Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 70 in Colorado

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Interstate 70 in Colorado

Interstate 70 in Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I think this is now ready. This was actually not difficult to research, one of the more well documented freeways, the challenge was extracting and summerizing a ton of info. I hope with your help, this can reach an FA, if there ever was a Interstate Highway deserving of an FA article, this would be on the short list.

Nominated by: Dave (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing as promote by Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Review by CG

• Support - This article exceeds all requirements and is full of useful information. –CG 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Did you read the article? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, Yes I did. –CG 01:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Rschen, did you? I need all the help I can get =-) Dave (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Dough4872 (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Review by Doug

• Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I will support it for A-class:

1. "running from the U.S. states of Utah to Maryland." sounds awkward. Try saying "in the United States running from Utah to Maryland."
2. You link to Interstate Highway System twice in the first paragraph of the lead (One of the links redirects to the page, but it still counts).
3. In the lead, you seem to talk a lot about the majesty of building the route through the Rockies? Can some more information about other portions of the route be added?
   1. I've expanded it some, It is inevitable to an extent, the portion through the Rockies is what makes the road notable.
4. Can a citation be added for "The freeway passes to the north of downtown."? If it is cited by a citation in the next paragraph, then one should be added at the end of this sentence since it is the end of the paragraph.
5. In the sentence "This technique is not common in the United states, the engineers borrowed a European design to meet the unique challenges of this tunnel", the comma should be a semicolon.
6. "After exiting the canyon, the highway follows the Colorado River through the communities of Parachute, Rifle.", should be "Parachute and Rifle"
7. Citation needed after "Along this run, the freeway hugs the north bank of the Colorado River, while the main line of the former Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, (now part of Union Pacific) occupies the south bank."
8. "The highway departs Glenwood Canyon, and the Colorado River, near Dotsero, Dotsero is where the railroad forks for two major crossings of the Rockies, the Moffat Tunnel and the Tennessee Pass/Royal Gorge route." should be two sentences. Also "Dotsero" should not be used twice in a row.
9. What is currently the highest automotive tunnel in the world?
10. You should mention that the Eisenhower Tunnel is the highest in the U.S. overall.
11. Citation needed after "There are several ski resorts in the vicinity of the tunnel, including Breckenridge Ski Resort, Keystone Resort, Arapahoe Basin, Loveland Ski Area, and Winter Park Resort."
12. In the sentence "The site now includes a nature study area for visitors to the area", do not use "area" twice.
13. In describing progression of route, avoid using "then".
    1. Slap my hand, I know better than that.=-)
14. Citation needed for first paragraph of Great Plains section.
15. "one of the main street"? Should be "one of the main streets".
16. The Great Plains section covers a great portion of route, including the section through Denver, where there are many major intersections. I would suggest expanding this section.
    1. I have expanded this to include the major intersections in Denver. Again, this will be somewhat inevitable, every source I've used and found so far focuses on the portion west of Denver, apparently the part in the Great Plains just kind of sprung up on its own=-)
17. I would also suggest mentioning more intersections with roads in the route description. It would give the reader an idea where points of interest are in relation to other roads.
    1. Added more info on the Detail, mentioning the ultimate destinations of US6,50 and 24 after they depart from I-70.
18. "Auto trail" should be lowercase.
19. "Rocky mountains" needs to be in all capital letters.
20. In the sentence "When the planners of the Lincoln Highway also decided to cross the Rockies in Wyoming, Colorado officials pressed for a loop to enter Colorado", do not use "Colorado" twice.
21. "San Francisco bound" should be hyphenated.
22. The sentence "In 1937, after the road through the canyon was rebuilt, by the Works Progress Administration, and a new route was nearing completion over Vail Pass, built by the Public Works Administration,[12][14] US 6 was extended over the Rocky Mountains." sounds awkward and needs to be rephrased.
23. In sentence " This included pioneering new machines to clear snow, and various bridge and culvert designs to protect the roads from flooding", remove comma after "snow".
24. "Senate" should be capitalized.
25. In the sentence "Utah officials expressed concerns that with the terrain between these cities; this link would be expensive and difficult to build.", change the semicolon to a comma.
26. "Salt Lake" sounds colliqual, use "Salt Lake City" instead.
27. I noticed there is a whole section devoted to the construction of the Eisenhower Tunnel. Isn't there already an article about the tunnel?
    1. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying I should have a See Also hatnote for the section, or are you saying I should move some of this section to the tunnel article. If it's the latter, I've debated this, however I'm not cheating the tunnel article of non-redundant content. I was struggling to just include the juiciest morsels for this article. Please advise and we'll discuss.
