Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 491

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was promote to A-Class. ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 491 (4 net support votes)

[edit]

U.S. Route 491 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: The motivating factor for me to work on this article is to request this to be the featured article for April Fools Day. I don't know the probability occurring, but any help to achieve this goal would be most greatly appriciated.
Nominated by: Dave (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are we here to review an article or argue about the english language? =-) Dave (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Thanks Computerguy for the vote Dave (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A well-written article, Dave, definitely. Just a few very small questions, though:
    • Shouldn't "US 491" be in parentheses in the lead, so it reads "U.S. Route 491 (US 491)"? I saw it in parentheses on the I-70 in Utah article, that's why I'm not sure about it
    • In the route description, under New Mexico, 9th street should be capitalized (I'll fix that if you don't mind)
    • In the route description, under Colorado, should there be a comma after "In Colorado US 491 proceeds diagonally..."? There is a similar situation in the Utah subsection. I'm not sure what the exact rules are dictating this.
    • And I've always wondered about this: why is there the "Utah Code Annotated §72-4-137(11)" but not anything of the sort in other subsections? I've seen this legal mumbo jumbo in other Utah subsections about cross-country routes, but I was never sure why it was there.
All in all, a great article. This is well on its way to FA. CL — 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the grammar fixes. I'm not good a spotting grammar errors like that. As to your question. Most states do not define route numbers by law. Most states the numbers are assigned by the department of transportation without intervention from the legislature. The states that do have route numbers set by law are Utah, California and there's 2 or 3 more. You bring up a bigger point. There's a very real chance that when this article goes for FAC someone will ask the same question. If anybody has ideas on how to reword that sentence to eliminate the question, please speak up.Dave (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the "Devil's Highway" nickname given? It seems that, unless there are earlier sources, the history of that should be moved to "Elimination and renumbering of US 666". --NE2 03:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anybody would be able to find a single event where some notable person christened the name "Devil's Highway". Almost certainly it gained the nickname over time. The more I think about it the best way to handle that is to reword the introduction to say "Over time the route was given the nickname the "Devil's Highway." From my personal research I do know those who have been in the trucking industry since the early 1950's who have known the road by this name ever since they can remember. I will amend that sentence, if you have further concerns, please advise. Dave (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think that should be there; it relates to the renumbering. That section also needs more about the roadway before it became US 666, since there are no state-detail articles. --NE2 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I've been debating to include is the connection of this route to the Old Spanish Trail. I have avoided doing this so far as that connection is rather loose and vague. However, sources do exist, and I could add a paragraph. I'll try to get to this later this week.Dave (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent). I've been trying to see if I can find a citation for "oldest cited incidence" of the name Devil's Highway. The Salt Lake Tribune article used as a source provides some clues but I can't find a specific date. In the article:

  • A disgruntled business owner in Dove Creek, CO with Devil's Highway as part of the business name stated :"I've been here 22 years and uh-uh, I'm not changing it. (22 years ~ 1981).
  • Waitress at a coffee shop in Cortez, CO "It's been the 'Devil's Highway' for a long, long time, and I don't think they should change it."
  • An 83 year old business owner in Dove Creek "The devil still runs up and down here," he said motioning to the roadway. "You can recognize him by his tail."

So... not the best source to establish when the nickname became firmly entrenched, but is enough to show it was not a recent occurrence as the renumbering was being considered. Will try to work this in as well as the promised Old Spanish Trail mentioned. Please advise if you still have objections.

I have added more about the early state routes. My logic in the order is as follows, It is the content about the satanic connotations are what would make this article interesting (hopefully) to a general audience. Most of the details about extensions and resolutions, etc. would only be interesting to roadgeeks. IMO the ordering as is is a compromise to get the "general interest" stuff as close to the front of the article as I can without breaking chronological flow too bad. IMO a good article should be one that both an enthusiast audience and a general audience would agree is good. Please advise if you disagree with this reasoning and feel a different order is appropriate.Dave (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Ref #18 (Linthicum, Leslie (31 July 2003). "It's Now U.S. 491, Not U.S. 666", Albuquerque Journal.) redirects to a website which requires a registration, can we find an alternate source? Otherwise, all other ref's check out, images on commons with free license. Fix this and I will support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some content would have to be removed if I did not use this newspaper article as a source. For example, this is the only "trustworthy" source I've found so far with the words to the blessing to remove the "curse". The Salt Lake Tribune article also used mentions the blessing took place, but does not give any text from it. I would prefer instead to negotiate a compromise with you. This is a citation to a newspaper, not a website. The newspaper's website currently gives two options to view archives, registration or viewing a 30 second commercial. Someone who refused to register or view the ad could also verify this citation via public library or on-line newspaper archiving service. As it is now, this is how somebody who wanted to verify the Salt Lake Tribune article would have to do this, or pay as the SL tribune charges for archive access. For cites to newspapers, the author, title and publication date are sufficient, so I could just delete the URL. However I think it's better to include it for those who want to verify the citation now and are willing to accept the sites conditions. How'd I do for a convincing argument? Dave (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was easy. I'll have to try that while asking my boss for a raise tomorrow =-). Thanks. Dave (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) The more I look at this, the more I think that the media and pop culture section should be massaged into another section, it's too short for a level 2 heading. I'm going to re-arrange some content. If this will affect your vote, please advise Dave (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Provisional Support — I have a few little comments before I make it a full support here.[reply]

