Talk:California State Route 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California State Route 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:California State Route 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be working on this review later on today. Imzadi 1979  17:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See detailed comments below for a sampling of issues. In short, this article needs a good copy edit.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Foonotes 1, 16 and 20 are self-published; until they are replaced, this article cannot be promoted.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See below, but parts need expansion to cover missing details expected of a highway of this length.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licenses are fine. It would be nice to spread the photos out a bit more, or to get some images that could appear in the History section.
  7. Overall:
    This article needs more work than should be expected in the standard seven-day hold period. The prose needs a good general copy edit. (Comments below are just a sample of issues.) Before that is done though, references need to be replaced, which could mean rewriting content to account for what better sources say about the highway and its history. Based on this, I'm failing the article. It can be renominated in the future. Imzadi 1979  14:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General prose

  • Since the first sentence of the lead introduces the name of this highway as "State Route 2" and then gives the abbreviation as "SR 2", we should be consistent and use that abbreviation. The junction list table only uses the "SR #" format for other state routes, and the prose should be consistent.

Route description

  • The paragraph beginning "The south roadway of Santa Monica Boulevard..." makes no sense to me. Please rewrite and clarify or eliminate it.
  • "At Holloway Drive, in the middle of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, now north of Melrose Avenue turns to the east." ? Rewrite please.
  • The "Southeast junction with US 101 to I-210" subsection could use some organizational work. It looks awkward to have a single-sentence paragraph to introduce it before splitting off a single sub-subsection. I'd rework this.
  • The last RD subsection covers over 80 miles, yet it's a single paragraph? This feels quite unbalanced. I get that the urbanized freeway segments will have more to say, but this subsection feels shortchanged.


  • A single citation to a lone map cannot, and does not, support the content of the first paragraph of the "Designation" subsection. If citing to maps for historical information, a before map and an after map are needed.
  • In the "Further construction" subsection, why is "Santa Monica Boulevard" italicized in the second paragraph?
  • "Santa Monica/Los Angeles city limits" needs an en dash: "Santa Monica–Los Angeles city limits".
  • "Alternate U. S. 101" → "Alternate US 101" for consistency.
  • "California Route 1" → "SR 1". Again, consistency in nomenclature and abbreviations.
  • "local cities which it runs through" → "local cities through which it runs".

In popular culture

  • "spring, 1978" no comma, and we should avoid referencing the season per the MOS. Try "early 1978" instead.
  • "...complete construction status, and its proximity..." no comma there, please.
  • Television show titles are italicized like book and movie titles. Quotation marks are used around the names of individual episodes like chapter titles in a book.
  • "...weekends), and is still..." no comma here as well.


  • Entire subsections of the article are unreferenced, and they include information that needs citations.
    • General RD content should be cited to a reputable paper map and the satellite view driving directions on Google Maps. The former backs the routing, and the latter supplies the citation for the landscape around the highway.
    • Even if this article is summarizing another article, this article will still need citations.
  • Many of the references in the article need additional details added to be considered complete.
  • Which date format is this article using? Consistency, please.
  • As noted above, three citations are self-published, and thus not allowed per policy.
  • Footnotes 13 and 14 are the same. Please combine them.