Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Legacy Parkway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The article was promoted to A-Class - Floydian τ ¢ 04:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legacy Parkway[edit]


Legacy Parkway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Having just passed its Good Article Nomination, I believe that Legacy Parkway is ready for the next step.
Nominated by: AdmrBoltz 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 01:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872[edit]

Review by Dough4872
  • I will review this article. Dough4872 01:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


  1. Why is the title of the article "Legacy Parkway" and not "Utah State Route 67"? It is common USRD practice to use the route number over the road name. See Maryland Route 200 versus Intercounty Connector.
    Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA the highway is most commonly referred to in media as Legacy Parkway and not as SR-67. The designation is signed, but it's really more of a tracking tool than the actual name of the highway. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. In the lead, you have the route description and history mixed. You should try to do the route description first followed by a chronological history in the lead.
    Done. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. "The parkway begins at an incomplete interchange with I-215 in extreme northern Salt Lake County, allowing northbound motorists from the Interstate to transfer onto Legacy Parkway and vice-versa." the description of the partial movements at this interchange seem vague. I would expand upon this.
    I don't see how that is vague at all. It perfectly explains the movement. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    I would perhaps mention that southbound Legacy Parkway motorists can trasnfer to southbound I-215. The "vice versa" wording may confuse readers. Dough4872 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    Tweaked. --AdmrBoltz 03:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. You should write more about the physical surroundings in the route description.
    There really isn't much to say about whats around it. There is the 2,000 acre wetlands to the west and some train tracks for most of the eastern side. It was built in undeveloped land. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. "Should the parkway be extended further north, connections will be complicated due to the opening of the Farmington FrontRunner station just north of the parkway", wouldn't this sentence be more appropriate for the history?
    Moved. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. The sentence "Original plans for the highway had included a six-lane freeway, compared to the four-lane controlled-access parkway that was built" may also better fit in the history.
    Moved. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. "Legacy Parkway is part of the larger Legacy Highway project first proposed by then governor Mike Leavitt", shouldn't governor be capitalized?
    Done. --AdmrBoltz 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. The history seems to be skewed toward the lawsuit. Maybe you should add more details about the planning and construction of the route. Dough4872 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    The lawsuits were what made the highway notable in Utah. Yeah, its saving a bit of commute time, but it's main claim to fame was its its controversy. I have broken up the paragraph about it in the history so there is just the one paragraph about it plus the sentence in the route description. --AdmrBoltz 01:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    There aren't any planning details from between the 1960s and 2001 that you can add? Any additional details about the groundbreaking (if there was a ceremony)? Dough4872 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    With the recent gutting of the Google News archives (killing all access to old Deseret News articles and the fact that The Salt Lake Tribune only syndicates certain stories into ProQuest, I have added what I can. --AdmrBoltz 03:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Article looks good. Dough4872 03:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I have done a bit more digging on history and have added it in. I had not thought to search for the previous name of the highway. --AdmrBoltz 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Philroc[edit]

  • Green tickY File:Utah SR 67.svg PD-MUTCD-UT
  • Green tickY File:Legacy parkway.png Non-free with appropriate fair use rationale
  • Green tickY File:Legacy Parkway map.png PD-self
    • The map is actually not OK since it doesn't have GIS sources, and its original creator has gone dark. I've requested a new map at the MTF. --AdmrBoltz 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
      • New map is done and cited. –Fredddie 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Green tickY File:LegacyParkway3.jpg CC-BY 2.0

All images check out. Philroc (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie[edit]

