Talk:Interstate 70 in Utah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Interstate 70 in Utah is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 17, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed February 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed April 1, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved April 30, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	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	Interstate Highways Utah State Highways
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.

	Utah Portal This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Utah. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Photos 2 GA failed 3 Good article reassessment 4 Successful GA Status 5 Wikiproject Utah 6 No services for the next ___ miles 7 Book Cliffs 8 Article Lead Sentence

[edit] Photos

I just uploaded a bunch of photos of the San Rafael Swell and linked to this page. I felt that some photos were needed, but freely admit what I did may be overkill. If so, feel free to take down some. I'll admit I've got a personal bias (this is one of my favorite drives) and I actually had a tough time getting the selection down to as few photos as I did =-) Davemeistermoab 06:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I failed this as a Good Article because one of the main sources used in the history is not a reliable source. The route description could probably use a bit of work too, removing some or all section headings and possibly added a bit more. --NE2 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? I think your review should say at a minimum which sources you doubt. If It's Dan Stober's webpage that is an easy fix. It covers about 90% of the same material as the Federal Highway Administration source, and I used Stober's page for the "less likely to be challenged" stuff. If it is a different source that you believe is unreliable I would most likely have to scrub that paragraph. If it is the FWHA source you find reliable well........ Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Dan Stober's site. If you could fix it up, and nobody objects, I'll probably bump it up without going through the process again. --NE2 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the rerouting of US 50 was made in 1976, not 1977; it was independent of the 1977 renumbering. There's a bit more about that in U.S. Route 50#History if you want to add more. --NE2 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whom you ask. AASTHO approved it in 1976. The legislative changes were not made until the 1977 renumbering. See http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=200609140952271 (the source used in the article). I don't think Stober is unreliable. I have found some errors on his site, yes. But the page I'm quoting is mostly citing FWHA article and Utah newspapers of the era. It is also largly seconded by other sources. I believe it is an appropriate secondary source. Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, AASTHO is a voluntary association of state officials. It's decisions are not enforceable or binding. Wikipedia has several highway articles where AASTHO guidelines have been ignored, U.S. Route 163,U.S. Route 189, Interstate 69 and Interstate 99 just off the top of my head. I used the date passed by the Utah legislature, which is legally binding.Davemeistermoab (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that the changes were legislatively made in 1977? Page 16 of the PDF says "US-50 from Delta to Salina", meaning that it already went via I-70. You should also note that there were no legislative definitions for U.S. Routes until the 1977 renumbering, so the legislature didn't have to do anything for US 50 to be moved. --NE2 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Page 16 is the petition (i.e. proposal) Note on page 12 of the pdf noting "this petition is authorized on....." not "these changes are effective..." or some other more official language. My understanding of the document is the change was made effective the date given on page 1.

Either way, its a petty argument. If this is the worst thing wrong with the article (which semantic argument is the effective date of change) put the article on the front page right now ... =-). You offered to review this article under the good article criteria. Arguing over semantics like this will not help your case that your review was legitimate or in good faith. I suggest you drop this and focus on more substantive matters. If you're that passionate about it go ahead and just get it over with and change the article to say 1976, its a trivial detail and nobody really cares.Davemeistermoab (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't part of the reason for the fail; it was something else that I noticed. --NE2 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was reinserted in the nominations list. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 13:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this request, and will begin to review the article momentarily. I will proceed to notify Davemeistermoab and Geometry guy, who seem to be the main contributors to this article. I look forward to hopefully rewarding their hard work. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful GA Status

Congratulations! This article, reviewed by Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs), has achieved Good Article status.

This article is very high quality as reviwed per the good article criteria, in my opinion. I am especially fond of the frequency and quality of the pictures. The sources seem to be trustworthy, and there is plenty of accurate, cited material. Also, the detail of the Route description is very thorough and interesting.

The grammar had some very minor flaws, mostly with puncuation, but those were easily fixable. This was the only real flaw I found.

All in all, this is a high quality article that is very deserving of good article status. My suggestion to the major contributors would be to assist in the writing of articles which are redlinked in the article (I-70 Business Richfield, UT; US-6 in Utah; etc.).

