I do not believe it is well-written. I count the word then 20 times. The route description became difficult to read after so many it then. I believe it follows the MOS, somewhat, but I count a few redirects in the Wikilinks.
Large portions of the route description are unsourced. What is sourced in the route description is linked to a map. I find that as a problem, as it could be seen as slightly OR. I don't know what the policy is for other routes, but I personally don't approve of it. I'd rather have a source that defines the route, and use that, than using a map. However, the info on the re-routing seems decent, and well-sourced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
First, the route description seems far too long. More importantly, though, there is little in the article outside of the route description. Are there any traffic counts available? When was the original route constructed? I'd like a real history section, with more than just the re-routing. Additionally, I'm interested in why the route was re-routed.
Sorry, but I do not believe this article is good. Good luck improving the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on correcting this, but many of these concerns are not actionable. It was likely previously constructed and the designation simply displaced several existing state highways. Why the highway was rerouted is impossible to tell; it's probably just ODOT determining a more efficient routing and adjusting the highway accordingly. Anything about this wouldn't be sourceable anyhow, as ODOT just tells when they reroute stuff, never why. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS): 