Review by Fredddie

I'll give it a look-see. –Fredddie 02:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox and lead
  1. Nothing sticks out to me in the infobox
  2. Might want to mention in the lead that the wetlands are at the edge of the Great Salt Lake.
    • Done. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Adding onto that, I'm not sure if the railroad is the best descriptor of what lies east of the highway. It seems like the road is the westernmost thing in the area.
    • Well for about half the route the only thing to the east of the highway is the rail line and I-15. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. I'd like to see in the lead why the Sierra Club was against the road. Excuse the paraphrase, but it kinda reads "There are no trucks or billboards because Sierra Club."
    • ... well thats about it really. I will work on it though. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Tweaked some. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. See the KML note in the History subsection
Route description
  1. The Utah route log says the county line is at 0.239. So it should be 14 mile (400 m) instead of 310.
    • Done. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. "The parkway then turns northeasterly and back north again, intersecting with 500 South..." Can we change "intersecting" into a present tense verb? I get uneasy when I see a comma and the first word after it ends in -ing. (see the first Pennsylvania Turnpike ACR)
    • Done. -AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Is there an article for those screwy street names the Utah street name convention. If so, it might be good to link it at 500 South.
    • There isn't unfortunately. They also make perfect sense once you've lived here for more than a week ;) If this was entirely in Salt Lake County I could refer to the Salt Lake meridian but most of the route is in Davis County, and the numbering resets at county lines. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. "The parkway continues north before beginning a curve to the northeast in West Bountiful." I don't like this sentence because if you look at the route on a map, you could argue that the curve begins at the 500 South interchange. You could say "In West Bountiful, the parkway curves to the northeast as it follows the contour of the wetlands which lie on the western side of the road." or something like that.
    • Changed to your wording. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Which do you like better?
    • "Past the intersection, the parkway parallels I-15 with Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority (FrontRunner) railroad tracks in between."
    • "Past the intersection, Union Pacific and Utah Transit Authority (FrontRunner) railroad tracks run between the parkway and I-15 to the east."
      • Well clearly you didn't like my first sentence so I have changed it to your second sentence here. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. I-15 is really close, you should measure how far away it is and mention it.
    • ~300 feet (91 m). Mentioned. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  7. "The parkway, entering Farmington, gains one lane..." → "Upon entering Farmington, the parkway gains one lane..."
    • Done. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  8. It'd be neat if there were an article for the Weave. Obviously, I'm not going to hold it against you. I'm just thinking out loud.
    • Well... it was officially named when the highway opened and quickly forgotten about my everyone locally. Nobody uses the name despite it being its official designation. --AdmrBoltz 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  9. I'm not sure I would mention the lawsuit in the RD; that's better suited for the history section. You could start off with "The road was designed to include extensive..." Basically start at the first comma of that first sentence.
    • Done. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  10. "In addition to the Legacy Nature Preserve,..." That's the first time you've mentioned the preserve by name, so you really can't say "in addition to".
    • Done. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  11. Another pic for the article would be nice (maybe one that is not snowy), but you knew that already.
    • MOS:IMAGELOCATION says no to squishing text between pictures and infoboxes, thus right now as the article stands there really isn't room for a second picture without dumping it next to the junction list. --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. The first paragraph has a few issues:
    • Highway projects cannot aspire to anything, they are inanimate.
      • Done. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't like ", with the parkway being only a portion in between." at all. Refer back the PATP ACR for the ", with" issue, but also you already mention that the road is a part of the whole Legacy Highway project.
      • Done. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Going back to the KML for a moment, you could roughly draw proposed corridors on there. I'd use a wide stroke (10 or 15px) with 50% transparency, just so we can visualize where the highway was proposed.
    • Smells rather heavily of original research and borderline synthesis. There were no maps that I found that showed proposed routes, just mentions in newspapers. Also, is this now something we have to do for all roads that don't follow their original plans? --AdmrBoltz 17:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. What aspects of the EIS were allegedly not complete?
    • Added in. --AdmrBoltz 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Who opened the highway/cut the ribbon?
    • Added. --AdmrBoltz 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Shouldn't you mention that it was designated a scenic byway six years before it opened?
    • Done. --AdmrBoltz 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. Wait, you waited until the last paragraph to mention details from the original plans?
    • Moved. That whole last paragraph was cut and pasted from the RD into the history during Dough's review. --17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  7. In the last sentence of the section, I think the shopping center is a bigger impediment than the train station.
    • Done. --AdmrBoltz 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Exit list
Looks fine
Right now, I am leaning oppose, but I could be swayed. This isn't a bad article, but I think there are some nuances that need to be addressed.
  1. The RD is written matter-of-factly, which isn't wrong, I think it lacks some color. We rag on Dough for asking to add scenery at every ACR, but he's right.
    • I added a bit to it, but I assume since you've looked at the map you've seen there isn't much there... --AdmrBoltz 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. If the road was truly controversial, foreseeably, the history section could be doubled in length. I know we're required to write in summary style, but some details (the completeness of the EIS, for instance) are completely glossed over.
Hopefully, this wasn't too harsh, do I see the potential in this article and could see it going all the way. –Fredddie 05:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@Fredddie: I have responded to most of your points, mind taking a look again. --AdmrBoltz 13:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I will get to it sometime today. I have been busy in the meatspace the last few days which resulted in me crashing at 7pm last night. –Fredddie 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
👍 Support Talking about the EIS adds the depth I was looking for. I do have one more thing, but obviously it's not going to hold you up. Above, you mentioned that nobody calls it the Wasatch Weave. I'd like to see that mentioned in the article and backed up by a reference. → "This interchange is officially called the Wasatch Weave, but is almost never referred to as such." But if you can't, you can't, no big deal. –Fredddie 21:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is citing that. Since its not called that... its hard to cite that its not called that :P. Though I did want it to be named the Chuck Norris Highway... The only four hits in ProQuest for the Weave are from the day or the day after the intersection was named. --AdmrBoltz 21:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Figured. NBD. –Fredddie 21:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Spotcheck by TCN7JM[edit]