       1. Try to move some of the information more specific to the tunnel to that article. It would help to add a hatnote to lead readers to that article for more information. Dough4872 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
       2. Fair enough, hat note added, I have significantly expanded the Eisenhower Tunnel article (with even more info than what I put in this section of the I-70 article) and taken out some of the minor details in the I-70 article.Dave (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
       3. In addition, I've gone through and expanded all of the articles for Tunnels along I-70 in Colorado to at least include co-ordinates, year built, and length (for the ones I've found the length).
28. In sentence "Early in the 1960's planning begin on how to route the freeway over the Rocky Mountains.", a comma is needed after "1960's".
29. No comma is needed in the sentence "She remained determined, and returned to work the next day."
30. In sentence "The engineers agreed to additional infrastructure to accommodate wildlife, and have significant portions of the viaducts constructed offsite and lifted in place, to minimize the environmental footprint.", no comma is needed after "place".
31. The first paragraph of the Glenwood Canyon section contains many short sentences that should be combined.
32. "was built in 1936-8", change to "was built from 1936 to 1938".
33. In next paragraph, you use "environmentalists in three consecutive sentences. Can we have more wording variety?
34. "15 miles (24 km) of retaining wall": "wall" should be pluralized.
35. In sentence "The final design was praised for its environmental sensitivity, a Denver architect who helped design the freeway proclaimed, "Most of the people in western Colorado see it as having preserved the canyon."", the comma after "sensitivity" should be a semicolon.
36. In sentence "With a cost of $490 million (equivalent to $800 million today) to build 12 miles (19 km) this was one of the most expensive roads per mile to build in the Interstate System.", a comma should be added after "(19 km)".
37. In mentioning the I-95 gap near Somerset, New Jersey, you link to a CDP. This section of I-95 was to run through a larger area known as Central New Jersey, so it may be better to say this instead of Somerset, New Jersey.
38. The sentence "The extension of I-70 west of Denver was initially criticized by some as a very expensive "road to nowhere",[27] however has since been called the "crown jewel" of the Interstate Highway System." sounds awkward.
39. In the exit list, you should include rows for the state lines along with the corresponding mileposts.
    1. This is contrary to what all the FA class state detail articles currently do, see Interstate 70 in Utah, U.S. Route 50 in Nevada and Interstate 15 in Arizona.
40. Is it nessecary to use the airport road sign in the exit list to indicate airports?
41. Are the missing mileposts in the exit list known?
42. In the exit lists, are the numbered routes without shields unsigned on guide signs? It may be better to display it like the rest of the routes for consistiency.
43. Is it nessecary to indicate attractions in the notes column?
44. For references 3 and 11, is it nessecary to link to DeLorme's home page?
    1. I've combined the references. Including a link to the publisher is what I've previously done with print maps, and I've not had problems at FAC before. I think it does add value as an easy way for someone to check the credibility of the source. If you still disagree, please advise.
45. For reference 20, newspaper names should be italics. It should also be consistient with the name of the paper in reference 23.
    1. Good Catch, I totally missed that, thanks. FAC would have a cow over that.=-)
46. The "See also" section should be renamed "External links". Dough4872 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and for finding the prose issues. I will begin the fixes shortly, and advise when finished.Dave (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think the Eisenhower Tunnel may still be the highest automotive tunnel in the world. I was corrected by two different people that the Chinese government was building a new tunnel that was higher to connect a remote area in Tibet with the population centers of China. However, near as I can tell, this is only a railroad tunnel, and if an accompanying road tunnel is planned it isn't open to traffic yet. Also I was told a tunnel in Peru was higher, but again, near as I can tell this is a railroad only tunnel. Unfortunately all the sources discussing I-70 were not written recently enough to mention either of these. I'll research more. However, as written now is correct, but possibly misleading.Dave (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have it resolved, and clarifiedDave (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made your suggested changes, most verbatim, except for where noted above and the ones relating to the Exit List, as these will take more time. Thank you for such a thorough review, and please advise if you have additional prose concerns. I'll advise when I have the exit list ready. My apologies, I knew it had some issues, but I was not aware it was this bad. I'm working on it. Colorado provides an official source for exit numbers, destinations, and milage figures, so there is no excuse for the problems.Dave (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK Exit list mopped up (I hope) that was ugly, yes CDOT has an official source, but In I-70's case it's outdated and full of errors and omissionsDave (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My issues have been resolved, so I will Support the article. Dough4872 (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from – TMF 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Review by TMF

