Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in Colorado/archive1

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 Karanacs 01:27, 7 October 2009 [1].

---

Interstate 70 in Colorado

Nominator(s): Dave (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Interstate 70 in Colorado/archive1

This is easily one of the more notable highways in the U.S., due to the engineering required to build it. This has been a work in progress for over 2 years, hopefully it is ready now. Dave (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to FAC director: My work schedule has changed, this change will have a severe impact on my free time (and wiki-time). I knew this was coming, but I did not expect this nomination still be open when the change was to happen. I will attempt to resolve the issues when I can. I have also asked others to assist. I ask for patience; however, I understand if you need to close the nomination due to unresolved concerns. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments (unfortunately I don't think I'll have time to do a full review) -
  • In this canyon I-70 reaches the western terminus of U.S. Highway 24 which meanders through the Rockies before rejoining I-70. - U.S. Route?
    • U.S. Highway seems to be the vernacular used on other Colorado road articles. I just chose to be consistent rather than fight it.
  • This portion features grade warning signs with unusual phrasings, such as "Trucks: Don't be fooled", "Truckers, you are not down yet" and "Are your brakes adjusted and cool?"[1] - How does source 1 source this? (I could be missing something).
    • The source is a menu to select a variety of data reports for this highway. Unfortunately, I can't link to the outputs of each of the reports used, or I would do so. The relevant report is the "Structure List" report, which lists the MP, inventory designation, and pictures of the text for of most of these signs. What the source doesn't support is the characterization of "unusual". I asked a couple of people if they thought that word was a valid description; so far all have said yes. However, I'm more than happy to remove the word unusual should people here think that's not a fair summary.
      • It was mainly the signs I was concerned about. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Exit list - East end of US 50 Overlap - overlap should not be capitalized.
    • Whoops, thanks for catching that.
  • former Port of Entry - former should be capitalized; should port of entry be? Not sure.
    • I'm pretty sure it's not a proper noun. I'm not sure what I was thinking. Thanks.
  • Is there a reason for the unusual source citation at the bottom of the exit list?
    • I've gotten mixed feedback on that. some people tell me that's what all tables should do, others hate it. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I'm willing to go with whatever.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 05:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for the review. Let me know if my responses do not resolve your concerns.Dave (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Not a problem. To Sandy / Karanacs: I do not oppose this nomination; the only reason I am not supporting is because I don't think I have time to read the article, and it would not be fair for me to support without reading through it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I performed a detailed review during this article's WP:USRD A-Class Review, and believe it was elevated greatly in that process. I have been watching the article since then and have not found any additional concerns since its promotion to A-Class. The subject matter is very interesting from a road/engineering perspective, and it is a well-written, high-quality work. Thus, I feel the article meets the qualifications of FA status. --LJ (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing the tedious checks that need to be done.Dave (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I have some concerns before I can support this for FA:

1. "the Rockies" sounds colloquial.

   My intent was to alternate wordings between Rockies and Rocky Mountains to avoid repetition. Please consider this, and advise if you agree or not that were I to replace all instances of Rockies with Rocky Mountains if the article would sound repetitive.

   On second thought, I suppose I could alternate between Rocky Mountains and just mountains, but this might be too vague. Same with the Eisenhower Tunnel below. Thoughts? Dave (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   If "the Rockies" is a commonly used official term to describe the mountains, then it would be okay. "The Rockies" may work since it is a commonly used term. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   "the Rockies" doesn't sound any more colloquial than "The Rockies". It would be prudent to establish whether "the" should be capitalized or not in reference to this common name. Rocky Mountains seems to indicate "the" is not part of the common form. If we take that as official, the MOS states that "the" should remain lower case. If "the" is indeed part of the common name, it should be capitalized. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Assuming I did the search right, all I currently have is "the Rockies". So should we get an authoritative voice saying it should be "The Rockies" a simple search and replace should do it.Dave (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2. "This tunnel is both the longest mountain tunnel and the highest point along the Interstate Highway System." in what? the U.S.? North America? the world?

   In the Interstate Highway System. I've asked a few others, and so far all have said this sentence is clear. Once somebody from outside the U.S. Roads wikiproject chimes in, I'll ask their opinion.

   I also think this is clear, with the term "both" linking 'the tunnel' and 'the highest point' to "the Interstate Highway System". However, changing "is" to either "includes" or "comprises", as well as changing "along" to "on" might better connect the two thoughts. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Reworded. Dave (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

3. "the Eisenhower" also sounds colloquial.

