Talk:U.S. Route 89 in Utah

U.S. Route 89 in Utah has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 2, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: U.S. Highways / Utah Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. Highways
Locations	Utah
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

United States: Utah Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Low-importance).

History notes

1918 routing (Spanish Fork to Logan) (reverse)

[SR-198], SR-156, SR-147, SR-51, US-89, US-189, Center, US-89, Columbia?, US-89, Main, Center, US-89, 300 West, Pacific, US-89, Frontage, US-89, State
South Temple, 300 West, US-89, Main, SR-106, 100 South, 100 East, SR-106, Main
via Clearfield: Main, SR-126, SR-26
US-89, SR-235, Pleasant View, US-89, Old Hargis Hill, US-89, SR-13, Forest, 600 East, 100 South, SR-90, US-89, 100 South, US-89, ??, 300 East, 400 North, US-89

--NE2 11:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal definition no longer includes Bountiful

A 2006 law removed "then beginning again at a junction with Route 15 near Orchard Drive northerly through Bountiful to a junction with Route 15 at North Bountiful Interchange" from the definition, stating that US-89 enters I-15 at exit 312 (North Salt Lake). This is not substantiated by UDOT logs or maps that do show the later realignment in downtown SLC, and the code still shows SR-68 and SR-93 ending at US-89. So this appears to have been an error. --NE2 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What do you mean when you say not all interstate junctions are major junctions? How do you define a major interstate junction, and why are the I-80 and I-70 ones major enough to be included? I don't see how SR-12 and SR-38 (I presume you mean SR-39 as the former is 18 mi and the latter is 67 mi) are included when I-15 (or I-215, now that I think about it) isn't
US-89 exits through #291 to get off I-15 and onto its own separate path

C L — 13:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sort of "balancing act" between spacing out the junctions and major places and roads. I-80 is included because it gives a junction for SLC; I-15 isn't both because it's parallel (so it doesn't really provide any major junctions) and because Lehi isn't really a major place, especially with its location close to Provo and SLC.

US-89 follows exit 291, so that shouldn't be listed as an exit number. It would be listed if the movement to stay on I-15 was marked as exit 291, and US-89's path had no exit number. --NE2 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I-70 (near Richfield) and SR-12 (near Panguitch) aren't in major places either, and Lehi is much bigger than the two. Anyway, US-89 crosses I-15 many times without anything to do with a concurrency, Lehi, Salt Lake City, and north of Ogden are just some of the places I can name off the top of my head. C L — 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where spacing comes in - if we went by only the biggest cities, we'd probably have all the junctions in the northern half of the state. --NE2 16:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think about adding pictures of Washington Blvd. from Ogden and Main Street from Logan, seeing 89 is part of them both and therefore seemingly significant? --UtahStizzle (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railroads followed

Marysvale to Thistle: Sevier Railway → D&RGW Marysvale Branch, abandoned 1983 after Thistle landslide
Thistle to Provo: D&RGW → Southern Pacific Provo Subdivision → Union Pacific Provo Subdivision
Provo to Pleasant Grove: both lines were farther west
Pleasant Grove to SLC: LA&SL → Union Pacific Provo Subdivision → UTA TRAX Sandy/Salt Lake Line (how far south?)
SLC to Farmington: Utah Central Railroad → Utah Central Railway → Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway → Union Pacific Salt Lake Subdivision
Ogden to Brigham City: Utah Northern Railroad → Utah and Northern Railway → Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway → Union Pacific Ogden Subdivision

The Utah Northern went from Brigham City north to Collinston, where it turned east and southeast to Mendon and then east to Logan.

Logan to Idaho: Utah Northern Railroad → Utah and Northern Railway → Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway → Union Pacific Cache Valley Branch

--NE2 23:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 89 in Utah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I plan to review this article. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Review by Robert Skyhawk

I have reviewed this article, and have found just a few things which I think should be fixed, detailed here:

Note: "Done" and "Not done" status indicates whether an issue has been fixed. Once a particular issue has been addressed, editors are free to change this status and use this list as a checklist.

Infobox:
- The map could use a caption; it is a tad unclear at first which road is US-89.
  - Done
    - I doubled the width of the red line; is it clearer now (and does it still need the caption)? --NE2 05:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Route description section:
- Breaking this section into sub-sections would be a good organizational touch; how this would be done is up to the editor(s).
  - Done
- "US-89 enters Utah inside the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area..." Perhaps add "from the south" or something similar; technically the highway enters and exits the state from the north and south.
  - - Done - Hope I did some justice to this article. C L — 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done

With these issues withstanding, I would rate this article in the following manner:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is not the final review; I am putting the nomination on hold so that the above issues may be fixed.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I'll hold off here until above issues are fixed.

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The level of detail on the Route summary is amazing, yet it doesn't list details to an overly exhaustive extent. Well done.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
The images on this article are also impressive. The inclusion of some of the Scenic Byways is a nice touch.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
As stated above, I'm putting the nomination on hold.

For the most part, this looks like a very good article deserving of GA status. As a Utah resident, I believe this article accurately and thoroughly describes one of this state's major highways. When the above issues are cleared, please contact me on my talk page and I will happily resume the process. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs more details of the history, for instance the bypassing by I-70 in the Sevier Valley. I stopped work on it without finishing it, but will hopefully get back to it in the future. --NE2 01:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements. Despite this lack in the History section, I believe this article is deserving of GA status. I will proceed to make the necessary changes. Congratulations to all involved editors. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD GA audit

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing former state route intersections

Given that Vine Street and 900 South are listed in the Salt Lake County portion of the US-89 intersection list due to having previously been state highways, the intersections with 4800 South in Murray and Center Street in Midvale should probably be listed too; 4800 South was previously SR-174 according to SR-266 (UT) and Center Street was previously SR-48 according to SR-48 (UT). South Temple was also previously SR-181 according to SR-181 (UT), but only east of State Street, so that should just be in the SR-186 (UT) article now... I do not have mile-poat data for these intersections, so I did not try to add them immediately. Esetzer (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9400 South was also SR-209 according to SR-209 (UT), though that article's history section is not very clear. Esetzer (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Stockton Drive

The page is reached by redirection from "John Stockton Drive", which was suggested to me by my browser when I was entering a search string. It should, therefore, contain in its text some explanation of my Drive. John Stockton, of England, currently posting from 158.152.233.145 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]