Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 491

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:56, 16 August 2008 [1].

U.S. Route 491 edit

Nominator(s): Dave (talk)


I have recommended this article for consideration as the Featured Article for April Fools Day, 2009. This is a serious article and we should be sensitive to the people who have lost loved ones on this road. However, this is also an article we could have some fun with on a main page blurb. I am aware of one weaknesses and ask for help. The WP:USRD project has been aware of my goal and helped by raking this article over the coals. However, despite my requests, only a couple of non-USRD project members have reviewed the article. This article could use feedback from a more general audience. I hope you can provide that feedback and agree this article would make a good Featured Article for April Fools Day or any other day. Dave (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per the WikiProject A-Class Review. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 05:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A-Class is not the same as FA. You should be vetting the article against the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am aware of that, and I have made all my comments on the A-Class, and the changes made in the A class review are what I think needed to be changed on the original article. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Looking good, a few things:
    • "With the 666 designation, this road was given the nicknamed "Devil's Highway""
Done
    • "fatality rates have gone down" - "fallen" or "decreased" sound better than "gone down".
Done
    • It starts getting a little choppy and confusing at the start of the 'New Mexico' section: "U.S. Route 491 begins at Gallup, New Mexico at a junction with Interstate 40 and is currently routed north along Muñoz Drive.[7] This is a re-route bypassing the downtown area." - What is "this" exactly?
Re-worded, advise if the wording is still confusing
    • "the route was in Cortez at an intersection with then U.S. Route 450 (modern U.S. Route 160). [20]" - There should not be a space between the punctuation and the citation.
Done
    • Major intersections table has an empty Notes column?
Good catch, this table is part the WP:USRD project standards. Somehow that got missed.
    • "Over time route became known as the "Devil's Highway", a reference to the Number of the Beast.[21]" - Missing word, "the" ?
Fixed
    • "This nickname and association made some people uncomfortable" - uncomfortable in/doing what way exactly, driving on it?
Check the wording now. I had to walk a fine line with many such statements, as most of the interesting information about this road is in sources that would not pass the Ealdgyth test,=-) and most of the official government sources intentionally avoided these subjects.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have either addressed or commented on all of your concerns. Thank you for finding the typo errors, and please advise if you have additional concerns. Dave (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

}}

  • Support Fixed a few formatting stuff to the article. It looks ready to me. Great job! :) --Splat5572 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I tried really, really hard to find something mistaken in this article in order to make my !vote look half-legit, but all I could find was a silly browse bar issue :) Anyway, why is there the multi-state browse thing in the infobox? Isn't it usually down at the bottom of the article like all interstate highways (notice I didn't capitalize interstate)? This is too minor to reduce my support however, and I don't even know what the regulations are regarding this. Good job with the article Dave - CL — 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - like CL I can't find and glaring issues on this article. I fixed the browse back to the bottom of the article where it belongs under USRD standards. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I'm doing is implementing new ideas, especially for an FAC article. I added the SR browse to the infobox, Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs) agreed with it. I don't see any reason why it is reverted; plus I noticed you revert practically all my changes. (Do you even enjoy reverting everything me and this editor Freewayguy (talk · contribs) does?) --Splat5572 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgive me for making a change to comply with the pre-existing consensus. The vast majority of browse templates outside of USRD are at the bottom of the articles. It's actually been discussed at the taskforce for infoboxes to move the single-state browse out of the infobox. I find no satisfaction in reverting anything any more than any other edits. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the votes of support. Yes, WP:USH says the browse box should be placed at the bottom. However, as this is the first U.S. Highway article to go through FAC, this is blazing some new territory. Both this FAC and the recently finished A class review of US-491 are causing project standards to be questioned. See WT:USH where the discussion is taking place and take the discussion there.Dave (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, MoS breach in the first sentence, pls consider asking User:Epbr123 to run through the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a rather embarrassing find. Thanks. I have and will continue to recruit copyeditors. Dave (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Here are examples from the top; the whole text needs the attention of someone unfamiliar with it.

