Talk:Interstate 70 in Utah

Length Precision
Is it reasonable to specify the length to hundredths of a mile? Given the width of the freeway, it seems like lengths could vary by at least a hundred feet depending on where the measurement was taken.--67.88.113.150 (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The source for the mileage figures is UDOT's maintenance logs. This log lists milages to 3 decimal places (i.e. 0.001 miles). Most likely the DOT has a standard as to how to measure to get tha precision (i.e. follow the yellow strip or something). Dave (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos
I just uploaded a bunch of photos of the San Rafael Swell and linked to this page. I felt that some photos were needed, but freely admit what I did may be overkill. If so, feel free to take down some. I'll admit I've got a personal bias (this is one of my favorite drives) and I actually had a tough time getting the selection down to as few photos as I did =-) Davemeistermoab 06:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
I failed this as a Good Article because one of the main sources used in the history is not a reliable source. The route description could probably use a bit of work too, removing some or all section headings and possibly added a bit more. --NE2 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which source are you referring to? I think your review should say at a minimum which sources you doubt. If It's Dan Stober's webpage that is an easy fix. It covers about 90% of the same material as the Federal Highway Administration source, and I used Stober's page for the "less likely to be challenged" stuff. If it is a different source that you believe is unreliable I would most likely have to scrub that paragraph. If it is the FWHA source you find reliable well........ Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's Dan Stober's site. If you could fix it up, and nobody objects, I'll probably bump it up without going through the process again. --NE2 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the rerouting of US 50 was made in 1976, not 1977; it was independent of the 1977 renumbering. There's a bit more about that in U.S. Route 50 if you want to add more. --NE2 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on whom you ask. AASTHO approved it in 1976. The legislative changes were not made until the 1977 renumbering. See http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=200609140952271 (the source used in the article). I don't think Stober is unreliable. I have found some errors on his site, yes. But the page I'm quoting is mostly citing FWHA article and Utah newspapers of the era. It is also largly seconded by other sources. I believe it is an appropriate secondary source. Davemeistermoab (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, AASTHO is a voluntary association of state officials. It's decisions are not enforceable or binding. Wikipedia has several highway articles where AASTHO guidelines have been ignored, U.S. Route 163,U.S. Route 189, Interstate 69 and Interstate 99 just off the top of my head. I used the date passed by the Utah legislature, which is legally binding.Davemeistermoab (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are you seeing that the changes were legislatively made in 1977? Page 16 of the PDF says "US-50 from Delta to Salina", meaning that it already went via I-70. You should also note that there were no legislative definitions for U.S. Routes until the 1977 renumbering, so the legislature didn't have to do anything for US 50 to be moved. --NE2 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 16 is the petition (i.e. proposal) Note on page 12 of the pdf noting "this petition is authorized on....." not "these changes are effective..." or some other more official language. My understanding of the document is the change was made effective the date given on page 1.


 * Either way, its a petty argument. If this is the worst thing wrong with the article (which semantic argument is the effective date of change) put the article on the front page right now ... =-). You offered to review this article under the good article criteria. Arguing over semantics like this will not help your case that your review was legitimate or in good faith. I suggest you drop this and focus on more substantive matters. If you're that passionate about it go ahead and just get it over with and change the article to say 1976, its a trivial detail and nobody really cares.Davemeistermoab (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't part of the reason for the fail; it was something else that I noticed. --NE2 01:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was reinserted in the nominations list. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 13:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded to this request, and will begin to review the article momentarily. I will proceed to notify Davemeistermoab and Geometry guy, who seem to be the main contributors to this article. I look forward to hopefully rewarding their hard work. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful GA Status
Congratulations! This article, reviewed by Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs), has achieved Good Article status.

This article is very high quality as reviwed per the good article criteria, in my opinion. I am especially fond of the frequency and quality of the pictures. The sources seem to be trustworthy, and there is plenty of accurate, cited material. Also, the detail of the Route description is very thorough and interesting.

The grammar had some very minor flaws, mostly with puncuation, but those were easily fixable. This was the only real flaw I found.