Spotcheck by TCN7JM

I reviewed this article at GAN, so I'll do the spotcheck. I will start it after Fredddie's concerns are addressed. TCN7JM 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@TCN7JM: Fredddie's review is done now. --AdmrBoltz 17:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I said yesterday on IRC I would try to get it done today, but I don't think you were around. I'll go ahead and do it in a couple hours. TCN7JM 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright. As usually I'll review a quarter of the references. I can't review 6.5 refs, so I'll round up to seven. They will be, as of this revision:

  1. Source 1 –  Fine There seems to have been a typo in the infobox (said the road opened on 9/18/2008 instead of 9/13/2008), but I fixed it and now everything's alright.
  2. Source 5 –  Fine
  3. Source 6 –  Fine
  4. Source 10 –  Fine
  5. Source 18 – Maybe you should...use Source 1 instead of this source the first time it's used. This one mentions nothing about I-15; the other one does.
  6. Source 25 –  Fine
  7. Source 26 –  Fine

I'll start on this immediately. TCN7JM 00:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Now done. TCN7JM 00:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I see that one issue was fixed. TCN7JM 01:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I think we'd better promote this one, because it has 3 Supports, an image review, and a spotcheck, both of which went well. Philroc (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
      • ... no, it only has 2 supports, a support as part of an image review or spotcheck does not count. --Rschen7754 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754

I will take the last review. --Rschen7754 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary checks
  • No issues.
  • near by -> nearby
  • speed and trucks - comma after
Route description
  • No issues.
  • 5600 West, however that -> 5600 West; however, that
  • Same for the last sentence of that paragraph.
  • Comma after Legacy Nature Preserve
  • then-governor here, but then-Governor earlier... be consistent.
  • "complicated" seems too colloquial.

Should be a support once these issues are resolved. --Rschen7754 03:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice this earlier. Will do this tomorrow night. --AdmrBoltz 02:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Done with all but complicated. Suggestions on alternate phrasing? --AdmrBoltz 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I would go into more detail. --Rschen7754 00:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 01:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.