  • "These factors led to two efforts to renumber the highway, first by Arizona, later by New Mexico." You mean "by the authorities in Arizona, and later by those in New Mexico"? Or something like that? First I thought you meant "by" as in "by the river".
reworded
  • Since renumbering, done in conjunction with safety improvement projects,"—"done" is ungainly and redundant. Add "the" before "renumbering".
word removed
  • "The highway is routed through Colorado, New Mexico and Utah as well as the sovereign Indian tribal nations of the Navajo Nation and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. " "is routed" is pretty awful; why not "runs through"? Comma after "Utah".
wording changed
  • Comma after "Park"; hyphen after "self" (read MOS).
done
  • "Prior to 1992, the highway also entered Arizona." Any reason for the war against "Before"? And did it enter and leave Arizona? Sounds odd. Recast.
Changed wording
  • Comma before "even" would be good; can you audit the whole text for these optional commas? Don't splatter them around, but read it a loud and add if they make the reading easier. Optional commas are more likely in longer sentences. For example, in the very next sentence, I didn't get it first time: "At several points along US 491 mountain ranges in all of the Four Corners states are visible from a single location." Comma required after "491", to separate two nominal groups ("several points along US 491" and "mountain ranges in all of the Four Corners states"). Tony (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those, I have fixed these issues and inserted some commas. Dave (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Epbr123 has once again stepped up to the plate and provided a copyedit, thanks. Dave (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status? What is the status on Tony's oppose, has he been asked to revisit, and what is happening with the remaining (unstruck) image issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just pinged Tony. The last image issue has been resolved.Dave (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

Description added
I have uploaded image to commons, with a description box. I'm not an admin, so I will have to wait for the image deletion process to run its course.
  • Image:Shiprock NM.jpg - According to the webpage for this image, "Information presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may may be distributed or copied as is permitted by the law. Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS" - However, I can't find any text about this image to verify that it is in the public domain and to check to see if it was indeed created by the US government as the tag indicated.
The page where that image is used is [2], nothing in the page says otherwise (as in "unless otherwise indicated all content is in the PD") As such, I feel confident it is NPS generated content.
I am more concerned about which PD tag to use. Since not all content on the site was created by the NPS, how do we know this image was? Awadewit (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is tagged as a work of the federal government, not the National Park Service, if that helps. Would you prefer a blank PD tag, with a link back to the source? I'm not sure I understand your concern. Again, the page on the landmark where that photo is used is listed above, the page does not carry a photo credit or disclaimer to state the photo is not under the federal government's PD policy.
Found a different image that shouldn't have these concerns. Dave (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better image anyway! Excellent! Awadewit (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Utemountain.JPG - This says "taken by me" - Could we verify that the "me" and the uploader are the same person?
I have uploaded this image to commons. Also, I left a message on the authors talk page requesting confirmation he/she took the photo. I have noticed that other photos uploaded by this users have been moved to commons, I did not see one that had been or was being challenged. I say this as User:Nationalparks does not seem to be a frequent contributor, so it may take a while before he/she sees the message.

These should be relatively easy fixes. Awadewit (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to one, I'll get the rest later, I have to run.Dave (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Think I've covered them all. Dave (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Scott (User:Nationalparks) has not responded. I can do one of two things.
1-The history for the image, shows that Scott was the original uploader and included "taken by me" in the edit summary. Is that enough to just clarify the text in the image?
2- if not, I can comment out the image until Scott chimes in.
Please advise, and thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can rely on the edit summary and change the description based on that. That will resolve the last image issue. Awadewit (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copy uploaded to commons specifies Nationalparks as the author. Just need an admin to delete the wikipedia copies once the clock runs out.Dave (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes and some questions: Pinto Bean Capital of the World is capitalized in one instance, not in another.
Changed to lower case in both instances. Thanks, that one escaped a LOT of reviewers.
  • WP:OVERLINKing, why do we need New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah linked more than once (in the lead, and then again in the first section)?
What I usually do is link first instance in each level 2 section. However, your point is duly noted, as links are in close proximity. I have de-linked.
  • Why is John Pinto Highway in italics?
Changed to quotes
  • Please review WP:PUNC, "Triple 6 is evil. Everyone dies on that highway".
I don't understand your concern. My take on the MOS is that it is correctly punctuated as is. Please clarify.
Never mind, I didn't see it. I had it right but one of the copyeditors recently reversed the period and quotes. Fixed now.Dave (talk)
  • What is the relevance of the long list of other roads in See also (see WP:LAYOUT, if they're worthy of inclusion, why aren't they worked into the text somewhere?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I'm rushed for time now, I'll fix the punctuation issues later, but wanted to comment on one real quick. Per the project standards page at WP:USH U.S. Route articles are to have a "See also" section with links to the parent highway and any siblings. Most U.S. Highways don't have near this many siblings, this road is an unusual case (I think this might be the record holder). So I don't think this standard is excessive. With that said, if you are adamantly opposed to having this many links, I can propose to other members of the project to change the standard to link just to the parent(s) (2 in this case) and the parent route(s) would have link to all the siblings, or an exemption for this article. Please advise on your thoughts.Dave (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not adamantly opposed, just queries. But how does the casual reader know about this parent and sibling connection? The problem is that, as a non-road person, I'm given no idea why those articles are listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it the WP:USH project has not adequately addressed this. Hey, we're roadgeeks, its obvious to us. =-) In this specific case, how the system works with parent and child routes is explained in prose, to answer why was it numbered 666 in the first place. In the more general sense, this has not been addressed. I have played with a couple of ideas. Browse the history and advise on which you feel is the best. I will raise this issue with the project.Dave (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I seem to bump up against Road guidelines in every road FAC :-) I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if parent and child routes are important enough to be included in every article See also, they should be worked into every article's prose instead. I'm not a WP:PUNC expert; perhaps review that logical quotation (above) with User:Epbr123. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would creating a template for child routes like the one used on US 1 be a possible solution? --Polaron | Talk 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC
The U.S. Roads wikiproject is just now getting articles up to FA status, the project and sub-project standards are still maturing. Hey somebody's got to give Wikiproject Videogames some competition =-) Assuming you still have your sanity, 3 more FA's and we should have all ironed out =-). Yes, listing the parent(s) is redundant, most would be mentioned in prose and the infobox. However, the siblings may not, in some cases they are related only by government paperwork. In this case, none of the x66 siblings are mentioned in prose, the x91 siblings are. As this is the first FAC for a multi-state U.S. Highway article, this is the first time these standards have been scrutinized by the at large WP community. Outside opinions are welcome. I'll start a thread on WT:USH. I like Polaron's idea.Dave (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that project standards at WP:USH are dated. It will take some time to code-up the navigation box that will replace this "See also" section, but once done this should be resolved. Thanks. Dave (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I've withdrawn my oppose with discomfort. Another spot-check reveals glitches.