All in all, this is a high quality article that is very deserving of good article status. My suggestion to the major contributors would be to assist in the writing of articles which are redlinked in the article (I-70 Business Richfield, UT; US-6 in Utah; etc.).

I will proceed to follow the necessary steps for passing this article. Again, very well done. -Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Utah
I think that this article is definitely in the scope of Wikiproject Utah. Does anyone mind if I put the template up here? Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Many highways are listed under both the state and highway wikiprojects, many are not. I think it just depends on if the state wikiproject deems it to be important enough. Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No services for the next ___ miles
According to this page at Utah.gov, the official word is "The 110 miles between Green River and Salina still represent the longest stretch without services on the entire interstate system." Or, we could just omit the number of miles from the statement to avoid any controversy over the exact number... perhaps? Its been a year or so since I've been through there but if the signs say "110" miles then I think that should be the official number. ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen several figures. 104 miles is from freeway exit to freeway exit. The 110 miles is the most common in older literature. I agree, we should go with this. I don't think its correct any more. Most newer sources say 104, 106 or 108, but these are unofficial soucres (i.e. Fred's guide to I-70 =-).. But this is the most "official" source. I've got pictures of the 110 miles signage. I'll upload those. thanks for finding this link. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Book Cliffs
South of the Book Cliffs is Moab, Utah. The red rocks in that area are some of the world's most famous mountain biking and off road driving terrain. This article might mention that. --Una Smith (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've debated this myself. In the end I decided not to mention Moab, as 1. Moab is not a city directly served by I-70 and 2. Most of the featured attractions linked in this article also link to Moab. So anybody interested will find it. However, if you disagree, by all means, add it. I would only ask that make sure what is added has a good source attached, as the article is being nominated for a Featured Article as I write this. Cheers Dave (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Lead Sentence
I reverted the lead sentence to the FAC version. The FAC version is a much better sentence in my opinion. I would expect that the first sentence would give a simple, stand-alone version of the article. I think that by starting the  article with a dependent clause, the subject of the article is not 100% clear at first glance. I did a quick survey of articles featured on the main page and every single one starts with a simple formula: Subject is/was/are then a simple statement of what the article subject is. I think we should leave the sentence the way it is, and if there is any discussion, we should have it here and then make a change if a better sentence can be found. --Glennfcowan (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to see the discussion here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAC version violates three Wikipedia guidelines as well, WP:LEAD, MOS:BOLD and MOS:LINK. FAC does not supersede Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  --Holderca1talk 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please conform with WP:LEAD; I don't see a compelling reason not to conform in the Project page discussions. What portion of this version does not conform with WP:LEAD, WP:MOSBOLD or MOS:LINK Holderca1? It is possible to write a lead that conforms, and no good reason has been given not to. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD has an example of what to avoid that reads: The electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker are a dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics. "Interstate 70 in Utah is the portion of Interstate Highway 70, commonly abbreviated I-70," is similarly redundant, and that is what has some people adamantly opposed to it. My take after reading WP:LEAD is that holderca1, NE2, et al. are right, although holderca1 is exaggerating the number of rules broken. With that said, I'm fed up with this to the point of never working on an FA again. Somebody please just pick an appropriate lead, and lets please move on.Dave (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you all might work towards broad consensus in a central place (and a Project page isn't the best place to get broad feedback): I'm seeing instability and lack of consensus in several discussions.  I suggest that the talk page at WP:LEAD would be the best place to sort this out and come up with a firm conclusion.  Eliminating the redundancy in the leads is a separate issue from deciding where road articles stand wrt WP:LEAD.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This portion: "is the portion of Interstate Highway 70, commonly" violates MOS:LINK "Two links are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link" and MOS:BOLD and WP:LEAD both say not to bold a descriptive title, which "Interstate 70 in Utah" is. --Holderca1talk 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I suggest you centralize this discussion somewhere to develop consensus, but that's not exactly what WP:LEAD says. It seems there is disagreement even among Road Project members, which doesn't bode well for the stability issue on FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on the talk page for WP:LEAD directing those who have an opinion to Wikipedia_talk:USRD.Dave (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's the best way to get broader input towards resolving the questions. I'll unwatch here, then, since you all are working to sort it out and this isn't the best place for the discussion:  I'm concerned about the discussions of edit warring I saw on the Project page.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on location of San Rafael Swell
"Between Fremont Junction and the junction of SR-24 Interstate 70 crosses a geographic feature called the San Rafael Swell."