    • I know the Utah section isn't very long, but is there anything more that can be said about it to round out the paragraph a bit more?
I've tried to milk a little more out of the Utah and Colorado sections. Unfortunately (or fortunately) most of my research in to *notable* items along the highway lead me to expand sections that didn't need expanding =-)
    • I've see in other multistate routes a table listing the individual state mileages. While I'm not up on US Highway articles, is this still done?
      • I don't know but FWIW that is not a requirement on the project page. Also it would be redundant with the Major intersections table which has state mileages.
    • I've seen both US-491 and US 491 in the prose. I know that the different DOTs abbreviate it differently, but can we pick one version and stick with it throughout (templates notwithstanding)?
This has plagued this page with the 3 states each having different conventions. I THINK I've got them all, now. Please advise if there's more.
    • In the History section, what's "Modern Road 32" Is there a "State" missing in that phrase?
Fixed
    • I didn't know that it had "US Highway status". I thought they had a "US Highway designation". Just an interesting word choice there.
Fixed.
    • The last sentence in the History has an extra comma in the date.
Fixed.
    • The word mileage is misspelled in ref 1.
My spell checker accepts either spelling, but changed to the more common one.

Otherwise another fine, top-notch effort, Dave. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have addressed all of your comments, I hope.Dave (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A couple of minor things that should be easily and quickly fixed, but just barely enough to oppose IMHO.
    • The "Utah" subsection of the route description section seems too short to warrant a separate subsection in my book (3 or 4 sentences?). Your options I think are to merge it into a "Colorado and Utah" subsection, get rid of the third-level headers entirely, or IMHO the best option, expand! I know it's only 17 miles long, and presumable goes through a whole lot of nothing, but there's got to be something else to say. Is there anything of note nearby in Monticello? The route description says it ends at the intersection of Main and Central (Main Street and Central Avenue? Main Avenue and Central Street? Main Road and Central Boulevard?), but the infobox and junction list say it ends at US 191. Which highway is Main and which is Central?
I have expanded the Utah and Colorado sections a little. I honestly think I've milked what I can for the Utah section. There is a one building village called "Ucolo" (portameau of Utah and Colorado) that is kinda near this route that other roadgeek sites focus on. But I chose not to, because It's not really along US-491 just kinda near it, and b. it really isn't notable, just a name curiosity. However, if you and Imzadi feel it merits a mention (as you both feel the Utah section needs more, I'll throw a mention in.
    • The use of abbreviations is inconsistent. I don't necessarily have a problem with jumping back and forth between "U.S. Route 491" and "US 491" – it seems the strategy is to spell it out when linking it on the first mention, which IMHO is a fine rule of thumb. However, in the article text, I've caught at least one of each US 491, U.S. 491, and US-491. I understand the use of "US-191" in the infobox/junction list is mandated by the templates (although this can be bypassed), but one abbreviation should be used consistently in the article text to avoid havng to list all three in the lead and explaining the difference between the three.
    • Also with regards to abbreviations, SR xx and SH xx are used in the history section without mentioning what they stand for.
Yes, with UT, CO and NM having different conventions this has been an issue with this page since day 1. I think I've got everything down to a single standard. Please advise if you see more.
    • "Modern State Road 32 is part of the original route that was not used by US 666." – original route of what? Before I reached the end of the sentence, I assumed it was going to mean part of the original route of 666 that's not used by 491, now I think it means original route of SR 32, but this isn't clear.
reworded- please advise if you still have objections.
    • "The dedication of the "new" highway was postponed until July 30, 2003, to coincide with the start of construction projects to improve safety on the highway.[23][20]" – Whenever you have two footnotes right next to each other, you always want to make sure they appear in numerical order. FAC loves to dock an inappropriately large number of points for this.
Yeah I know, believe me I know. Thanks, nice catch.
    • The major cities box doesn't render properly on my browser (Safari). The major towns header appears in its own cell off to the right of the "table", with a big blank spot above the list of towns. This is easily fixed by removing float:right; from the code for that row.
I have removed the offending code. I don't normally use Safari but opened the page in Safari to see for myself. Yes I can confirm the page renders odd in Safari. I strongly encourage you to raise this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Highways as this code is taken verbatim from the structure section of the project page. So, in theory by making this change I'm in violation of project standards (not the first time I've been branded a rebel =-) ) and every US highway article has this offending code in it.Dave (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this diff. I tweaked the wording of the Utah subsection a bit. I also removed the sentence about NM 32 that I had questions about, since it was really only tangentially related to US 491/666, and I bluelinked NM 32 and put it there instead. (Plus, I'm not entirely sure current NM 32 is actually related to the NM 32 that became US 666. The 1926 map doesn't show current 32, and old 32 appears to head east from Gallup instead of south.) Once you reply and say that you approve my changes, I'll be happy to switch over to support and close this out. (I realize I'm probably not supposed to close it since I participated, but this certainly has plenty of support even if you discount my !vote. ) -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh, hold on... The Utah subsection of the route description makes a lot of statements – it ascends a mountain range, pinto farming is still visible, it follows one street and intersects another – but the only reference is for the state law, which I'm assuming doesn't say anything about any of that... -- Kéiryn (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing these should be more than enough to garner a support from me. Good luck! -- Kéiryn (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm OK with the changes you made. However as I noted on your talk page per WP:OVERLINK common units of measure should not be linked, feet and meters are specifically mentioned as not requiring a link. Also, I'm not an expert on NM highways, but from looking at the maps, It appears there has always been a NM32 in this corner of New Mexico, just that the termini keep creeping south, so I do stand by the statement as written (for now =-) ). Dave (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments: You might want to place a citation tag next to the note in the lead about fatality rates going down. I see it's cited later in the article, but you might want to make that clear the first time it's mentioned. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Crap, I didn't see your suggestion. I'll add this the next time the article is open, sorry. As I'm going for FAC eventually I'll have plenty of opportunities to revise this further =-). Thanks for the vote. Dave (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/U.S._Route_491&oldid=1126878908"