Talk:California State Route 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	California State Route 3 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics	California State Highways
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs of something of the actual road be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the following regions may able to help: Trinity County, California Siskiyou County, California
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] History and future aspirations

Does anyone know any history/ future info about CA-3? Thanks. --Rschen7754 22:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] assess

too short for start class Anlace 00:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It has descent references and structure - I'd say B  — master son^{T - C} 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Note that i do not write road articles, so I've relied pretty heavily on comparing this article to other GA class road articles, especially the state route ones, as it'd be unfair to compare to an interstate.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I feel that the article itself could use some expansion, especially the lede. I've given some suggestions below about how I might go about it.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   except for one awkward sentence, prose is good

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I just feel that there is more that could be covered

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Are there edit wars over road articles?

   Unfortunately, yes: Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Account (not that this is relevant...)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Requiring pictures is not part of GA, but it would certainly help the article if a few could be found. I won't hold the article back if they aren't added though.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Details:

• Lede is short. Consider expanding with the total length of the route, and when it was started, at the very least. You might also mention the recreation areas that it gives access to.
• Route description, doesn't give the length of the route, nor lane size. Does it cross any notable rivers? Does it start in a town? When it ends, is it a real town? If so, what is the route known as in that town? Same for any towns it passes through.
  • Lane size? Don't you mean number of lanes? Also, it says that it starts south of the town of Peanut, signifying that it is not in a town.
    • Yeah, I meant number of lanes. Does the road run south or north? It's unclear from the context which way the route description is going, from the south north or from the north south. Keep in mind I have never ever been to that part of California, and the little route map in the infobox has not towns labeled. I'm totally at sea here without some sort of description of what directions are being talked about. The whole route section presumes a knowledge of the area that is not provided in the article or in a map. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • All route descriptions for roads in the United States are written from south to north. I'm not positive if the number of lanes can be found on the Internet. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Just trying to keep in mind that people won't necessarily know that information. Sometimes it's easy to be so knowledgeable about a subject that you forget the assumptions that you just "know" and forget to explain them to people who don't know them and are then lost.Ealdgyth | Talk 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • In that unlikely scenario, they can always look in the infobox to see which end is which. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

*Route section, the second sentence seems awkward to me, you might consider rewording. I think it's supposed to mean that from its southern terminus to Hayfork road the route is also known as Bramlot road, but the opening phrase of the sentence is just odd.

• History section, when was the I-5 bypass built? When did the overlap with temp I-5 start? Where was that overlap? What does being added to the California Freeway and Expressway System mean?
• Consider adding a section on "Other names" such as in California State Route 37
  • This is a nonstandard section and should be removed from CA-37 per WP:CASH.
• Pictures, would it be possible to find a picture of Lewsiton Lake, Trinity Dam or the Whiskeytown Rec Area?

Overall, the article just feels short. It has the bones of the information, but there is no added information beyond that bare bones. I'm putting the article on hold for seven days to let folks address these issues, but I'd really like to see some expansion before I'll feel comfortable passing. I'd be happy to extend that if work is being done on the article, of course.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you got dragged into a ArbCom case, but how's progress over here? Ealdgyth | Talk 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. I decided to take a long Wikibreak to get away from all the Arbcom drama and focus on final exams. I probably will get around to this sometime in the next few days as I'm catching up. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I realise the road isn't very big, but I think you've got most everything you could from it. Picture is a nice touch too. I'm going ahead and passing it. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)