Talk:Utah State Route 269/GA1

GA Review

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The route connects the city center with the freeway. As the settlers of Utah laid their towns with amply wide streets, one-way streets are rare in the city, SR-269 being one of two in existence. As part of I-15's construction in the 1960s, planners felt that two one-way streets with many lanes leading to and from the freeway would be better utilized.[3] The Salt Lake City and County Building is located at the route's junction with US-89.[5] <--That should be in the lead more than the Route description. If anything the route description should just be the second paragraph and/or maybe the first.

Done. Rather than integrating that paragraph into the two lead paragraphs, I just moved the paragraph in question to the lead, making three paragraphs. If you'd rather have me incorporate the info in the two original lead paragraphs, just say so.

1. B. MoS compliance:

   Please strike the bold names in the Route description. Also, please if possible, convert to the Jctint form for the Major intersections list.

Done: Removed bolding, but the major intersections list already is in jctint form, isn't it?

It needs the county and city in the box as well.^Mitch32^contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.

No it doesn't; see WP:ELG: "This column is optional for routes that are within a single subdivision/location". There's also no basis for requiring the use of {{jctint}} to pass GA. --NE2 15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I guess it's best here to revert it as it was, as it was in compliance in the first place. Hope this is okay, everyone. CL — 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The citations should be in Cite Web, Cite Map, etc. form.

Don't they do so already?

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Is there any data after 2000? It would be useful to the article

I searched on Google News Archive and took a look at the UDOT history PDF again and it looks like the route has been relatively untouched since then.

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   See below

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   There is no picture in the article. If there's any free ones it would be very helpful to the article.

I emailed the webmaster of this website to see if I could obtain permission to use the pictures on his website. Will the lack of pictures affect the GAN?

No this will not.^Mitch32^contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article does need some work before Good Article status. Good luck and I'll probably pass once all is fixed.^Mitch32^contribs 13:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've attempted to address your concerns; how does the article look now? CL — 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I took care of the city and county in the box. CL — 15:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)