think why won't anyone understand that simple term? But everyone does not have the knowledge and expertise on highways as you do. That is why I was asking for a wikilink or explanation of the term (for example, state highway is wikilinked appropriately in the lead of the article for the ease of understanding of everyone, although it is imperative that highways maintained by the state government is state highway). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it is not needed. Actually there is still the Alt Text viewer there in the FA review tool box, so I thought it is still recommended. My mistake.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an observation: the sentence was fixed after the oppose by this editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (having stumbled here from my FAC)

All in all pretty good! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- I'm afraid I'm not that thrilled with the prose, looking at the lead and few other spots, and suggest it could do with an independent copyedit...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More