Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 70 in Utah

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interstate 70 in Utah[edit]

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 discussion is Promote to A-Class. --Holderca1 talk 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 70 in Utah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: The article passed GA about 2 weeks ago. I believe I have fixed the issues that were brought up in the GA review. I have gotten some informal feedback that this article is FA worthy. But as this is my first attempt at even a GA article. I would like something more formal before submitting to FA nomination.
Nominated by: Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Holderca1 talk 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I will give this a full review later as well, but for now:

  • You shouldn't have any citations in the lead. The lead is a summary of the entire article, you shouldn't have any information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article.
    • Thanks, I'll will fix the intro, hopefully by the time your full review is finished.Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have some state highway junctions in the infobox, what about these make them major junctions? Are they freeways?
The criteria I used is routes longer than 30 miles. There is no set criteria on WP:USRD for what makes a major junction. Comparing with other articles there seems to be a few unwritten sliding criteria. If the standard is other freeways, there would be no junctions listed. I welcome input on what should be the standard for this article.Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard I have always seen, not sure if it is written anywhere or not, but for Interstates and US Highways, only include junctions with other Interstates and US Highways. The only exception would be if the state highway is a freeway. --Holderca1 talk 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with using that standard, will fix with my next update to the article.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have some short sections in the route description, you may consider expanding them or combining sections.
I have added at least some material to all sections since this comment was originally left Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only spot where I may see an issue is the last paragraph of the "Book Cliffs" section. It is a bit short, perhaps just combine it with the prior paragraph? --Holderca1 talk 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • The "Old Spanish Trail" section needs to be expanded.
Totally agree. Expanded Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shouldn't have any images directly below a section title, either move them to the right or further down in the text.
  • The "Route number changes" section is on the short size.
This was somewhat intentional as this section would be of interests only to roadgeeks. But is duly noted and I did expand a bit Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have some items in the "Exit list" that aren't exits, such as rest areas and brake check area, and runaway truck ramps.
These are allowed per WP:USRD/ELG (see service areas). I have only listed the ones that are on UDOT's route log. There are others. For example 2 of the sources I've used mention a Black Dragon view area (which I can also confirm exists) but it is not on UDOT's mileage log so I did not list it. If you feel what I have is excessive, advise and I will discuss trimming them. I do feel it is important to mention some of the service areas, as some are important to the article and mentioned in prose. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ELG states "Service areas, within reason. If multiple exist, limit those displayed to those of historical/other significance." Is there a historical significance to these? --Holderca1 talk 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue at least 2 should stay, I'm OK with removing the rest. The 2 that should stay IMO are the spotted wolf canyon view area (listed as a scenic attraction on www.byways.org, and where the lead photo was taken) and Ghost Rocks View Area (mentioned multiple times in prose, where freeway was dedicated, etc.)Davemeistermoab (talk)
Yeah, that's fine, I don't have an issue with the view areas, but the brake check areas, runaway truck ramps, etc... seem kind of insignificant to me. --Holderca1 talk 18:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still have a couple rest areas listed in the exit list, if there is something special about these, put it in the notes section, otherwise, they probably should be removed. --Holderca1 talk 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all that are common rest areas. For those that have views or information centers, this is noted. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have more later upon a more complete review. --Holderca1 talk 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I look forward to the rest. I have addressed some of your concerns now, I will wait for the full review on others.Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments as promised:

