Talk:Utah State Route 57

Assessment
As of now, this article is still Start-class. The route description is actually a single run-on sentence. Whether it gets expanded or not, that needs to be rewritten. Also, the mileage in the intersection list does not match the infobox – someone may want to take a look at that. -- Kéiryn (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix the sentence and the mileage, but because there is a bot-tag at work, it would have to be altered there. Not a big enough deal. IP4240207xx (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried improving the route description just a wee bit more, fixed the mileage, oh and to User:IP, I named the reference by the name "reference" because that is the title of the work, it is the State Route 57 reference made by UDOT, not me being lazy. The route description cannot be expanded much more, as it passes through a rural area and connects a power plant to a mine. I don't think there are any campgrounds or anything here. Remember the 50-75% rule here. CL — 00:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, regarding the 50-75% rule, I wouldn't consider any article for GA-class or above that didn't have at least two full paragraphs in its route description section, so one too-short paragraph is under 50%. This applies regardless of what route it is, what the surroundings are, etc.  It's certainly possible that some articles will never get beyond a certain point. -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sentence about the mine fire be in the description, not the history, since it's not related to the history of the highway? There's probably something to be said about the terrain too. --NE2 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mine disaster move: ✅ ....IP4240207xx (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this article looks a lot closer to B now. :-) -- Kéiryn (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)