   Same reasoning as above with the Rockies.

   In this case, I would suggest adding "Tunnel" after "Eisenhower" as the tunnel is likely not officially referred to as "the Eisenhower". Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Done.

4. "however, internationally it has been exceed by more recent tunnels, such as the Fenghuoshan Tunnel", it may be helpful to indicate that this is a railroad tunnel in China. Also, what is the highest vehicular tunnel in the world?

   The Fenghoushan tunnel currently (vehicles include rail). If you mean "automotive tunnel", AFAIK it's still the Eisenhower, but I don't have a source to back that up. I had mentioned the tunnel was in China in a earlier version. I'm not sure why I took it out. I'll play with the wording with the next round of fixes.

   It would help if you could clearly indicate the Eisenhower Tunnel is the longest automotive tunnel, try looking for a source. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   I've looked, most sources still say the Eisenhower is the highest tunnel in the world. The Fengoushan tunnel is a recent development, and most sources have not updated to reflect this fact. As such I have no doubt the sources will exist, but currently they are dated. Dave (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

5. "The Eisenhower Tunnel is also the longest mountain tunnel". Again, in what?

   This is a repeat of point number 2.

6. I still feel the Great Plains section of the Route description needs some more information. It comprises a significant part of the route in Colorado but is only described in brief detail.

   A couple of people have opined this during peer reviews, etc. The problem is, I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to get what is there. I'm surprised nobody here has complained about trivial information in this section. I'll scrape some more; but frankly, the sources just aren't there for this section. Even according to CDOT, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to build the freeway over the Rocky Mountains. The other half, just kinda appeared one day. =-)

7. "Taylor state road"? Is that what the capitalization should be or is it a colloquial term?

   This is a proper name, thanks for catching that.

8. "central New Jersey" should not link to Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project, it should link to Central Jersey and a brief mention may be made to say that the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project will complete the route.

   I've got an idea for an improvement. Please advise if this is better. For the record, Rockies is no more colloquial than "Jersey". =-)

   I would suggest saying in parentheses the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project will complete the route. By the way, Central Jersey (along with North Jersey and South Jersey) are commonly used terms in the media to describe these parts of New Jersey. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   I've tweaked some more. To be honest, I'm not a fan of parenthesis, and normally try to avoid them. However, I've tried something else that may work, please advise.Dave (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   The current revision works, as any parenthetical mention of the I-95 project is not extremely relevant to this article. The current revision also addresses the next point. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

9. I believe there are more than two gaps on the Interstate Highway System, see List of gaps in Interstate Highways.

   I guess that depends on how literal you want to define gap. Those are the only to remaining gaps, as defined as unconstructed pieces. I'll clarify.

   Also, the list article you mention does support this, once you filter out all of the freeways that were not included in the 1956 plan.

10. The sentence "As one conservationist lamented, I-70 "changed rural Colorado into non-rural Colorado"" sounds like a weasel words.

    This is a direct quote. If you don't like it, I can remove. However, I do think it is a good concluding statement. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to get more opinions on this.

    This quote works well as a concluding statement to the Legacy section. Perhaps there might be a slightly better way to state it? I'd look at it in the original source for ideas, but don't feel like searching through 12 PDF chapters to find it right now... --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Any reason for the source row in the Exit list? Dough4872 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    As stated above, most people I've asked outside of the roadgeek community have stated they prefer this formatting. I recognize most of the USRD project hates it. IMO we should go with what the at-large community thinks.

    This method has a more professional appearance than the way USRD cites things in the header, so it doesn't bother me too much. Perhaps the shading of this cell should be changed to match the header row, so that it is not viewed as a row of the table (this shouldn't conflict with the "no colors" consensus at USRD, since it wouldn't be considered data within the table). --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I would prefer to get additional feedback regarding some of these requested changes.Dave (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made some replies above. Dough4872 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided comments above regarding some points discussed in this review. --LJ (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - My issues have been addressed. However, I would still prefer if you could eventually find a source for point 4. Dough4872 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started on this. As I am just now learning about this guideline, and have no practice. I request a review from someone with more experience, to ensure I've done this right.Dave (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; what you've done so far is quite good. The few problems I see are:

• I found a couple of words that cannot be immediately verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image, and need to be removed or reworded. These are the "south" in "south canyon wall", and the "car" in "A car is about to pass under a traffic signal" (isn't that an SUV in view?).
• A minor grammar problem: "A highway near the top of a ridge, on either side ..." surely that should be ". On" rather than ", on" with a period at the end of the next sentence too.