  • Lead:
    • Interstate 70 at the very beginning shouldn't be bolded
    • The total length should be mentioned somewhere in the lead
    • 2nd para. of lead: "...were constructed where no paved roads had entered before." sounds awkward, what is the road entering?
    • All three words of "Interstate Highway System" should be capitalized
    • Interstate Highway should be capitalized, "interstate highway" is simply a highway that is located in more than one state
    • I was expecting the lead to mention something about the National Parks nearby like Arches National Park or Canyonlands National Park
  • Route description:
    • "I-70's designation begins at" reword to "I-70 begins at"
    • Need a comma after "In the Sevier Valley"
    • What does "mostly avoids the downtown areas of these cities" mean? Does it go through the downtown of any of the cities? If so, which ones?
    • Wikilink to concurrency (road), and should read "the two highways run concurrently"
    • Remove "Though the exact elevation differs from source to source," unless you add another source that has a different value, such as USGS
Okay, it looks like you added another source here, but you didn't add the value they state. --Holderca1 talk 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sources and numbers, but to be honest I'm not sure its better. Are you sure this doesn't make the section more complicated than it needs to be?Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I don't know. Why are there such varying numbers? They differ by as much as a 100 feet. --Holderca1 talk 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why they very. But if you take them literally the Wasatch Plateau is sinking at a rate of 5 feet per year=-) The 7923 figure is the only one I had heard of until I started researching for this article. AFAIK its the most commonly sited figure.Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add Plateau after Wasatch
    • Highways don't bore through solid rock...
    • Wikilink Devils Canyon, Eagle Canyon, Little Grand Canyon
It doesn't look like Devils Canyon was linked, also spotted Spotted Wolf Canyon
I have wikilinked them, but I am concerned. I was under the impression that by the time an article reaches A or FA class, it shouldn't have too many red links? Am I mistaken?Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not too difficult to create a short stub article to turn a red link blue. --Holderca1 talk 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid you were going to say that.=-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again no mention of any of the National Parks near I-70

Okay, made it through the lead and route description. --Holderca1 talk 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the above in some form. I would appreciate help with the image placement. On MANY occasions I have been criticized about image placement, when it looked fine on my machine. Apparently I have an unusual setup on my machine.Davemeistermoab (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have moved the images a bit. See Wikipedia:MOS#Images for all you ever wanted to know about image placement. --Holderca1 talk 13:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a few issues that need taken care of, I have struck through the ones that have been fixed. --Holderca1 talk 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for taking the time to review this. I hope you both like the article and can help it reach FA class.Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, crossed off a few more, hopefully I can get a chance to look over the history section in detail tomorrow. --Holderca1 talk 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are busy, but the history section still has not been reviewed. I can wait, but can you provide an estimate on when you can get to this? If you cannot please advise and I will solicit another reviewer to take a look. Thanks for your effort so far. I do appriciate it. Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You actually need at least three reviewers to support to get it promoted anyway. --Holderca1 talk 03:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article looks good, good work! --Holderca1 talk 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I did a quick reading with my editor's fine-tooth comb and here are my comments, some of which might duplicate the previous review. I will say it's a very good article so it's just small details now.