• Well, let's see if I can complete this review before my internet goes down again.
  • I agree with Dough re the first sentence of the lead; "running from the U.S. states of Utah to Maryland" is a bit of awkward phrasing. Perhaps it would be better to say "Interstate 70 is a transcontinental Interstate Highway in the United States that begins in the state of Utah and ends in the state of Maryland" or something along those lines. Dough's suggestion is good too if you want to stay with the current sentence composition.
  • "east-west" - en dash.
  • "Grand Junction is the largest city between Denver and Salt Lake City and serves economic hub of western Colorado and eastern Utah." - "serves as the"?
  • "This technique is not common in the United states, the engineers borrowed a European design to meet the unique challenges of this tunnel." - I don't think a comma is the best choice of punctuation here as the sentence contains two distinct "thoughts", if you will. I'd change it to a semicolon and add a transition word before the word "the".
  • "After exiting the canyon, the highway follows the Colorado River through the communities of Parachute, Rifle" - this gives the impression that "Parachute, Rifle" is the name of one location.
  • "at least one overpass have been designed and landscaped to encourage deer to use them" - this should probably be "has".
  • "In 1937, after the road through the canyon was rebuilt by the Works Progress Administration, and a new route was nearing completion over Vail Pass, built by the Public Works Administration,[12][14] US 6 was extended over the Rocky Mountains." - "built by the Public Works Administration" would probably work better if it directly followed "new route".
  • "The first Colorado portions of I-70 to open to traffic were the sections bypassing and connecting Idaho Springs with the modern separation with US 40, in 1961" - this reads very awkwardly, particularly the second half of the sentence.
  • The exit list is inconsistent in how it separates multiple roads at an exit: the {{jct}} template uses slashes, and some of the manually-made rows use semi-colons or commas.
  • I also made a few copyedits to touch up a few areas where I thought the prose could be improved. Feel free to modify my changes as you see fit.
• I must say, this is, by far, hands down, one of the best articles - road or not - that I've seen on Wikipedia. The more I read, the more I was drawn into the article and it won't take much - just the items mentioned above - to earn my support. Excellent job. – TMF 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, copyedits and the kind words. I am starting on the fixes.Dave (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented your suggestions, most verbatim. Please advise if you have additional concerns.Dave (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Two items I noticed: "Through the western United States, U.S. Highway 6 was mostly derived from the Midland Trail. This trail was not originally given a US Highway designation as it traversed a difficult route across the Rockies." - this seems to be a bit contradictory. Does this mean as it reads - that none of the trail became US 6 - or is it just referring to the part in Colorado? Also: "The road through the canyon was recently rebuilt by the Works Progress Administration and the Public Works Administration was nearing completion of a new route over Vail Pass." I'm guessing both became part of the extended US 6 based on the context, but it's not clear. – TMF 06:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I have reworded that paragraph.Dave (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I made a couple of small tweaks to the prose; feel free to review my changes. I noticed one other thing as I was making the change, and that is that some route abbreviations within the displayed text for links (i.e. the "US 24" in [[U.S. Highway 24|US 24]]) are separated by normal spaces and not by non-breaking spaces. Once this is resolved, I'll gladly support the article. – TMF 10:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, I hope=-) Dave (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I can spot at least one that was missed in the article body in the diff, and there's at least two more in the lead. – TMF 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do those really need non-breaking spaces? I've never had to use them before, (U.S. Route 50 in Nevada and U.S. Route 491 have similar links with normal spaces) I was under the impression that because of the linked text the web browser would avoid line breaks if possible. I checked the MOS, but it isn't clear on the matter.Dave (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added them, as it's just a search and replace, but this may require further investigation, as if they are required, there's a lot of FA's that need to be checked.Dave (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Web browsers do not apply "nowrap" to linked text, thus the non-breaking spaces are necessary. I've always believed this to be the case, and I just confirmed this in my sandbox. – TMF 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of the missing non-breaking spaces are now in place, so with the combination of that done and all of my other concerns above resolved, I now support the promotion of this article. – TMF 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I thought I got them all, but I get cross-eyed after re-reading an article a dozen times in a day. =-) Dave (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Review by LJ

• Comments on article improvement...

