Talk:Utah State Route 202

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Utah State Route 202/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is a nice, short article. I haven't reviewed any road GA nominations before, so I have tried to familiarize myself with the format by reading some that have already been promoted to GA. As I read through the article, a few things came to mind:

• The lead says that the road has existed "since at least 1939", but the History section says that it has existed since 1937.
  • Fixed. Its 1937 --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I still don't know what the "Garfield cut-off" is. Could a brief explanation be given in the article?
  • It appears to just be the name of the road. see here. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• "No changes alterations have been made" - I'm assuming this should be "No changes or alterations have been made"?
  • Correct. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• That sentence also leaves me wondering about how the legal definition has changed.
  • The state has vague legal definitions of all the highways. For example, the first definition was "From SR-201 near Garfield northwesterly via the Garfield cut-off to SR-2 (Interstate 80)." which was changed to "From Route 201 near Garfield northwesterly via the Garfield Cut-off to Route 80." then to "From Route 201 near Garfield northwesterly through the Garfield Cutoff to Route 80." --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I like to avoid repeating words within a sentence, so "Half of the traffic on SR-202 is bus and truck traffic." sounds repetitive. Perhaps "Half of the traffic on SR-202 consists of buses and trucks."? This is just personal preference.
  • Used your wording, that does sound better. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Can I assume that no daily average statistics are available from before 2002?
  • There are, I can get back to '97 on the web. Were you looking for more information? --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Can more detail be provided about the sulphuric acid? Did it spill from a truck? A train? Was it the result of a traffic accident? A derailment?
  • More information added. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Finally, "For the former highways, see Utah State Route 202 (1939-1953) and Utah State Route 202 (1961-1967)." Are these actually different roads? I'm assuming so, but I don't know if this should be mentioned in the article (eg. "Two other roads have been designated Utah State Route 202 in the past. From 1939 to 1953, the name was used by the road that formed the eastern approach to Mercur, Utah and later became part of Utah State Route 73..."
  • Correct, and added to the history section --Admrboltz (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than this, I see no problems with the article. Stability, neutrality, quality of prose, references, and images are all fine. I will place the nomination on hold to allow time for these concerns to be addressed. Any questions or comments can be posted here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response to the review. I see no more problems outstanding. I will promote the article to GA. Great job! One thing to keep in mind—the acid spill is a current event, so the article should be updated when the ramp is back in use and if a cause of the spill is determined.

If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review an article in return to help reduce the backlog at WP:GAN. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)