I-70 has two junction with SR-24 - could someone please clarify this passage? Thanks.

97.113.65.131 (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your question it is the eastern junction, near Green River. Once the craziness dies down (i.e. off the front page) I'll try to clarify that sentence.Dave (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

National Park?
"It has also been a motivating factor for environmentalists to create a new National Park along the path of the highway to protect scenic areas around the route." Which park is meant by that sentence? There are no national park service units on I-70 that were designated since the highway was build or planned. Or does this refer to Canyonlands National Park? That one is not on I-70 and I would like to see a source that its creation was connected to I-70. --h-stt !?  07:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See the section "Effects on the San Rafeal Swell" in the article, the claim is well sourced and explained there. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. The statement is accurate. The area has been nominated for National Park and National Monument status on multiple occaisions.Dave (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead, mention of larger I-70
I know this article is Interstate 70 in Utah, but I think it would be worthwhile to mention that Interstate 70 is a large Interstate that connects Baltimore and Los Angeles. I live in Pittsburgh, where the road runs through, and was extremely confused reading the article. It required me to do some additional research to understand, which is largely unacceptable for feature articles.TheHammer24 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. Although the first link in the article is to the National Interstate 70 article. Think of this as a sub article focusing on one section. I'll try to work this into the lead.Dave (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that fix clears up any confusion. Thanks. TheHammer24 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, though I said I would do it, I forgot about this. Someone else fixed it. Thanks!Dave (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 70 in Utah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071126105007/http://www.headwatersnews.org/p.021302.html to http://www.headwatersnews.org/p.021302.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 70 in Utah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202133422/http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/price/recreation/quarry.html to http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/price/recreation/quarry.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141120122331/http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_10_ut.html to https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_10_ut.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Interstate 70 in Utah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208164504/http://nationalbridges.com/nbi_record.php?StateCode=49&struct=4C+684 to http://nationalbridges.com/nbi_record.php?StateCode=49&struct=4C+684
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208164503/http://nationalbridges.com/nbi_record.php?StateCode=49&struct=2C+495 to http://nationalbridges.com/nbi_record.php?StateCode=49&struct=2C+495
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208164509/http://nationalbridges.com/nbi_record.php?StateCode=49&struct=4C+755 to http://nationalbridges.com/nbi_record.php?StateCode=49&struct=4C+755
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411072233/http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/g/GREENRIVER.html to http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/g/GREENRIVER.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 70 in Utah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918125422/http://dinosaurdiamond.org/ to http://www.dinosaurdiamond.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Disputing some history
I'm looking at a 1978 aerial and the portion over the Pavant Range was just being graded. It was definitely not finished by 1970, when the Swell opened. --NE2 02:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that source is consistent with the article in its current state. While most definitely the approaches to the Fish Creek Bridge are visible in that satellite photo as in the early stages of construction, and to the east of the Fish Creek bridge doesn't yet exist in any form in that photo, farther to the west you can see traffic flowing on a completed portion over the pass itself and down the western approach. You can even see the old two lane road over the pass itself is already broken into non-contiguous segments with traffic flowing on the freeway. This is consistent with the 1974 map used as a source for that statement, which I have in my possession, and shows a small sliver over the pass open to traffic by 1974. Where I will grant you we have a problem, is the source for "opened by 1970" is sourced to a 1974 map, which is indeed inappropriate. That is a good catch, thanks. However, that is a 2 word fix that would take far less effort to fix than the fuss being raised now. Unless anybody objects, I'll just do that. Dave (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)