Talk:Legacy Parkway/Archive 1

Untitled[edit]

Why does Image:Legacyparkwayconstruction.jpg show the parkway exiting itself onto Parrish Lane? --NE2 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It's a sign that they installed on the Legacy Parkway, right before an exit. What's so strange about that? C L — 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a Legacy Parkway shield on the exit, meaning that the parkway is reached via the exit. --NE2 19:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I found so strange when I took this picture. They put Legacy Parkway shields on them. But trust me, this is on the parkway itself. C L — 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-215 is exit 1[edit]

See [1], it will show it at various points, especially 1:02. C L — 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh - I hate exit numbers when there's no exit. As for being a scenic byway...yeah, UDOT, how about driving the Merritt Parkway to see what a scenic freeway actually looks like? --NE2 07:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely right, the half-baked attempt at a "parkway" doesn't compare to the one in Connecticut. The Legacy Parkway was supposed to be a full-fledged, six-lane freeway with ample shoulders and whatnot, but thanks to angry environmentalists we got this. Oh well, a freeway is a freeway. And anyway, I doubt they are going to designate the Legacy Parkway as a scenic byway, what you saw in that video was an overzealous UDOT guy. C L — 07:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New news info[edit]

New news article: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3888335 --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, September? Great news! And thanks for the find Ad, I wouldn't have been aware of this otherwise. I'll incorporate the new info soon - C L — 04:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Legacy Parkway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article now. T C N7JM 00:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the second sentence of the route description is technically a run-on, but it's still too long, and should be split.
Shouldn't SR-67 be abbreviated in the lead instead of first abbreviating SR-68 in the route description?
I know this problem is caused by the inflation templates, but is there any possible way to put the cites in numeric order in the last paragraph of the history section?

Other than that everything seems fine. I will put this on hold. T C N7JM 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the above items. --Admr Boltz 00:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. I'll go ahead and pass the article. Nice work. T C N7JM 00:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]