  1. Lead: The length in the lead is a little inconsistent. The mileage is give to two decimal places, but the metric is rounded off to whole units. I assume you used the convert template, if so, formatting it as {{convert|232.15|mi|km|2|lk=on}} will push the conversion to two decimal places and wikilink the units. Which leads me to the second comment which is that on first mention of a unit of measurement, the units should be wikilinked. Which is where the lk=on attribute comes in handy. Otherwise, the lead looks good. Fixed, thanks for the suggestion
  2. Route description
    1. You need a cite for Richfield and Salina as the largest cities along the highway.Comment, see below
    2. In the Wasatch Plateau section, it's a 110-mile long section of highway, not a 110 miles long section of highway.. To do this, use the adj=on attribute in the convert template to join the number with a hyphen to the unit since in this case the numerical length is an adjective. Fixed
    3. In talking about the elevations, wikilink the feet units using the trick I mentioned above. Fixed
    4. I will assume that your source gave the length of the bridges in the San Rafael Swell in metric and you used the convert template to add the SAE units. The issue for me is that it feels inconsistent to in the middle of a highway in the US, primarily using SAE units throughout to suddenly switch to measurements primarily given in metric. I'm not sure if this can/should be fixed, but it feels awkward to me. See Comments below
  3. History
    1. In the section on the transcontinental railroads, who believes those facts/assertions? Just a quick mention of who believes what the amount spend (and in what year's dollars if you can add that) and that the routing would have been the shortest routing if completed. Using the word "believe" is one of those words where I'd like to know who without digging into the footnote. Fixed.
    2. There's a stray "]" next to U.S. 6 in the second paragraph in the section on Plans for Interstate 70 Fixed
    3. In the section on Construction, there's a sentence I'd rewrite to read: "Initially only two lanes through the swell were completed. These are now the eastbound lanes." Done, I like this better, thanks
    4. In the Effects on rural Utah section, the quotes attributed to the mayor should be in double quotes, not single. The third paragraph should be expanded and cited. Comments, see below
    5. In the Effects on the San Rafael Swell section, "president" as a title in front of the name George W. Bush and Bill Clinton should be capitalized. Utah governor stays lowercase though unless you make it just Governor Mike Leavitt.Done
    6. I'd also combine the two sentences to read: "A major push occurred in 2002 as officials..."Done
  4. Overall"
    1. The whole article looks good. It should, it wouldn't be here if it didn't. You should be proud of this one. Thank you
    2. I would like to see some consistancy throughout the article on one issue though. After first mention, it is perfectly acceptable to use only I-70 instead of spelling out Interstate half of the time.
    3. I'd also like to see all the references to US Highways shortened down to US 6, US 50, US 6/US 50 throughout.
I think I have addressed these. I've tried to fully spell out first instance, then abbreviate thereafter. I'm sure I've missed something. US6 US50 and I70 are used a LOT in this article=-)

The very first time you mentioned a US Highway, you might spell it out, but if it's wikilinked, that's even unnecessary to me, IMHO. I can't see any major problems in the article that would prevent me from supporting it's promotion to A-Class (or even feature article) once these little style issues are addressed above. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten about half of your suggestions. I'll get the rest later.Davemeistermoab (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all suggestions Davemeistermoab (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to numbered items above: 2.1: One of the maps already used for a reference makes it clear Richfield is the largest city. so I altered the sentence and used the map as a source. 2.4: I agree it doesn't sound right, however the source used only gives the length in meters. As such I assume I should use the units listed in the source as the primary. If there is a guideline that anybody is aware of, please advise.

OK, it looks like there is precedent. I'll change. Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3.4: I'll most likely have to remove the 3rd paragraph. I'm not finding good sources for this. I'll give it a few more days. Fixed the quotes.

Rewrote the paragraph to better match what sources I could find. Advise if you have any issues. Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — as of now, no reason to oppose the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave the article a cursory look, here's what I found:

  • In some cases, there are spaces between punctuation and references. This is especially prevalent in the history.
  • "See Also" - MOS violation. Should be "See also".
Fixed--Wow can't believe how long that was there with nobody noticing it.
  • The SR 4 shield in the history should really be paired with where SR 4 is mentioned in the history. Having the shield at the beginning of the section when the designation isn't mentioned for another several paragraphs is extremely jarring to me.
fixed
  • The image positioning is pretty good, but I'd rearrange the images in the History section to have alternating alignments (left, right, left, etc).
fixed
  • The lengthy "Effect on the San Rafael Swell" section should be broken up into a couple of paragraphs for readability.
fixed
  • For the non-panorama and shield pics, there should be no image size specified per WP:MOS#Images. Now that I say that, it appears there's only one violation - the first left-hand picture in the history.
fixed
  • I'd double check the exit list against the WP:ELG - if SR 161 isn't signed on the BGS for exit 1, there shouldn't be a shield for it there. Same with SR 258 at exit 31 and SR 76 at exit 86. Also look over the rows that use semicolons to separate routes; AFAIK the only two items permitted by the ELG are slashes and commas.
Fixed inappropriate shields. Get the rest later.
Fixed the rest
  • More exit list:
    • "Westbound only"? Is it a westbound exit only? Or is it a westbound entrance only? Or is it a westbound exit and entrance? The more specific, the better.
fixed
  • Transcontinental railroads, par. 4: "By 1882-3 railroad spent $217,470 dollars"...including both $ and "dollars" is redundant. Also: "railroad"? What railroad?
fixed
  • Same section, par. 5: "Construction resumed in 1901 on a small portion of the proposed southern route. This time to build a spur line to service coal mines on the Wasatch Plateau." - This should be one sentence. Also: "This line was built by a subsidiary of the D&RG called the Castle Valley Railway." can be worked into the previous sentence to make the section flow better.
fixed.

