Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in Utah

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 23:15, 30 April 2008.

Interstate 70 in Utah

[edit]

Self-Nom: I'm nominating this article for featured article because... Over the course of the past year this article has steadily progressed from stub to a GA (rated A class by WP:USRD.) I have tried to write this page in a style that it would be interesting to both a roadgeek and a general audience. I think this article would make a good FA, and am willing to fix whatever is found that is not FA worthy.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we please spell out acronyms in the footnotes? FHWA really should be spelled out.
Yes we can, FWHA replaced with Federal Highway Administration.
This source largely duplicates material available from the (suwa.org) source, whose authority has so far not been challenged. So I switched to suwa.org.
This is the on-line website for a magazine that was formerly available in print form. The specific article I'm using from this website was from when the magazine was published in print form, and this article available in book stores at the time. Per the website, the magazine still hosts a talk radio show. I believe this to be an acceptable source. However, other sources exist if you disagree. Again, SUWA.org could be used to source this. However SUWA's article on the subject has a politically charged tone, and I felt the source currently used was better given the circumstances.
Never mind, I just found a Denver Post article that can be used to source this.Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The National Bridge Inventory is a program of the Federal Highway Administration. This website is a non-government hosted searchable database of the federal government's data. This same data is available directly from the FHWA, but the FWHA's formatting of this data makes it nearly impossible for a non-expert to find the relevant facts. This non-government clone of the FWHA data has been deemed acceptable on other FA articles that mention bridges, including Interstate 355 and the Kansas Turnpike, which was the featured article from last Saturday.
I have switched to the Federal Highway Administration as the primary source with nationalbridges.com as an alternate link. I hope this is sufficient.Davemeistermoab (talk)
All other links checked out Ealdgyth - Talk 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my responses resolve your concerns, please advise if you still have concerns Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style calls for the route description to come first. It is my understanding that the ordering of those 2 sections has been the subject of a long-standing debate with supporters on either side. I'd prefer to see more comments before re-ordering. On a personal level, I would be happy with either ordering. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the NY 174 FAC, in my mind, it really depends on what sort of history the history section focuses on to determine whether history or RD should be first. Since I-70's history mostly focuses on construction and similar pre-Interstate routes, I think it would be fine to switch them, since you don't have the lack of context issues due to the comparison between the historic present-day routing that you have with NY 174. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with switching, if consensus says that's better. What I don't want to do is spend 3 hours on a major overhaul of the article, to have the next reviewer say. You know, it would be better if you put the Route description first. =-)Dave (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't take three hours to switch it around. Just copy-and-paste it to the desired location. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To do it right would. I'd have to go through and find all acronyms that are explained in in the Route description section but also used in the History section. Then move the text that explains what the San Rafael Swell is to the history section, etc. It would take time.Dave (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. Personally, I think the Route Description should come before History. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a revision with the sections reversed at User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox, if anybody else wants to opine on which order is better. However, I'm inclined to believe the article does read better with the history section first.Dave (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Good, but could still do with a spruce up in the prose department. Here are random examples:

  • Case issues: "Unlike most Interstate Highways"—MOS says generic items are in lower case, I think. And pipe the link to "U.S. Highway" for the same reason. Interstate Highway System ... that seems to require lower case too, despite the usage in the title of the eponymous article.
Interstate Highway and U.S. Highway are proper nouns in the United States. Interstate Highway (with caps) refers to a specific network of highways authorized by congress in 1956. Similarly U.S. Highway (in caps) refers to a different network of highways first established in 1926.
  • "also" is rather freely bandied about. The last one in the lead could go.
Removed
  • "trumpet interchange" redirects to a broader article; can you pipe to the section, at least?
Changed redirect
  • Subtitle "Route description"—why not dispense with the second word?
This is the recommended title to be used per Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Manual of Style
  • "an odd looking mountain"—something missing?
Nice Catch, thanks
  • "Big Rock Candy Mountain" links to an article about a song, so pipe-link "song" instead.
Done
  • "Interstate 70 inside Spotted Wolf Canyon"—Inside is a little awkward. "in"? or recast?
Done
  • "2 major geographic obstacles"—MOS breach.
Fixed, Thanks

And more ... Tony (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fixing the above items on my sandbox copy. I'll have the article updated with fixes shortly. Thanks for the review.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, there is a difference between Interstate Highway and interstate highway... for example, Interstate 16 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "Route description" - that is how all of the road articles are supposed to do it across the board per WP:HWY, WP:USRD, WP:CRWP, and WP:UKRD, including the recently passed FACs, New York State Route 174 and Interstate 355. --16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - very good article, would like to see some more in regards to some minor issues...

