Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 70 in Utah

Interstate 70 in Utah

 * 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.

Result of discussion is Promote to A-Class. --Holderca1talk 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: The article passed GA about 2 weeks ago. I believe I have fixed the issues that were brought up in the GA review. I have gotten some informal feedback that this article is FA worthy. But as this is my first attempt at even a GA article. I would like something more formal before submitting to FA nomination.
 * Nominated by: Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - article looks good, good work! --Holderca1talk 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support — as of now, no reason to oppose the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. However, a couple of new tiny things that caught my eye...
 * #Sevier Valley: "Richfield is the largest city along the entire route." – Even though it's an article on I-70 in Utah, that sentence still reads (to me) as if you're saying Richland is the largest city between Cove Fort and Baltimore, Maryland.
 * Exit list: There's an inconsistency between Exit 56 and Exits 37/40 and 160/164. Personally, I would prefer "I-70 Bus." over "Bus. 70".
 * The reason for the inconsistency is exit 56 is a "Business Spur", the others are "Business Loops"  which use different templates. With that said, I agree they should match, and I agree that the spur template looks better. Will change the loop template to match.

But yeah, those are all tiny things. Great job this. :-) --  K é iryn talk 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also exit list: Exit 48: I thought consensus said no "To" banner plates?
 * To/auxiliary plates are good, directional plates are bad. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Auxiliary plates are good, but I thought we decided "To" fell under the directional category. Jct doesn't have the capability to produce "to" plates, thus a very large number of exit lists don't use To plates. --  K é iryn  talk 18:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have that same recollection; from what I can remember, no one spoke out against to plates. Re the jct template: in NY, it doesn't produce any plates at all, so I'm used to manually adding plates. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The auxiliary plate functionality in jct has to be done state by state since every state does it differently. I think at this time, roughly half the states work.  I haven't gotten around to making "To" plates work in the template at this time.  --Holderca1talk 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The route (SR259) is signed TO SR24. So I believe this to be appropriate. However, I have no problems with removing it either.


 * The last sentence of the third paragraph under "Construction" appears to be unreferenced. Other than that, I support this article. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the source used for the next sentence (in the next paragraph) would be adequate to source this sentence also.Davemeistermoab (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, Done, Done, Done and Done.Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.