Resolved issues from LJ (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Shouldn't abbreviation of Interstate 70 be expressly stated in the lead? Interstate 70 (I-70) is a transcontinental...

   Done

2. I feel the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead works better as the first sentence of the next paragraph, as it fits the theme of the second.

   Done

3. "Several government and engineering organizations have stated portion through Glenwood Canyon is both one of the most scenic and challenging pieces of the system to build." Insert 'the' before 'portion'. Also, try 'is one of the most scenic, yet one of the most' after 'Glenwood Canyon' to resolve the present/past tense conflict between the two statements.

   I played a couple of ways with this sentence, sound ok now?

   Looks good as currently written. --LJ (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Last sentence of second lead paragraph may work better in previous paragraph.

   Done

5. As this is an article on I-70 in Colorado, major cities outside of Colorado should not be included in the major cities box. The box isn't for listing control cities.

   I have been given offline feedback to just delete the box entirely. I know on the California road articles, this box has proven to be more trouble than it's worth. What is your opinion on removing it entirely?

   I don't mind having a major cities box on state-detail pages for Interstates or US routes, but I don't like it as much on state routes. When used, though, only cities within the state should be listed because out-of-state control cities is misleading to the purpose of the box. Alternately, you could use the cities parameter of {{infobox road}} if you want a list that's less intrusive. --LJ (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   Removed out-of-state cities

6. "I-70 enters Colorado concurrent with US 6 and US 50 from Utah on a plateau..." 'from Utah' should follow 'Colorado' for better flow.

   Done

7. "US 6 rejoins the path of I-70 east of Grand Junction, however US 50 departs on a course towards Pueblo." Revise to '...Grand Junction; US 50, however, departs...'

   Done

8. "This portion has been recognized by both the federal and state agencies as an engineering marvel..." The federal and state agencies should be mentioned by name.

   Done

9. "...signs equipped with radar guns will automatically warn motorists exceeding the design speed of the next curve." Intrigued by this, I looked at the source. It only mentions one such curve (unless I missed something or there have been additional installations since the source was published). Please revise if necessary.

   Source conflict. THANK YOU. Just a hunch somebody would have a fit at FAC if they saw this. I have changed to "a curve" rather than curves. The Highways in the sky source does imply that more have been added somewhere in the state. However, I'll make singular to agree with the source used.

10. First few sentences of first paragraph under Rocky Mountains could probably use sourcing.

    Sourced the railroad information

11. "Along the ascent I-70 serves the ski resort town of Vail, and the ski areas of Beaver Creek Resort, Vail Ski Resort and Copper Mountain." Add comma after 'ascent' and remove after 'Vail'.

    Done

12. "At least one overpass has been designed as a deer crossing." Could expand sentence to mention ancient deer migratory path (as stated in source), adding a bit more interest.

    Reworded- does is sound better now?

    Yes, good. --LJ (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

13. "The highway descends to Dillon Reservoir, near the town of Frisco, and a final push to the Continental Divide through the Eisenhower Tunnel." Reword--the 'final push' to the divide and tunnel implies an ascent not explicitly mentioned here.

    Re-worded

    It needs "begins" or a similar word before "one". --LJ (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

    Added

14. "The tunnel also has a command center, staffed with 52 full time employes, to monitor traffic, control signals at each entrance, adjust speed limits, remove stranded vehicles, and maintain generators..." I believe 'full time' should be hyphenated, and 'employes' needs another 'e'. I'd remove "control signals at each entrance" (and maybe "adjust speed limits" also), as this needs more explanation for the typical reader to understand why signals are at the entrance to the tunnel. Instead, I'd insert 'manage incidents' or something similar. If "control signals" is maintained, it needs explanation.