I will proceed to follow the necessary steps for passing this article. Again, very well done. -Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Utah

I think that this article is definitely in the scope of Wikiproject Utah. Does anyone mind if I put the template up here? Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Many highways are listed under both the state and highway wikiprojects, many are not. I think it just depends on if the state wikiproject deems it to be important enough. Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No services for the next ___ miles

According to this page at Utah.gov, the official word is "The 110 miles between Green River and Salina still represent the longest stretch without services on the entire interstate system." Or, we could just omit the number of miles from the statement to avoid any controversy over the exact number... perhaps? Its been a year or so since I've been through there but if the signs say "110" miles then I think that should be the official number. ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several figures. 104 miles is from freeway exit to freeway exit. The 110 miles is the most common in older literature. I agree, we should go with this. I don't think its correct any more. Most newer sources say 104, 106 or 108, but these are unofficial soucres (i.e. Fred's guide to I-70 =-).. But this is the most "official" source. I've got pictures of the 110 miles signage. I'll upload those. thanks for finding this link. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book Cliffs

South of the Book Cliffs is Moab, Utah. The red rocks in that area are some of the world's most famous mountain biking and off road driving terrain. This article might mention that. --Una Smith (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've debated this myself. In the end I decided not to mention Moab, as 1. Moab is not a city directly served by I-70 and 2. Most of the featured attractions linked in this article also link to Moab. So anybody interested will find it. However, if you disagree, by all means, add it. I would only ask that make sure what is added has a good source attached, as the article is being nominated for a Featured Article as I write this. Cheers Dave (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Lead Sentence

I reverted the lead sentence to the FAC version. The FAC version is a much better sentence in my opinion. I would expect that the first sentence would give a simple, stand-alone version of the article. I think that by starting the article with a dependent clause, the subject of the article is not 100% clear at first glance. I did a quick survey of articles featured on the main page and every single one starts with a simple formula: Subject is/was/are then a simple statement of what the article subject is. I think we should leave the sentence the way it is, and if there is any discussion, we should have it here and then make a change if a better sentence can be found. --Glennfcowan (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to see the discussion here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The FAC version violates three Wikipedia guidelines as well, WP:LEAD, MOS:BOLD and MOS:LINK. FAC does not supersede Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please conform with WP:LEAD; I don't see a compelling reason not to conform in the Project page discussions. What portion of this version does not conform with WP:LEAD, WP:MOSBOLD or MOS:LINK Holderca1? It is possible to write a lead that conforms, and no good reason has been given not to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD has an example of what to avoid that reads: The electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker are a dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics. "Interstate 70 in Utah is the portion of Interstate Highway 70, commonly abbreviated I-70," is similarly redundant, and that is what has some people adamantly opposed to it. My take after reading WP:LEAD is that holderca1, NE2, et al. are right, although holderca1 is exaggerating the number of rules broken. With that said, I'm fed up with this to the point of never working on an FA again. Somebody please just pick an appropriate lead, and lets please move on.Dave (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you all might work towards broad consensus in a central place (and a Project page isn't the best place to get broad feedback): I'm seeing instability and lack of consensus in several discussions. I suggest that the talk page at WP:LEAD would be the best place to sort this out and come up with a firm conclusion. Eliminating the redundancy in the leads is a separate issue from deciding where road articles stand wrt WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This portion: "is the portion of Interstate Highway 70, commonly" violates MOS:LINK "Two links are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link" and MOS:BOLD and WP:LEAD both say not to bold a descriptive title, which "Interstate 70 in Utah" is. --Holderca1 ^talk 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you centralize this discussion somewhere to develop consensus, but that's not exactly what WP:LEAD says. It seems there is disagreement even among Road Project members, which doesn't bode well for the stability issue on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the talk page for WP:LEAD directing those who have an opinion to Wikipedia_talk:USRD#FA_and_USRD.Dave (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; that's the best way to get broader input towards resolving the questions. I'll unwatch here, then, since you all are working to sort it out and this isn't the best place for the discussion: I'm concerned about the discussions of edit warring I saw on the Project page. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)