Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Peer review/Utah State Route 143

Utah State Route 143 edit

I feel that this article is at or near B-class quality, and I'd like to get it to GA. What kind of things need to be improved so it will pass nomination? Thanks. De FaultRyan 21:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a cursory glance, I'd say this article is currently no better than C. Some issues:

For being a scenic byway, the route description doesn't really explain what is scenic about the route.
Route Description needs sourcing from a map or route log.
History seems jumbled and seems to include items not directly related to development of UT-143. (Reversing the legislative description is not important to the reader, either.)
Too much bold! Nothing in the History section should be bold because it is already bold in the lead.
There are prose issues scattered throughout.
There are some issues with references/citation placement.
What is the deal with the hyphenated milepost numbers for the I-15 junction?

You may want to look at Utah's A-Class or Featured Articles to get the style and tone you need to aim for. It might help to personally contact some Utah highway editors for suggestions, as this peer review page doesn't get too much activity. --LJ (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Those are all good points, but I could use some more specific tips on how to address the prose issues and citation placement issues. (If I knew what the problems were, I would have fixed them by now :) ) Regarding the hyphenated milepost numbers, the route reference has individual mileage numbers for individual on/off-ramps, the overpass, etc. It seems rather arbitrary to pick just one as the de facto mileage for the junction, and it seems excessive to include each one. Indicating the mileage range where the junction lies was my way of trying to compromise between the two extremes. If there's a better way of conveying this information, I'm all ears. Would it be OK if I poke you again after I address these issues and incorporate other suggestions I've gotten? De FaultRyan 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comments:

Citations should appear after a punctuation mark within the sentence, or after the period of a sentence. Also, citations are generally not used within the lead, except maybe for specific quotes. It looks like more parameters should also be filled in within the citation templates (wherever possible, of course).
Regarding the prose, there just seems to be many places (especially in the History section) where sentences run on or wording is not as concise or encyclopedic as it should be ("so", "because", "but", etc.). Also, using too many highway abbreviations in prose gets redundant and makes text appear blocky--this is where synonyms come in handy ("State Route 143" = "SR-143" = "the route" = "the highway" = "it", etc.). That's some of the prose things I saw--I won't point out everything now...I feel it's better to beef-up the content now and then polish the prose before taking it to GAN.
I've been seeing more instances of hyphenated mileposts on various articles. I'm not sure what the "official" position on this is; the following thoughts are my own. To me, it reads as if SR 143 overlaps with I-15 for that small distance. From what you're saying, this seems to imply that the ramps are spread out by about 1/4-mile (which would be rather odd for a standard diamond interchange on an Interstate). I would think that listing the crossing of the centerline of intersecting route would be sufficient (if you have that information). In this particular case, however, you could just use 0.00 since SR 143 ends at I-15 anyway.

You may feel free to contact me about this article in the future. I'm also watching this review page. --LJ (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed a bunch of these issues. Including, but not limited to:

Re-wrote the route description. I agree, it was a bit sterile earlier, and now I think it does a better job of highlighting the scenic nature of the route. Also included references.
Took a crack at cleaning up the history. Hopefully each of the items has a clear relationship to SR-143. Still need to dig up more early history (pre-state designation), but that's proving a little more difficult to find.
Cleaned up bold and reference placement.
Removed hyphenated mile markings.
Tweaked some prose.

If you have time, could you tell me how you think it's going? Things I'm currently in the process of improving are: pre-legislative history of route, history of features on the route and immediate area, and a route map. Thanks again. De FaultRyan 19:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the route description. Recent expansion gives a much better idea why the route is a scenic highway. The history, to me, still seems a bit muddled. I think it is because things are presented chronologically for expansions and modifications at two separate ends, making it more difficult to follow. It may be better to reorganize this so it starts with the first paragraph introducing the original length, and then subheadings to separately describe the modifications on the north and south ends. (Unless, of course, I completely misunderstood something...)

There's still some prose stuff to work out. Rather than spell it all out here, finish the content revisions and I'll do a copyedit for you later. I do think though that this is getting closer to "B" class (you may want to request a map from the Maps Task Force once it's rated "B"). After a bit more work and editing, this would probably pass at GAN. --LJ (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the history section. I reorganized (and expanded) it. With that expansion, I think I'm getting close to exhausting the sources I'm aware of. The article, as it stands currently, likely reflects the final set of content. There are other photographs on commons that we could swap in, and I still need to get a map, but unless I run across some more good, secondary sources, I think that's about it. Time to polish the article up to GA-quality? De FaultRyan 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Your assistance and insight has been invaluable. I greatly appreciate the time you've spent on this review. I've been around a few years, with over 8,000 edits, but much of that has been in the realm of starting articles, making corrections here and there, and in more gnome-ish work, like fixing links, creating disambiguations, etc. This peer review has been educational, to say the least. Thanks again.

OK, I'll go through and do a copyedit in the next couple days. Thanks for the kind words...I'm glad to provide the assistance. I haven't been active on Wikipedia too long and certainly don't profess to be an expert. I just apply personal (semi-technical) writing skills to what I've seen/learned on Wikipedia thus far to help out where I can. --LJ (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit finished. One thing: first paragraph, last sentence under history--This sentence doesn't particularly add to the article and could probably be removed. Other than that, I think it's in decent shape that it might pass GAN. --LJ (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for your time and work. I think this article is better, and I'm a better editor as a result. In the future, let me know if you need anything. Happy editing. De FaultRyan 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]