  • You know I'm always harping on about "also". Here, at the start of a new subsection, I can't see where you've been directly talking about the stateline (one word? check?) in the previous para: "The New Mexico–Colorado state line is also where the highway passes from ...". Isn't is stronger and smoother without?
  • "the road gradually increases elevation on an ascent that continues into Utah." Gradually increases in elevation? But I don't suppose this would do, would it? "the road gradually rises in elevation as it crosses into Utah." It avoids the redundancy of ascent and increases elevation.
  • This is clumsy, to thematise "the ascent" here: "The ascent features large pinto bean farming regions, including Dove Creek which bills itself as the "pinto bean capital of the world". What about this: "Here, the route features large pinto bean farming regions including Dove Creek, which bills itself as the "pinto bean capital of the world". I've moved the comma to where it's mandatory.
  • "and has a brief concurrency with U.S. Route 64"—euuwww. Don't nominalise it; try "and is briefly concurrent with". The nominal group (the thing, "a brief concurrency with U.S. Route 64") was very awkward, yes?
  • "US 491 enters Utah continuing a gradual ascent that leads to the Abajo Mountains. Still visible are large farming regions. Upon reaching"—You've referred to this ascent already. "Once in Utah, US 491 gradually ascends to the Ab ....". Should the name have a non-breaking space? When I first read "Still visible ...", I thought of large farming regions having disappeared everywhere, but here they remain. "On" is better than "Upon", unless you're writing the Constitution.
  • "The reputation of US 666 caused it to be mentioned in various forms of media. The book Copper Crucible by Jonathan D. Rosenblum discusses the curse briefly. The book is about the Arizona Copper Mine Strike of 1983, which occurred at a copper mine along the highway near Morenci, Arizona.[26] The highway was used as a plot element in the fictional movies Route 666 and Natural Born Killers,[2] as well as a two-part episode of the series Married With Children, titled "Route 666".[27] These fictional pieces have errors in their portrayal of the route, including depicting the route in Nevada." Hmmm. I hate "caused it to be mentioned"; "is briefly discussed in Jonathan D. Rosenblum's book, Copper Crucible, which describes the A C MS at a c m ....". Just continue then, without the ungainly intro "various forms of media".

This is disappointing. I won't stand in the way of a promotion, I suppose, but I'm keen for it to be worked on further in the next few weeks, and for any subsequent nominations to be much better written beforehand. Tony (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, one of the reasons why I'm here is to work on my writing skills. I appreciate feedback like this, tough but informative. I will address these issues soon.Dave (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_491&oldid=1138474569"