Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/Interstate 70 in Utah

Interstate 70 in Utah
I've spent a lot of time on this article. I would like to see it be a featured article someday and would like to know if my contributions are on the right path. Davemeistermoab 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some observations on layout:


 * Placing a left-aligned image at the start of the article is generally a bad idea. A better location would be the route description.
 * The infobox should be checked for minor junctions. It looks like every intersecting route that carries a route number is listed; only the most major of these should be listed in the infobox.
 * The header "Route History" is not compliant with both WP:IH and WP:MOS. The MOS does not allow any words after the first in section titles to be capitalized unless the words are proper nouns (like "New York"). WP:IH states that the section title is to be "History", with no variants.
 * It's not apparent at a glance why the SR 4 shield is present; however, after reading the history, I found the reason. In any case, the "State Route 4" text should be boldface, since SR 4 likely redirects there and readers who follow the redirect will want to know why they were redirected there. The SR 4 shield itself should also have a sufficient caption, such as how long the route was SR 4.
 * The gallery should be either integrated into the article or moved to the Wikimedia Commons.
 * References should be placed following periods, not before.
 * Hopefully these suggestions will help improve the article. I didn't read the prose itself; it may or may not need copyediting. Good luck on the path to FA status. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion on this and my other 2 requests. Question: Ironically enough, I moved the picture from the Route Description section to the top of the article because I read somewhere that if pictures are available for the article, one should be placed near the top. Is there an "official" guideline for placement of pictures? As I told the others who've commented, My access to the internet is limited right now. Hopefully that will change effective tomorrow. I'll try to start implementing your suggestions then. Davemeistermoab 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS is a good place to start; it outlines some basics about placement and usage. The reason I say that placing a left-aligned image in the lead is usually not good is because on smaller resolutions, the lead will be squished between the image and the infobox, resulting in a narrow (or depending on the size of the reader's screen, no) column for the lead to occupy. A note though: you're not incorrect about reading that an article should usually begin with a picture - this is the first bullet on the MOS page. However, since every road has an infobox and the infobox occupies the space where a picture would be located, there's no need to place a picture in the lead. Hope that helps. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have made most of your requested changes. I decided not to prune the junctions box. That is not all of the junctions with I-70. My criteria in choosing those was signed routes longer than about 30 miles, missing are several short routes signed and unsigned that I did not include (the exit list in this article is missing several unsigned state route numbers, I'll get to it but IMO that is a lower priority). I am slightly concerned about no articles yet exist for SR 10 and 72, which I do feel should be included in the juncion list. I am not qualified to write either of those articles. SR 10 has been in the national news a lot and several wikipedia articles mention it either directly or indirectly (Wilberg Mine Fire, Crandall Canyon Mine collapse are both accessed via SR 10) so I suspect at least that one will have an article sooner or later. Thanks again.Davemeistermoab (talk)

I have just completed another expansion of the article, mostly the history section. I know the last peer review is still technically open. However, I would appreciate new feedback. I honestly believe the article is now worthy of promotion from start class, and would like another opinion. Thanks all. Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Only thing that stands out to me is the lopsided picture alignment. Everything is aligned to the right; try an alternating image alignment to even things up. I also made a grab bag of fixes to the entire article, including some suggested in the initial review that were never acted on. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, those were things I missed. I just found some more punctuation errors. Geez, I'm terrible. Davemeistermoab (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going for it. I have implemented your changes, and have submitted the article for GA Review. I hope I don't get barbecued. Thanks all for your help. Davemeistermoab (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)