Just as a heads-up, the highway shields are all purely decorative as they merely repeat adjacent text, so they do not need alt text and instead should be marked with "|link=" as per WP:ALT #When to specify. The one possible exception is the lead shield at the top of the infobox, where you may prefer alt text. You can see an example of all this in Template:Infobox road/doc #Example. The map in the lead infobox will need alt text, though; use the "map_alt=" parameter. Eubulides (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest for alt text for the map? (WP:ALT is news to us at USRD, so we're trying to figure out how to update the standards / articles). Also, the example on {{infobox road}} is very atypical of most implementations; look at the code for {{infobox road}} and {{jct}} in Interstate 70 in Colorado. I'm not saying that we're not open to compliance with WP:ALT; it's just going to take some time to figure out how to do this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An update: I believe the only things not in compliance on this particular article are the large shield at the top and the map, both in the infobox. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I found 3 images other than that, all generated from templates, which I fixed with this edit and this edit. As I wrote in WT:USRD #WP:ALT it seems that the simplest thing may be to generate the alt text automatically for the large shield at the top. For the map, I suggest something like "I-70 runs generally east-west through Colorado, and intersects a north-south Interstate at a spot a bit northeast of the state's center, from which spot a third Interstate heads northeast." Eubulides (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Thanks for checking. I have made your requested changes. All images now have alt text except for the I-70 shield in the infobox. This will be generated at the infobox level, so no changes will be required to this article. This will be implemented shortly. The reason why this isn't done yet, is this template is used in over 10,000 articles for highways all over the world. There are a lot of scenarios to check to ensure nothing gets broken. However, this has been discussed on several talk pages and the IRC forum. Everybody (so far) is supporting the change, just need to make sure it's done right.Dave (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And done, if I would have waited 10 minutes before posting that. =-) Dave (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work. I tweaked the map alt text, which was simply "Map of Colorado" and not that useful, and the resulting alt text looks good to me. Eubulides (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • RD - "US 6 rejoins the path of I-70 east of Grand Junction; US 50, however departs on a course towards Pueblo." - comma after however
  • "I-70 enters the Denver metropolitan area, part of a larger urban area called the Front Range, as this is where the Rocky Mountains meets the Great Plains." - run-on?
  • "The freeway meets Interstate 25 in an interchange frequently called the Mousetrap." - does this need to be sourced?
    • Does this need to be sourced? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Added source, sorry about that. Dave (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "I-70 has one official branch in Colorado, Interstate 270 which connects the interstate with the Denver–Boulder Turnpike." - comma after 270
  • "I-70 enters Kansas near Burlington. Burlington is a small community known for having one of the oldest carousels in the United States." - a bit choppy
  • I'll stop there for now; getting a bit late. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Got 'em, Thanks. Dave (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Early history - for a loop? Can you explain?
    • I'll try, but first, can you explain? I don't understand your concern.
      • What do you mean by "loop" - a loop route? Someone might not understand. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Got it, better now? Dave (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Yeah... I'm not sure if "loop route" would be more clear or just be redundant, but it's a suggestion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • IH planning - I think I understand the premise made in the last paragraph, but the connection between UT's concerns and the recognition for engineering marvels could be made stronger.
    • • This paragraph is one of the more contentious paragraphs in the article. It changed dramatically during the A class review, to the point I debated removing it entirely. However, I have an idea. It will take some time, as I need to re-find a source I previously discarded. I'll advise when I've found it.
        • I guess my concern is that it's logically a bit hard to follow. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I decided to remove the paragraph. Your concerns echo what some people said during the A class review. To establish the connection requires taking the article on several tangents, and it really isn't that important. Dave (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Eisenhower Tunnel - two-way versus two way?
    • You'd think I'd learned my lesson on that one by now, but no. =-) Thank you.
  • After 18 months on the job; however, she had still not entered the tunnel. - comma, not semicolon
    • I'm going to ask for another opinion, as another review opined semicolon. Two out of three votes should decide it =-)
      • "After 18 months on the job" is a dependent clause and needs to have an independent clause to go with it to make a complete thought. In order to use a semicolon, the stuff at the front has to be an independent clause. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Dope! No clue what I was thinking.