    Re-worded, does this sound better?Dave (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, it's good. --LJ (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

15. "The highway crests a small mountain near Genesee Park to descend into Mount Vernon canyon down the last few miles of the Rocky Mountains." Should 'canyon' be capitalized here? Also, "the last few miles of the Rocky Mountains" is a bit ambiguous and could use rewording to specify the highway's last few miles within the Rockies.

    Re-worded

16. "This portion of the freeway is known for grade warning signs that are not compliant with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The signs feature attention getting phrases such as "Trucks: Don't be fooled", "Truckers, you are not down yet" and "Are your brakes adjusted and cool?"" While certainly not standard signs, they aren't in non-compliance because MUTCD §2A.06 has an optional provision allowing agencies to develop special word signs to provide additional warning/regulation/guidance.

    I decided to remove this sentence entirely. I would like to keep it, but I can't find a way to make this both interesting and stick to what the sources say. There is a personal website in the external links section that has much more information on these. If you can find a way to make this sentence work, I'd welcome the help.Dave (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

    I like the reference to the signs, as it adds interest and emphasizes the uniqueness of the roadway. I'm assuming the external link has pictures of the signs--could that pass muster as a citation? The sentence could be modified to simply state "This portion of the freeway is known for its unusual, non-standard grade warning signs." --LJ (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

    Last time I asked, using a photograph as a source was frowned upon, due to the WP:OR policy. Also Dale's website is a good one, but it's a self published source, and as such not compliant with WP:RS standards. However, some of the signs are listed in CDOT's features log (link is the primary source for the Exit list), so I do have a source that they exist, but little else. I'll think about this some more. Thanks.Dave (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

    I re-added the sentence. It's going to be iffy with the source only stating the signs exist, without describing them as unusual. We'll see how it goes.Dave (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

17. "I-70 enters the Denver metropolitan area, called the Front Range, as this is where the Rocky Mountains meets the Great Plains." Clarify Front Range and Denver relationship. This, to me, reads that Front Range is a specific area in/around Denver, whereas the Wikipedia article implies Front Range as something extending far beyond the Denver area.
18. "Through the downtown area, US 40 is routed along Colfax Avenue, which served as the primary east–west artery through the Denver area before the construction of I-70. US 6 is routed along 6th Avenue before joining the route of Interstate 76 on a northeast course towards Nebraska." The mentions of US 40 and US 6 seem odd without mention that they depart from I-70 at some point. Also, 'the route of' preceding 'Interstate 76' could probably be removed.
19. "The freeway meets Interstate 25 in an intersection frequently called the Mousetrap." Replace 'intersection' with 'interchange'.
20. "East of Aurora I-70 rejoins the alignment..." Comma after Aurora.
21. "From this point east the freeway proceeds due east across the Great Plains. The freeway briefly dips south to serve the city of Limon." Comma after 'from this point east'. Also, reword to eliminate using "the freeway" twice in quick succession.
22. It seems that there should be a bit more to say about I-70 east of Denver. I know the notable aspects of the highway primarily lie in crossing the Rockies, but this seems way too short in comparison to the rest of the RD.

    Your the third person to request this, I've managed to milk a little more out of this section. However, I'm about out of ideas for more content. The sources all focus on the Rocky mountains portion.Dave (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

23. The paragraph about I-270 and C/E 470 seems out of place. With a bit of expansion, could a related routes or similar section be added?

    I moved the paragraph to be inline with the Denver section. How does that look? I could expand a bit, but as this is a tangent issue, I'd prefer not to do too much.Dave (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

    That fits better now. --LJ (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all for now. I'll review History and remainder of article after a dinner break. --LJ (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Got all the one in the Route description. Thanks for your patience, and please advise if you see anything else.Dave (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Resuming my review...

1. "Prior to the formation of the U.S. Highway System, the U.S. relied on an informal system of roads, organized by various competing interests, collectively called the auto trail system." This sentence uses "system" 3 times and too many commas. Try this: "Prior to the formation of the United States Numbered Highways, the U.S. relied on an informal network of roads organized by various competing interests and collectively referred to as the auto trails system."
2. "The surveyors of most trails chose either South Pass in Wyoming to traverse the Rocky Mountains, or a southern route through New Mexico." Rearrange for flow: "The surveyors of most trails chose either South Pass in Wyoming or a southern route through New Mexico to traverse the Rocky Mountains."
3. Explanation of Berthoud Pass namesake doesn't add much here.