Agreed, Those were wikilinked per request at ACR, removed.
  • What is a UDOT? This acronym is wikilinked, ...but a FA article should have all acronyms explained at least once in the article.
This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the "Wasatch Plateau" section, however it wasn't wikilinked, so it still needs to be fixed.
Thanks again.
  • Same with a BLM? This acronym is wikilinked, but still should be written out at least once IMHO
Same, This is spelled out in the first instance in prose, in the Transcontinental Railroads section.
Thanks
  • The intro states that It does not serve or connect any large cities in Utah. and then their is a tabular box listing major cities. Can this be clarified - what is a large city and what is a major city?
Good point, I'll have to work on this a bit. This is explained in the "Sevier Valley" section of the article, but not accurately summarized in the lead. I'll work on it.
I have clarified the lead. Please advise if you still have objections.
Ahh !I understand now :-)
  • Is there any information regarding speed limits along the route?
I'll see what I can find. I know this information, it's more of a question of finding a "reliable source".
Sigh, I have found websites that list speed limit information, but these would surely be challenged as reliable sources. I cannot find any official table on UDOT or FWHA's website. Sorry. I can add the site I found as an external link, if agreed this would be ok.
Thanks - For the search, the citations would be necessary for such a fact so an external link is fine by me. Twas just curious with the description of the terrain and the emergency semi brake run off and such. SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The external link I found is here:[1]. Although, this is not complete, missing the truck speed limits (40MPH) placed on the hilly areas. I'll keep looking, and if I can't find a better one, use this as an external link. The page is actually very good, but with a URL of members.aol.com would certainly be challenged as a self published source. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The convention for the WP:USRD project is Interstate 80 refers to the national article for a multi-state Interstate Highway. Interstate 70 in Utah refers to the single state portion of a multi-state Interstate Highway and Interstate 215 (Utah) refers to when there are two or more single-state Interstate Highways with the same number. This would be better explained in the Interstate Highway System article, and it is to an extent.
  • Can/should the USA route of the full Interstate 70 be shown in the Utah article for those not familiar with how the interstate highway impacts upon this Utah segment of the I-70?
The national route is depicted on the national article, which is the first wikilink in the lead.

Kind Regards and good luck SriMesh | talk 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am making the requested changes on my sandbox copy and will have them fixed shortly.Dave (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement above about redlinks was incorrect; notable topics and people should be redlinked, and there is nothing wrong with redlinks, in an FA or in any article. If you removed necessary redlinks, pls reinstate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would have responded 5 minutes quicker. I just removed them. Thanks for the correction. I'll put them back =-)Dave (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned the red wikilinks, as I have had articles at GAC not approved due to red links and the article needed updating, or red link article creation. Thanks for the heads up, that tis not pre-requisite.SriMesh | talk 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned above.

Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#Formatting a bold title is not always appropriate. I chose not to bold the title so that I could wikilink Interstate 70 in the first sentence, which I felt to be more important. This same portion of the MOS advises against having bolded links in the lead. However, if you have a better way to word the lead sentence to allow both bolding and a wikilink, I would be most grateful. I freely admit I'm not the worlds best writer, as evidenced by the number of grammatical errors found by others. I have debated using the {{main}} template to accomplish this. Thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raul uses the lead to write the blurbs for TFA, so when you can comply with WP:LEAD, it's helpful to do so. I made some changes to bold the article title;[2] more tweaking may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit Sandy. To respond to some of the edit summaries: I knew it was questionable if "State Route 4" should be bolded or not. There is a discussion going on about this at WP:USRD right now, with a misconception currently prevailing. I will report your comments to avoid other road related FAC's from having the same issue. I take responsibility for the sloppy template coding. I didn't know which template to use for a newspaper article, and ended up changing like 4 or 5 times. The slop you saw was leftovers from the older templates. Thanks again.Dave (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's less of a misconception than it is interpreting WP:REDIRECT against WP:MOSBOLD. I'd advise SandyGeorgia to see this discussion for what I believe are valid concerns about removing boldface from designations that redirect to that article. – TMF 04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI feel bad for chiming in so late, but I have a big problem with the unshielded main image. See the New York State Route 28 FAC discussion above and the discussion at WT:USRD/MTF.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being picky here. Isn't this like rejecting an FA for FDR because the lead photo doesn't show him in a wheelchair? I'll see what I can do with improving the map, but I don't think this is grounds alone for rejecting an FA, nor do I think the Maps task force could re-do it in time for this review, even if consensus says as current is "bad".Dave (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is way too minor to warrant an oppose. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Comments Very good, almost there.[reply]
    • The lead is a little jarring in its series of short sentences. There are some related ideas that could be connected, such as: "It does not serve or connect any urban areas in Utah. Richfield is the largest Utah city served by the freeway." Actually, the second sentence sort of implies the first.
I have played with the lead. Please advise if you still have concerns.
    • "Unlike most Interstate Highways..." I don't think I would capitalize when you are referring to "interstate highways" generally and not by name.
I know you struck the objection per comments of others, but as this has been raised twice now I would like to explain. Interstate 70 is an Interstate Highway (with caps). There is a difference. Interstate 19 is an Interstate Highway but not an interstate highway. U.S. Route 50 is an interstate highway but not an Interstate Highway. It's a roadgeek thing =-)
That makes much more sense than previous explanations - thank you. --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because I-70 was built over an entirely new route, I-70 has many notable oddities in the Interstate Highway System." Notable oddities? The next things you mention are more "trivia" or "interesting facts" than oddities. An oddity would be a loop-the-loop or something.
I see your point, but I've tried 3 or 4 ways and I can't come up with a better way to word this. I welcome your suggestions.
What do you think of it the way I reworded it? --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)s[reply]
That's fine, thanks. Dave (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bit of overlinking.. you don't need to link general terms like "motorist" and "environmentalist".
Removed 4 linked terms.
    • In the Sevier Valley heading, there are four sentences (including three in a row) that begin with "The highway..."
The word highway only appeared in 3 instances in the entire paragraph, and once as an adjective, so you're exaggerating a little bit. =-) That's ok though, your point was valid, and I removed one instance.
    • "The construction of the freeway through the swell is considered 'one of the most significant highway construction feats of its time' and is an engineering marvel." You really need a source for a statement like this that isn't published by the DOT.
Currently the claim is sourced by the Federal Highway Administration, not the state DOT that built it. If you prefer, The Deseret News article could also be used to source this claim.
I tried your suggestion and I like it. But this is breaking tradition in the WP:USRD articles, so prepare for some backlash =-).
I love a rebel. It looks good, though - maybe it'll catch on! --Laser brain (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and feedback. Please advise if I have not addressed your concerns.Dave (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Interstate vs. interstate highways & maps:

  • This is a part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, also known as the Interstate Highway System. Not all Interstate Highways run across state lines. There are four such highways on the island of Oahu, thousands of miles from the mainland. Interstate 96 only runs in Michigan. Other highways run interstate, i.e. across state lines, such as U.S. Route 41 which runs from Copper Harbor, MI to Miami, FL. I-70 is an Interstate Highway because it is part of the Interstate Highway System, even if this article is only about the section in Utah. As such I will oppose any an all further discussion to suggest using interstate when it is properly an Interstate. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second point that has drawn some criticism from me watching this review is over the map. It is all fine and dandy to express a preference over changes to the map. Unfortunately though, maps are not as easily edited as the rest of the content of an article. Unlike the prose content of the article, graphics do require some specialized tools for editing. The editor that created the map is no longer as active on Wikipedia as previously, something I lament for other reasons. The editor that did the majority of the work on this article may or may not have the graphic arts or mapping skills needed to make the changes being requested. If a reviewer cannot find anything more that he feels is unacceptable than how a map is drawn, a map which forms a small part of the total information presented, and uses that map as the sole basis for an opposition to the promotion of an otherwise fine article, then I say it is well within the judgement of the FA directors to disregard that opposition when deciphering consensus.

Having said all of that, I tentatively 'support promotion of this article, reserving the right to offer constructive suggestions for improvement. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I honestly don't see anything wrong with the article. In my eyes, the prose is excellent and engaging, and made me want to read it until the end of the article. Amazing amount of information and references, as well. A very informing and interesting read. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Interstate_70_in_Utah&oldid=1138463914"