  • Interesting read; should be a support once these issues are fixed.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 22:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. I've fixed 1, requested more information on 1 and need to do some research before addressing 2 of your concerns. Please advise if you have more.Dave (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Got 'em. Dave (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Concerns have mostly been addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1c. I looked at the sourcing of a sample section (Legacy) and unfortunately uncovered several inconsistencies, broken links, and improper citations. Sourcing of this article needs to be scrutinized; unfortunately it has been called into question in the past and I'm not certain that even those sample items were addressed.
  • • For the record, the above link to a section of my RfA is referring to a different article. Please see the section of my RfA titled "Who is Falsifying". In that section, the tables were turned. I was largely vindicated, and it was the accuser who was accused of falsification. If you're going to cite my RfA, please read the whole thing, not just the first 3 paragraphs.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dave, I did read the whole thing, then and now. I'm not saying I agreed with all of OR's points; I'm just saying the whole situation gave me pause when I saw it here for FA. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Update: Striking my 1c opposition after looking at more of the sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• • "When first approved, the extension of I-70 from Denver to Cove Fort was criticized as a 'road to nowhere'" As written, gives the impression that this was the sentiment of the general public. Looking at the source, not so. The source says "Salt Lake City newspapers decried"; as such, the source is not accurately represented.
    • The FWHA source also covers this, albeit the quote isn't as direct as in the SLC newspaper quote. I can list both sources if you'd prefer.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I tried both options (specifying the source is referring to SLC area newspapers) and making it more generic so I could use the FWHA source. I think of the two, it sounds better sticking to the quote. So I fixed it that way. Thanks for pointing that out. Dave (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand how quoting two DoT "employees" is sufficient to give readers insight into the highway's legacy. I would advise getting more specific about their roles in the DoT to give people context.
    • Richard Weingroff is well known within the roadgeek community. He has authored dozens of articles in several FWHA publications. He has been credited differently on them. Although this specific article his title is not credited, here are examples of others: Information Liaison specialist, office of infrastructure. Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• If it requires that much explanation here at FAC, what are we doing in the article for the reader? Provide context and background information, preferably. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • As to the other part of your concerns. The paragraph consists of more than just quotes from two employees. That is what starts the section, but it continues into economic impacts. However, if you still feel that is inappropriate, let's discuss.Dave (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • One, for example, appears to be a blogger or similar. The Rambler? His comment about how people ask him "did we think Baltimoreans were so desperate to get to Cove Fort" seems rather flippant and possibly made up for the purposes of the Rambler column. I don't think it belongs in our article.
    • See above. The FWHA does not offer a public blog, that I am aware of. This source is part of a "highway history" series of articles, that includes similar articles on other cross-country highways. For others in the series, see [2] Another source used in this article was authored by Weingroff as part of the 50th anniversary of the Interstate Highway system. Again is one in a series of articles about the subject. Many of his articles are authored as simply "The Rambler" other are authored using his name. I do not know why, but some articles imply it is a running joke within the U.S. Department of Transportation.Dave (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In another, you refer to Karen Stufflebeam Row as a "department employee", whereas much more specific information is available. She is a contributor to the Public Roads publication.
    • I can list her specific role if you feel it is important. However, wouldn't' that be a tangential detail? Please advise. Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• No, I think understanding her role is important to understanding why anything she says is important. "Department employee" could be a janitor for all we know. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes Janitor, a most under-appreciated yet utterly necessary part of modern civilization. Fair enough, if credentials rule, the easiest fix would be to change the word employee to a more specific role. I'll play around with it.Dave (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • On a related note, that source is listed incorrectly in your References. You cite it as a web page and only list one author. There are three authors, and it is an article from a printed magazine that has a volume, issue, and so on.
    • Which reference? I'll be more than happy to fix anything that isn't up to snuff.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Never mind, found it. Thanks for finding that. I had co-authors instead of coauthors in the template parameters. That's why the co-authors were not displaying. Amazing that wasn't caught until now. Thank you. Dave (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Eisenhower Tunnel alone is credited with saving up to an hour from the drive across the state." The citation goes to a launch page for several chapter-long document. Where in the document is the corresponding fact? If it's in the PDF, don't you need to provide the PDF as the source, not the launch page?
    • It is in the PDF. I'm not aware of any policy about launch pages being inappropriate. If there is please advise and I'll fix. I chose the launch page as it has multiple viewing options for the document, as a large file, or several smaller files.