   Re-worded, better? or should I just delete?

   That's better now, but still seems a bit weird. Let me think about that for a bit. --LJ (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Third paragraph under Earlier routes seems to jump around or re-explain points. It needs to be reworded or reorganized somehow.

   Better now?

   Yes, although multiple uses of "highway" is repetitive in this paragraph. --LJ (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

   Reworded

5. "Utah officials expressed concerns that with the terrain between these cities, this link would be expensive and difficult to build." Rearrange/reword: "Utah officials expressed concern that, given the terrain between these cities, such a link would be expensive and difficult to build."
6. "...presenting three alternatives to route I-70 west of Denver, using the corridors of US 40, US 6 and US 50/285/24." Remove comma after Denver.
7. "...Utah officials were not only convinced of the need of a link with Denver," Replace 'need of' with 'need for'.
8. "Congress approved the extension of I-70, however, the route had still had to be approved..." Comma after I-70 should be a semicolon. Remove first 'had'. May also want to say that Congress 'eventually' approved, since it didn't occur until some time after legislation was changed.
9. You may want to clarify that there weren't enough direct connections to southern CA from the central US, as the source quote indicates, to better describe the reasoning of the military's acceptance.
10. Similarly, reword "...south to Cove Fort, using I-70 to link Denver with Los Angeles instead of Salt Lake City" to "...south to Cove Fort, using I-70 to facilitate linking Denver to Los Angeles instead of Salt Lake City." This will clarify that I-70 doesn't really go beyond Cove Fort.
11. "While Colorado officials rejoiced...through the center of the state; Utah officials complained..." Semicolon should be a regular colon.

    I reworded this as the source doesn't use the word rejoice.

12. "Both of Utah's concerns with building..." Remove 'Both of'.
13. The three sentences about the 30th anniversary, system percentages and I-80 does not fully illustrate the concerns of Utah had with the I-70 extension. As I gather, Utah was concerned with terrain and cost. Mentioning the marvels alludes to the terrain, but nothing included here talks about the costs incurred to construct the project in either state.

    The source doesn't explicitly state cost, so I rewored to de-emphasize this. Although later on it does talk about how expensive the excavation work was along the San Rafael Swell portion, and the sections below, about Glenwood Canyon and Eisenhower Tunnel, talk a great deal about cost. Is that sufficient? or should I try to work the cost back in?Dave (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

    My main concern here is that the paragraph starts with "Utah's concerns with building I-70", but the following sentences about the 30th anniversary and the percent completion don't support that point and could probably be removed. I think some mention of cost here would be helpful--the following sentences about engineering marvels alludes to the construction difficulties. --LJ (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

    In that case I might just take this paragraph out. It's tangential anyways. The intent was to show that with I-70 costing so much and taking so long to build, both Utah and Colorado were late in finishing their portions of the Interstate Highway system. I've found sources that state I-70 had enormous construction costs. I've found sources that say Utah and Colorado were both among the last states (along with Idaho and Arizona) to finish their Intestates. Finally I've found sources that state the section of I-80 between Redwood Road and 40th west in Salt Lake City was the last piece of coast-to-coast I-80 to open. The problem is the sources state these facts, without trying to connect those dots. So maybe I shouldn't either and just cut this? What do you think is there a way to make this work? or better scrap it?Dave (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

    I asked TMF to give some feedback on this. I think we can work something out.

    I ended up removing this content. Two reasons, one it's a tangent, not central to the article. Two, while searching for better sources for some of the claims, I found an FWHA article that partially contradicted what these two state level sources had to say. If I were more organized, I would have kept the link and pasted it here.Dave (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

14. I think "Also recognized was the portion of I-70 across the San Rafael Swell in Utah." works better as a parenthetical ending the previous sentence than as a stand-alone sentence.
15. "The US 6 corridor crosses two passes, Loveland Pass at an elevation of 11,992 feet (3,655 m), and Vail Pass at 10,666 feet (3,251 m)." I believe the first comma should be a colon, and commas should be introduced after each Pass.
16. First paragraph, last sentence on the tunnels should either be divided or revised to use some other punctuation between 'approach' and 'but'.
17. Last two citations in second paragraph on tunnels may have been mixed up with other sources. "We were going by the book, but the damned mountain couldn't read." I couldn't find this in source #14 (although remember reading it somewhere as I checked out some of the sources).

