Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 50

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not promoted as inactive (and per nom's request). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 50[edit]

U.S. Route 50 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I feel this article is ready to take the next step in it's development before reaching FA status.
Nominated by: —JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 05:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
comments

I don't think this article is ready for FAC just yet. The route description goes into turn-by-turn detail around some cities, then barely mentions 2 words for entire states. IMO it should be at a high level. For example, I would summarize the California portion something like this: US 50 begins in Sacramento in the California Central Valley. From there the highway follows the American River up the Sierra Nevada, until cresting the Sierras at Echo Summit and descending to Lake Tahoe, where the highway enters Nevada. In Nevada the highway crosses a series of North-South running mountain ranges that break up the Nevada desert, what is called Basin and Range. etc. etc. The history isn't quite detailed enough for a A class article, IMO. Although I'm not sure how to expand it without showing regional bias.

One final comment, the FWHA has re-ordered its website recently. Many links now point to "this page has moved" notices. Might want to check all FWHA references.Dave (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing formal, just some cursory comments: I agree with Dave regarding the route description, as it seems to be a bit weak in terms of geography along the route. It gives off the impression of an index-of-sorts; although that's what articles like US 50 have become with the rise of all these state-detail articles, it shouldn't be obvious to the reader. I'd try to add some more color - geography, sights, etc. - to liven it up a little. Now, in terms of the history, this is tricky too: because of the state-detail articles, this article's history should only contain things that mattered on a route-wide scale so it can't get too detailed. Then again, it only mentions the auto trails it replaced in a cursory matter, and that should definitely be fleshed out more. Perhaps that's more of what Dave was thinking of, in which case I totally agree. – TMF 07:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, if the history section focused more on the auto trails and how the routing of US 50 came to be, that's one way to expand it and keep a balanced national scope.Dave (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments - (Admrboltz (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • References 7 (the Missouri & Ohio links), 14 and 18 are dead links.
    • Please use citation templates.
    • Image:US 50 map.png - What are the red lines, blue lines, gray lines? I know, but someone on FAC won't know. Also the map doesn't explain what the red line is in the infobox either.
    • What is the rhyme or reason on the selection of cities in the "Selected cities and towns on US-50" infobox?
    • The article is laid out backwards. USRD standards dictate east-west route descriptions, and your lead is written that way, but the RD section is west-east.
    • "Before the creation of the Interstate Highway System, US 50 was a major east-west route." cite? We all know its a major route, but it sounds like OR or a bunch of weasel words.
    • You use the abbreviation US 50 but haven't defined it. When you use abbreviations, you must define them. After U.S. Route 50 in the lead, you can add (US 50) or ", also US 50" or something that defines that abbreviation.
For the record, from west to east is usually the norm, as that's the way most roads are mileposted.Dave (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the manual said east-west and south-north... --Admrboltz (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See last sentence of [1]. Although this guideline should probably be clarified to handle some more "odd cases".Dave (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the map problem but for the gray lines it doesn't take a half of brain to figure that one out roadgeek or not :-P.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article currently does not comply with WP:ALT; note the section on WT:USRD if you have any questions. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the status of this nomination? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/U.S._Route_50&oldid=1138355715"