• Hm, I can see that, but the problem is I went to check the source and it wasn't immediately apparent where to go. Couldn't you just link to the PDF in References? --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I could, but doing that would force someone with a slow internet connection to download a gigantic file. By linking to the menu page, everybody's needs can be accommodated with an additional mouse click. Dave (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Incidentally, the PDF does not work.. I cannot verify any of the things sourced to that document.
    • Works now. Please advise if you have any additional concerns. Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

--Andy Walsh (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Being the one who initially called many of the sourcing issues of the article into question, I agree with Laser brain that the problems have not yet been addressed. As per my standard, I will not "oppose" over sourcing concerns, although I feel that such must be remedied in full before the article can be promoted. It seems that many of the passages have little to do with the article or have reliability problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, your concerns were with a different article. Three other people also checked the sources with that article and concluded that the accusations made against me of falsification and plagiarism were exaggerated at best. Issues were found, yes, but they were minor, not major.Dave (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave, just to be clear, I know OR to be thoughtful and to act in good faith, so I will feel better about this article once I have checked a majority of the sources. I will do very shortly. I'm not opposing based on his earlier comments, only on my own findings. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly call screaming plagiarism, with nothing to back it up, good faith. But that's for another talk page. Bringing this back to topic, Ottava's review was for a different article. His review was for Interstate 70 in Utah, the article under review here is Interstate 70 in Colorado. Dave (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, am I seriously that dense? I need to lay off the Sterno. I sincerely apologize for the mix-up.--Andy Walsh (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Dave, this may be a bit of American English that looks wrong in in English. But "US 6/50 retain their original routes through downtown." Is that an acceptable way to abbreviate US 6 and US 50, or does that denote a merged road and should read "US 6/50 retains its original route through downtown". ϢereSpielChequers 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right; I think I did that wrong. They enter Grand Junction as a merged route, but leave the city as separate routes. Can you give me a suggestion? Thanks for bringing that up.Dave (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I played with it a couple of ways. Currently I have it with the / replaced with "and". Please advise if you think that's better. Dave (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, no great detail is needed as they are not the article subject.

• In the sentence "Through Glenwood Canyon, I-70 is not compliant with Interstate Highway standards for curvature and shoulder width." curvature is simply word linked, but if possible should be linked to something that details how bendy US Interstates should be. Also I'd suggest that this be rephrased more along the lines of "In the Glenwood Canyon section, I-70 [partially lacks or has no] shoulders, and is bendier than would normally be allowed by Interstate Highway standards with curves as tight as ******. ϢereSpielChequers 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in some detail in Interstate Highway standards, which is also wikilinked. Is that sufficient?

I saw stuff about shoulders and camber in there but I couldn't see anything about curvature in terms of how bendy the road is, not even a ban on hairpin bends on Interstates. Is it possible that the road is windier than the norm but there is no standard, or is it simply that our article omits that particular standard? ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Interstate highways are supposed to be designed for 75 MPH driving speeds. The specification that documents this, as well as the shoulder widths is [3]. Unfortunately, worldcat does not show any library that has a copy in a city I'll be likely to visit soon. So I'll strike for now. I do know some of our wikipedian roadgeeks have purchased this standard. As soon as I can get the page numbers, I'll re-add.Dave (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Several parts of the approach to the pass feature large fences that prevent wildlife from crossing the freeway and direct the animals to one of several underpasses. At least one overpass is located along a natural migratory path". One of several underpasses is an overpass? should that be "Several parts of the approach to the pass feature large fences that prevent wildlife from crossing the freeway and direct the animals to one of several underpasses and overpasses. At least one overpass is located along a natural migratory path". (checked with source and changed to underpass) ϢereSpielChequers 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• "View from Loveland Pass, showing both a hairpin turn along the US 6 alignment, and the straighter I-70" You need to zoom to see the roads, and unless I'm missing something it shows a curving road and a straight one. I'm not sure whether the photo should be blown up and cropped or not, I guess its a matter of aesthetics v Encyclopaedic value. Also I couldn't see a hairpin bend in that photo, (I'm assuming the definition of a hairpin bend is the same in American English as you have linked to the definition that I understand, but I understand they are rare in the US). The hairpin bend is on the right side of the photo, vertically about midway. There is also a second one

As far as I know we use the same definition. The hairpin turn is on the right side of the photo, about midway. There is also a second hairpin turn, not directly visible, but deducible from where US disappears descending from the previously mentioned hairpin turn and re-appears in the bottom left corner of the photo. If it helps, what the photo is depicting is visible here: [4], with the hairpin bend to the left of "Mt. Sniktau" visible in the photo.