    It was on one of the sub-articles to this page called "Eisenhower Bore". I changed the source to link directly to the sub article.

18. "However, after 18 months on the job she had still not entered the tunnel." Revise: "After 18 months, however, she still had not entered the tunnel."
19. "There was opposition to a woman entering the construction site: one supervisor stated..." Colon should be a semicolon.
20. "The route over Vail Pass has a distinctive "V" shape." This could probably be removed. If there was a pre-existing trail/highway following this alignment, then that should be explicitly stated.

    This is referring to the old alignment of US 6, clarified.

21. "an easement across previously declared protected lands, what is now called the Eagles Nest Wilderness." The words 'previously declared' are awkward here, as it is easily assumed that some declaration would be made to protect the lands. Could the phrase be replaced by 'federally'? Also, the end could be replaced with "...lands through what is now the Eagles Nest Wilderness."
22. "The engineers agreed to additional infrastructure to accommodate wildlife, and have significant portions of the viaducts constructed offsite and lifted in place, to minimize the environmental footprint." 'have' should be 'had', and the second comma should be removed.
23. "(equivalent to $23 million today)" needs 'today' defined.

    It's a dynamic inflation template that should remain current, provided somebody updates the template each year.

    I like to see "in 2008 dollars" or similar language in these instances. With {{inflation}} in use, I guess it's okay without it. --LJ (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

24. "...in the 1960s, with a small section..." Comma can be removed.
25. In discussing the "30-year controversy", when did the controversy start or when was the first design proposed?

    I don't know exactly when the first design was proposed. However, I did find some tidbits about the controversy through the 70's and added this information.

26. Was the Denver architect really an architect or an engineer? Architects are rarely involved in highway design, and usually are only in urban areas.

    Unfortunately the source used is down right now. However, two of the other sources do mention that architects were employed by CDOT for this project, so for now I'm going to stick to how it's worded now. I'll double check when the source is back up.Dave (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    Good enough for me. Unusual, that's all. --LJ (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

27. "With a cost of $490 million (equivalent to $800 million today) to build 12 miles (19 km), this was one of the most expensive roads per mile to build in the Interstate System." 'today' needs definition. Also, this statement should probably be sourced.

    Sourced, however I had to re-word this to support the sources. Please check to ensure this is kosher.Dave (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    I like the comparison. You could probably replace "The construction cost per mile" in the second sentence with just "It", though. The phrase "per mile" is currently used three times in two sentences, and "The construction" starts two consecutive sentences. --LJ (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    Done to here. Thanks for your patience, this is taking a lot longer than I thought.Dave (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

    Not a problem. I'd rather this take a long time and see meaningful improvement than it go quickly through the process. I hope I'm helping to get some of the future FAC scrutiny out of the way. --LJ (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

28. "...the accident rate has dropped 40%, even though traffic..." Comma can be removed.
29. "The ski-resort town of Vail did not even exist until I-70 began construction, with developers working in close partnership with the Department of Transportation." Is this claim meant to be sourced by the citation at the end of the paragraph? It may be worthy to cite it twice, because the final citation comes with a quote.
30. Exit 241 note needs revision. "Signed as exit 241A (I-70 Bus.) and exit 241B (E Idaho Springs Road) eastbound." would seem to be the de facto USRD standard, but if you can make it a bit clearer in another way, that's OK.
31. Does the exit 244 note need to be on three lines?
32. Exit 270 note: space needed after '95'.
33. Junction list table note needs a space after the colon. I assume this notation (instead of citations in the header) is meant to possibly appease future FA reviewers. Has this been tried elsewhere on a junction list? I'd be interested to see what this looks like when multiple sources are used.