More to come in a little while. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC) As promised:[reply]

  • Transcontinental railroads, par. 5 - "...the railroad bed was used to improve the State Route 10 ..." - this isn't California, no need to prefix routes with 'the'. :P
fixed
  • Plans for I-70, par. 1 - "U.S. 6/50" is, to me, an odd way to say it. Since the portion of US 6 that's relevant to I-70 in Utah entirely overlaps US 50, maybe its better to say just "...through the area was U.S. Route 50" or something along those lines. Regardless, US 50 (or both if keeping US 6) should be wikilinked - neither is linked since their appearance in the RD, and linking a term once per section is considered good practice.
Changed to U.S. 6/U.S. 50 in the first instance. The problem is U.S. 6/50 is VERY common in the sources used. It almost seems this was the universally accepted way to refer to the highway at the time.
  • Construction, par. 2: "2 of 4" should be "two of four". If the number is less than 11 (or 10 in some circles of thought), spell out the actual number. It should probably also be noted how the tunnels tie in here, since their mention seems to come out of nowhere (perhaps "The construction crews destroyed two of four tunnels along the line...").
    • For the record, it appears that the MOS follows the 10 circle of thought, so anything less than 10 (0-9) should be spelled out (zero...nine). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 03:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fixed
  • Same section, par. 3: "Initially only two lanes through the swell were completed. These are now the eastbound lanes" - perhaps "Initially only two lanes (now the eastbound lanes) through the swell were completed."
fixed
  • Effect on rural Utah, par. 1: "Then Governor" should be "Then-Governor".
re-wrote this sentence and the one prior to make clear "Then" meaning "after that" not "the govenor at the time"

Overall, it was a pretty good read and well done. Aside from what I found, I'd say it's a rock-solid article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some, more to do. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all suggestions in some form. Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Kéiryn talk 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Hopefully a very temporary oppose, as it is worthy. Most of my concerns are minor, but the last one absolutely has to be addressed for me to support.

