Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah)/archive1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not promoted. Stale for 7 days. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, NV – Wendover, UT) (0 net support votes)

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Looking for an A-class Interstate BL and another Utah (and Nevada) A-Class.

Nominated by: Admrboltz (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just lop off the major junction of Alt US-93 in the infobox; it's already listed in the terminus, so perhaps for the sake of redundancy you should remove it. Also, maybe change abbreviating Alt US-93 from "US-93 Alt." to "US-93A". What do you think of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CountyLemonade (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 October 2008
- Why should we change the abbreviation? The correct abbreviation is US 93 Alt accd to NDOT, but I have a dash in there right now to keep it consistent with the rest of the article. I left 93 Alt in the major junctions as, well it is a junction, with BL-80, just cause it continues along with I-80 doesn't mean its not a junction. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, I guess just because I prefer it better. US-93A looks better to me than US-93 Alt., but we are Wikipedia so if NDOT uses this abbreviation then we should too :) C L — 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These are real quick comments, I'll give a more thorough review as soon as I can.

While I've seen both abbreviations used interchangeably, the official logo for the DOT in Nevada uses "Nevada DOT", not NDOT, see [1].
- Will update. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the Utah portion of it is dual signed as SR-56, shouldn't the UT-56 shield be used as an alternate image, rather than a major junction? (e.g. as done with Utah State Route 19)
- That would be the case if the entire route was in Utah, but the Nevada section isn't signed as Utah SR-56 --Admrboltz (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dave (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the more thorough review I promised.

Part of the Nevada section is cosigned as U.S. Route 93 Alternate (US-93 Alt), and was formerly Nevada State Route 224 while the entirety of the route in Utah is cosigned as Utah State Route 58 (SR-58). This sentence either needs additional punctuation or be broken into two.
The time zone boundary at the state line should be mentioned in prose.
The bolded terms at the state line entry of the major intersections table should be de-linked. If somebody hasn't figured out what Nevada and Utah are by this point in the article, there's trouble in paradise, and again the time zone should be mentioned in prose. =-)
It's a good article if that's the most dirt I can pick out, congrats =-) Dave (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and actually its not the border the border has been moved to the western border of West Wendover... removed time zone references. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Issues resolved to my satafaction. for the record I would still prefer SR-58 an an alternate shield, not a junction, but it's not that big of deal.Dave (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Wait, the article does contain one factual error, Exit 407 in NV is not that new. I don't know when it was built but can confirm it's been there for a few years. From my collection of NV maps it does show in the 2005 map, not on the 1986, so somewhere in between. Dave (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why wasn't it in the 2008 SM book? --Admrboltz (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The SM book is hit and miss, not the first time it's led me astray. For now I'd say just remove the mention of exit 407 it doesn't really add much to the article anyways, and is technically past the end of the route. I still support promotion pending the fixing of this issue.Dave (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, made an interim change to the infobox (I didn't want to make the shield that prominent as it's not cosigned with SR-58 the entire time). As I said, this is only temporary and if we went through with it we would have to effectively remove all mention of SR-58 in the infobox and major junctions section. What do you think? CL — 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a tough call. Since SR-58 redirects here, I'm not exactly sure what to do with its shield. This could be a good compromise. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with the small SR-58 shield as its listed in teh infobox, but no bigger. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, how about now? I completed the change, so now SR-58 isn't listed as a "junction," per se. CL — 05:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But SR-58 is still a junction. The title of the article is BL I-80, which junctions with and merges into SR-58. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not exactly. All that dictates the beginning of SR-58 and the overlap is the border between the two states, not a merge. It's not a junction by any means, at least what I'm thinking. C L — 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, BL I-80 is routed along in NV, hits the border and ______ with SR-58. Fill in that blank with a work. I use junctions/merges. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps, BL-80 is routed along in NV and an overlap with SR-58 begins when BL-80 enters Utah, something along the lines of that. This is tough to describe. C L — 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        ... and becomes SR-58.....? Dave (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        ... and becomes concurrent with SR-58? --Admrboltz (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        and US 41 becomes concurrent with M-28 in Covington (or Harvey), but it still is listed as a junction... Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - a few issues, most minor, but a few major...
- Lead - what departments of transportation?
- You use cosigned 3 times in 2 sentences.
- Blvd = Boulevard
- RD - ex- should probably not be used.
- How are you sourcing the locations of the businesses?
- However comma to access...
- You suddenly switch to mentioning SR 58 in the second half of the RD. That is a bit confusing.
- History is hard to follow - maybe I'm just tired but it is hard to connect how SR 58 relates with the rest of it. Of course, one could look at the lead again, but that's a pain.
- You mention SR 224 in the lead, and it is never mentioned in the history.
- Please consider combining the Google Maps cites.
- Not that I necessarily agree with this, but an advisory that a FAC reviewer could criticize sourcing using photographs as OR. Just a warning. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.