    Yes, sort of. Browsing around wikipedia, this seems to be the standard. If a table is derived form a single source, list it as the final row of the table. If the table is derived from multiple sources, place the references in the rows/columns/cells/etc. The U.S. Roads wikiproject is the odd-duck for not doing this more.=-) For the record, I had another exit list formatted this way when I took it to FAC. I don't remember if it was Interstate 70 in Utah or Utah State Route 128. Whichever it was, it was formatted this way until _cough_ certain overzealous exit list editors reverted it.Dave (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done. Overall, I think it's a very comprehensive and interesting article that is deserving of A class and eventual FA. (As a roadgeek and engineer, I definitely read some of the sources used more thoroughly.) However, I'm holding my support on this until the above comments/concerns are addressed. --LJ (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. One final addition: Bolding on the tunnel names in the junction list. Dave, I thought you were against all bold outside the lead except for table headers...;-) --LJ (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   I don't like it. I'm open to suggestions. On most of the articles I've tried to get to ACR, would just delete. However, I can guarantee that it would take an army of vandal fighters to keep the Eisenhower Tunnel off of the exit list.

   I was thinking a center-aligned, multi-column row would achieve the purpose. Keeps the tunnel mention, removes the bold. Thoughts? --LJ (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

   De-bolded. We'll see how long this lasts. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be bolded again within a month.

LJ, Thanks for this thorough review. Something has come up that is consuming most of my free time. Please excuse that it will take some time to get to all these.Dave (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood, Dave. Take care of business, the review isn't going anywhere... --LJ (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DONE. I hope, I hope I hope =-) Please advise if you have additional concerns.Dave (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no further concerns and all previous concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. I support promotion of this article to A-Class. --LJ (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Review by Admrboltz

Resolved issues from Admrboltz (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Text is fine, I cleaned up a couple of formatting issues, a space here, a {{convert}} there.
• Images I have questions about:

• Image:Hanging_Lake_Tunnel_I-70_Glenwood_Canyon.jpg - This is a bad license, per the Flickr description page this is a CC-BY-ND image.
• Image:I-70 (CO) map.svg - could you add a key. I get what all the colors are, but someone in a future FAC wouldn't.
• Image:I70terracedglenwoodcanyon.jpg if this came from CDOT, originally (per the watermark in the lower right corner), this would not qualify as PD by US Government standards, it would fall back to CDOT copyright, and most pages on CDOTs page I found were labeled "All Rights Reserved. © CDOT 2003." Could you possibly get a ORTS ticket submitted from CDOT on this?

• Thats it :) --Admrboltz (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, long time no see. Welcome back. I do have some concerns about your feedback, let's discuss

• One of the changes you made was add a conversion template to a direct quote. I guess this is ok, I've just usually not modified direct quotes before. Please advise
  • Hrm... I am not sure then. Technically there should be a convert tag there, but since its a quote... I'd say, we're probably safe to remove it, but keep in mind it may be questioned at FAR. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding the picture of the Hanging Lake Tunnel. This photograph originally had an ND license clause. I emailed the author requesting he remove the ND clause. He replaced it with an SA clause (I have the email saved where he agreed to do this). He did, as it passed flickrreviewer, so this was verified by a 3rd party. However, as you note the ND clause is back. So I can see handling this two ways. 1- it is already documented that at one time it was licensed CC-SA, and verified by a 3rd party, so we could ignore it. 2- I could forward the email I received where the author agreed to remove the ND clause and have it archived as an OTRS ticket. Do you think this is necessary?
  • Yes, ORTS would be needed, because as it stands now, the image would be a IFD candidate. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have forwarded the emails I exchanged with the author of the photograph to the OTRS system at commons. We'll see what they do with it.Dave (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Ay Carumba, how long does this process usually take?Dave (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        • They are a small number of volunteers... it may take some time... --Admrboltz (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
          • And done, the OTRS ticket has been processed.Dave (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding the CDOT image. The image is credited to CDOT, and linked to CDOT's acceptable use policy, which is actually on colorado.gov. That webpage states, "State agency authored documents are in the public domain". As such I believe I did this properly. If I missed something, please advise.
  • Can you link to the colorado.gov aup in the image page? --Admrboltz (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It is linked. the linked text Colorado Department of Transportation links to [1].Dave (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• I will add a caption to the map. Thanks for noticing that.Dave (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Okie dokie :) --Admrboltz (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support --Admrboltz (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This article can be promoted to A-Class by a non-reviewer now that it has four supports, the required ACR minimum. –CG 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.