OK I see it now. Despite the loss of aesthetics I think I'd suggest a closeup that shows this more clearly. But others may have a different view. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Information that seems to be underrepresented or missing from the article includes:

1. Who paid for the I70 and how much

1. This is a complicated question, as the freeway was built in segments over a 40+ year span. I have provided costs for the Glenwood Canyon piece, and do have the information for a few other pieces, but not for the entire length. Would adding costs for the other pieces that I know be sufficient?Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I have added construction costs and funding source data for the Eisenhower Tunnel. Dave (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1. What is its the capacity (lanes and/or maximum projected vehicles per day) and typical traffic flow

1. I can easily provide AADT data the next time I'm on wiki. Unfortunately read my note above. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. AADT data added Dave (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Accident statistics and any notable incidents

1. Several of the sources used mention an accident in the 1980's where a truck hauling missiles overturned at the Mousetrap, that forced a partial evacuation of downtown Denver. However, I was planning to include this in the article for the Mousetrap, please advise. (That article already has a brief, un-sourced mention).

I see no harm in mentioning it in both. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about the incident in the "Legacy" section of this article. As I am a notoriously crappy writer that requires about 8 tries to get things right, would you mind giving this paragraph a once over, and reporting anything you find? Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Speed limits (I'm assuming most of it is at whatever the US national limit is, but the stretch with severe grade warnings and the bendy bit may be lower).

1. Unfortunately, I haven't found a reliable source for this yet. From personal experience I can tell you that through the tunnels and Glenwood canyon, the speed limits are displayed on the variable message signs and adjust per conditions.Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Any extreme weather closures - I'm assuming that high in the Rockies gets a fair bit of snow, does this ever close the road and if not how do they prevent this.

Would your sources cover any of that? ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't recall coming across any, but I'll double check. I agree, there has to be at least one surprise blizzard that caught the state off guard =-). Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through your sources for the areas I considered missing. Obviously we can't add what we can't source, but I think that gives some pointers as to some aspects worth incorporating. Featured Articles only need to be as comprehensive as the source material allows. ϢereSpielChequers 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Content concerns - Excuse the above statement, as it mixed up two articles. I took a close look and found concerns. To start off, the left image under "Clear Creek" is an MoS violation - WP:ACCESS.

Please clarify, I don't see the violation.Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS describes how left hand images directly under a third level header can disrupt the text, making it harder for those with non-standard viewers to read the text. So, images are not supposed to be on the left in such situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, the word "left" does not appear anywhere on the WP:ACCESS page. Please advise. Dave (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is the 7th bullet at MOS:IMAGES. --LJ (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, got it, thank you. Dave (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1. "This portion has been recognized by both the federal and state departments of transportation as an engineering marvel and one of the most scenic features of the Interstate Highway System" Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Source - This link says that it was hailed as a marvel. At no time does it say that the state of Colorado hail it as a marvel. The link also does not verify that the state called it "one of the most scenic features". There is no evidence for the state department doing any of the above claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"The final link of I-70 through Glenwood Canyon has been hailed as an engineering marvel". The federal source is the one making the superlative claims. The state source does mention it is a scenic drive (i.e. "..spectacular Glenwood Canyon , with its cliffs towering a maximum of 2,000 feet above the Colorado River") but does not mention the superlatives. I'll tweak this later. Unfortunately I have to run (see above). However, if you can do it, I'd be grateful. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you separate the two more - use the explanation you have above. As of right now, it seems that the State and Fed both say both items. Not a big deal, but it was something I didn't pick up on. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, better?

