Talk:U.S. Route 50 in Utah

Portion of route description

Dabby, why did you remove that portion of the route description? I think it should be kept as it really describes the desolate stretch of the state it crosses. CL — 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not organized. That info should be integrated to the above paragraphs. Dabby (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is your reasoning why didn't you organize it? That is a flimsy argument for deleting it.Dave (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried organizing it... Not sure I did my best, but I tried. Cheers - CL — 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks Good, Thanks. Wow this article has been a war zone today. Good thing it's still in the GAC queue. The reviewer probably would have quick failed it had the review started on stability grounds. Hopefully everybody is happy now.Dave (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 50 in Utah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   As usuall, the prose is pretty good. Just a few comments though. *First, in the sentence, US-50 both enters and exits Utah concurrent with U.S. Route 6, however the two routes are different through the center of the state., change "different" to "seperate".

• While passing through the Great Basin the highway crosses two mountain ranges, Confusion Mountain Range via kings canyon and House Range via Skull Rock Pass[2], before arriving at the shore of Sevier Lake. make sure the footnote goes after punctuation.
• Is there a better word for "zig-zag"? At Delta U.S. Route 6 and 50 separate. is a very stubby sentence.
• In 1937[6], US-6 was extended west from its former terminus at Greeley, Colorado, through Utah, to Long Beach, California. again, make sure the ref goes after the comma.
• The modern route of US-50 was created in the 1976[8] there's no period here, and "the 1976"?

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For over three hundred miles, isn't there more route description? I would expect it to be similar to Interstate 70 in Utah. Also, there is no history other than realignments. When was the route designated? Any info on constructions?

I intentionally did not go into detail on the portion of US-50 that is concurrent with other routes. Ideally for the rest one would see I-70 or US-6 (which doesn't yet exist, but on my get around to it list.) If you disagree, and think I should cover the portions concurrent with other routes, please advise.Dave (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually would like to see some more info, say, on the Wasatch Plateau and the San Rafael Swell. Maybe include some of the geological features that are included in Interstate 70 in Utah? Also, as that article shows, there was a large affect on the swell when the highway was built, so I assume the same things could be said for this route. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   I'm not sure I like the way info in the route description was removed and readded. Is there a way to assure it will stay roughly as it is with no major changes?

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, good work. There are a few comments, though. To allow for these to be addressed, I placed the article on-hold. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Yes there were some "lone gunman" style edits made within the last 2 weeks. However, the article was previously stable, and since a compromise was hashed out, seems to be stable since. I don't think this is a concern anymore. I agree the prose needs some minor tune-ups. I will address those this week. Thanks again for the review. Dave (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review and patience. I have incorporated the fixes you have requested. My apologies, I knew some events were coming up that would shorten my free time to work on wikipedia. So I hurried some projects that I was working on. In doing so, my standards dropped. My apologies for nominating an article for GAC that still had basic prose issues. I believe those are resolved now. Dave (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. I feel I can pass it now, but for FA I'd still like to see more history other than re-routings. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)