  • Route description: The picture of the "110 miles to next services" sign seems misplaced, although this was probably dictated by layout. However, in the caption, the sentence "This sign has been replaced" should probably be cited, or just removed.
Done, this was a preemptive strike. The exit number does not match in the exit list. Photo taken in 03, freeway re-mile posted to remove a milepost equation in 04.
  • Old Spanish Trail: per MOS, 1850's → 1850s
Done
  • Transcontinental railroads: In the article on the D&RG railroad, you should list all three abbreviations. Here you probably only need to list the one you're using later in the paragraph.
Done
  • 2nd → second
Done
  • Personally, I would say 1882-83... just saying 1882-3 seems off to me. Also, $217,470 in today's dollars or 1880s dollars?
Done, Ironically I added 1882-3 to clarify that these were 1800 dollars. I guess that wasn't clear enough. Hopefully it is now.
I believe what Keiryn's trying to say is that there's no conversion to modern dollars here. Check out Interstate 355, specifically "Early history", paragraph 7. There, the dollar amount at the time is given first ("$30 million") and the conversion is given immediately afterward ("1987, $54 million in 2007"). I would not support this article with how the amount is currently presented in the article. Also, the dollar amount in the third paragraph of "Construction" likely needs a conversion as well. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change to the first amount, which should satisfy the concerns of both myself and Keiryn. I don't know what the base year is for the amount in the "Construction" section, so I didn't make the change. The site I used to make the conversion was [1], which is probably the same site Rob used when he wrote I-355. If the conversion is provided for the amount in the Construction section, I believe I'd have no choice but to support. :P --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 11:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will get this, but it may take a few days. The source is a newspaper article published for the 1990 dedication (when it was complete to interstate highway standards) but does go back and forth between events of the 1990 dedication and the 1970 dedication (complete to 2 lanes). The article is not clear if this figure is the 1970 costs or the 1970 + 1990 costs. I have a query out to find out which. Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the clarification, and it read horrible. In order to have it read smooth, I massaged and re-arranged text in the "Construction" section. Please advise if you feel I created any issues by doing so.Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the history section, you've suddenly switched from "US 6" to "U.S. 6". It seems important to be consistent within the article, and since the former is hardcoded in templates, you've got no choice. (Actually, I just noticed the UT templates in the infobox are coded to use "US-6", hmmm...)
I'll meet you 3/4ths the way. As you noticed the Jct template is not consistent between Utah and Colorado. I changed the prose to be consistent, and changed the ELG to use the Jct template, so that if this difference is resolved the entire article will be consistent. However, the way USRD works these days to get consistency is going to require 3 pages of debates, 2 RfC's and 1 Arbcom case.=-)
The inconsistency occurs here Template:Infobox road/UT/abbrev US, but the edit that changed it said that UDOT uses the dash? I don't know, but that seems like the convention we should use. --Holderca1 talk 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UDOT's website does consistently use a dash. However, don't know if UDOT has an equivalent to an MOS and that's required, or just the convention of the maintainers of the website. Even if UDOT does have an MOS of sorts, I don't know if its best for us to follow that, or be consistent with other states. Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Done what I can do without changing templates Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction: Regardless of how it's typeset on the map, I would put the words "two lanes open" in lower case letters in an encyclopedia article.
Done, though not sure this looks better.
  • The only thing jumping out at me about the exit list is the hyphens, which should probably be en-dashes. I'm not particularly picky about the spacing around the slashes.
Done
  • The big one: The lead says that it was the longest highway built over a new route since the Alaska Highway. The history section says it was the first. Which is it? Were there other ones built in between that were shorter than the 110-mile stretch?
Good catch, the actual quote was "longest". A source used previously had a misquote.

-- Kéiryn talk 15:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All items responded to in some form. Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. However, a couple of new tiny things that caught my eye...

  • #Sevier Valley: "Richfield is the largest city along the entire route." – Even though it's an article on I-70 in Utah, that sentence still reads (to me) as if you're saying Richland is the largest city between Cove Fort and Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Exit list: There's an inconsistency between Exit 56 and Exits 37/40 and 160/164. Personally, I would prefer "I-70 Bus." over "Bus. 70".
The reason for the inconsistency is exit 56 is a "Business Spur", the others are "Business Loops" which use different templates. With that said, I agree they should match, and I agree that the spur template looks better. Will change the loop template to match.
  • Also exit list: Exit 48: I thought consensus said no "To" banner plates?

But yeah, those are all tiny things. Great job this. :-) -- Kéiryn talk 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To/auxiliary plates are good, directional plates are bad. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Auxiliary plates are good, but I thought we decided "To" fell under the directional category. {{Jct}} doesn't have the capability to produce "to" plates, thus a very large number of exit lists don't use To plates. -- Kéiryn talk 18:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have that same recollection; from what I can remember, no one spoke out against to plates. Re the jct template: in NY, it doesn't produce any plates at all, so I'm used to manually adding plates. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The auxiliary plate functionality in {{jct}} has to be done state by state since every state does it differently. I think at this time, roughly half the states work. I haven't gotten around to making "To" plates work in the template at this time. --Holderca1 talk 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The route (SR259) is signed TO SR24. So I believe this to be appropriate. However, I have no problems with removing it either.
  • The last sentence of the third paragraph under "Construction" appears to be unreferenced. Other than that, I support this article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the source used for the next sentence (in the next paragraph) would be adequate to source this sentence also.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Done, Done, Done and Done.Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/Interstate_70_in_Utah&oldid=1142556388"