2. "Through Glenwood Canyon, I-70 is not compliant with Interstate Highway standards for curvature and shoulder width. To minimize these hazards, a command center staffed with Colorado State Patrol officers and tow trucks on standby monitors cameras along the tunnels and viaducts in the canyon" Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Source - This does not seem to say any of the above. I could not find "complaint", "curvature", or "Interstate Highway standards". The word "standards" never appears. I could not find the term "state police" appears once and "state patrol" never. If anything, these would be CDOT employees, which are not "state patrol officers" (at most, you could say "transit cop", but there is no evidence that these are officers to even allow for that). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The term used in the source is "emergency vehicles". There are state troopers on-call, as my DMV records will attest (does that count as a reliable source? =-) ) I will attempt to find a more specific source. In the interim, I'd be ok with changing state police to emergency vehicles. The source does support that it is not built to interstate highway standards, but that requires knowing that Interstate highways standards call for a design speed of 75 MPH, with a few exceptions allowed. This is common knowledge for most people with even a basic understanding of US transportation infrastructure. Point is duly noted, that this should be clarified for people who don't. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice that, and emergency vehicle would count, but I would suggest possibly using the term above as you offer, or you could break it down to all three (as it would also include fire and ambulance, which would give you -three- aspects that are interesting instead of just one). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the specification I need: [5]. No library in my neck of the woods has this, so I can get the exact wording. In the interim wording I have removed the claim of violation of standards.Dave (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Article - This portion features grade warning signs with unusual phrasings, such as "Trucks: Don't be fooled", "Truckers, you are not down yet" and "Are your brakes adjusted and cool?" Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

3. The source is a database and I could not find the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed above, in Rschen7754's review. Please see my response there. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Much of the information, upon looking at the source, in "Earlier routes" is off topic. It deals with history of the highway system as a whole and provides little evidences to a direct connection to I 70. Instead, the history deals with other roads. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not off-topic. It is providing background for the next section discussing how I-70 came into being through Colorado, as it was not part of the original plans. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If the highway was not part of the original plans, could you start off the section saying that very thing and then cite it? That way, the information that follows would explain what the original plans were, thus, being more blatantly connected to the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The content was there. However, your point is noted, I have re-arranged the content for (hopefully) better flow.Dave (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Article - "They later expressed concerns that the construction would drain resources from completing Interstate Highways they deemed to have a higher priority." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Source - The closest thing I could find in the source is this "(3) the parallel Interstate across Wyoming in the U.S. 30 corridor (future I-80) was too close," which is very different than what the article suggests. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See the section (of the source) titled "Utah's I-70, an Engineering Marvel". That is the section I was attempting to summarize. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are many other concerns, but others have expressed quite a bit so I will let them fill in the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Briefly addressed some, please see my note added to the top of the page. Dave (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made some comments, which should be easy enough to address. As I said above, I only looked at sections others did not talk about or aspects others didn't. Overall, this page is much better than the others I reviewed of yours before. Minimal use of maps, strong use of historical texts, lots of notability without throwing in things that don't seem to logically fit, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Both articles used similar sources; For example, the FWHA article was one of the primary sources for the history sections of both articles. As the Utah article was my first FA nomination, I would certainly hope this one is better. However, I think another part of the equation is the difference in your attitude between the two reviews. With that said, the feedback on this review was good, usable feedback, and for that I thank you.Dave (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support

Hats off to the author for putting this together. Clearly a labor of love, packed as it is with so much detail. However, such rich detail needs matching clarity of exposition. This the article doesn't have yet. I have left detailed comments on the lead and the first few subsections on the article's talk page. Among other things there, I am urging the author to avoid both redundant or confusing information and "tourist brochure"-sounding formulations such as "X is the highest, the longest, the most awarded, ...." In my view, the article needs another week or two's work. Perhaps the author can work with an external copy editor to achieve these goals. I will then be among those cheering the author (and the article) on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I like some of your suggested changes. I only have a minute now, but will try to incorporate your suggestions later. Some of your suggestions may require further discussion or a second opinion. For example, I agree that "engineering marvel" does sound more promotional than encyclopedic. However, this is the term used in the sources. The sources used are engineering in nature, not promotional. As such I would say the term is appropriate. Also, while the Eisenhower Tunnel section is written with a lot of superlatives, this is what gives the road notability. I agree it could be toned down a little.

Thanks for the review, Dave (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at some of the comments on the article talk page, and would agree with some of them. However, some of the superlative mentions or "tourist brochure" formulations are directly related to the notability of this highway. These statements are attributed to sources that are technical in nature, so it will be difficult to tone them down to sound less "touristy". --LJ (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, thank you for the review and kind words. I have implemented many of your suggestions verbatim, some with some additional wording tweaks. I have not yet implemented a few of your suggestions, pending some second opinions and or additional research to provide the requested clarification. Thanks again. Dave (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Many apologies, I forgot to check here! The text is much improved. Changing to support. Congratulations on writing a very informative article! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Image review - File:I-70 (CO) map.svg - This map needs a source. All other images are fine. Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for checking. Dave (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All images are now fine. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.