Talk:Utah State Route 269

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Utah State Route 269/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The route connects the city center with the freeway. As the settlers of Utah laid their towns with amply wide streets, one-way streets are rare in the city, SR-269 being one of two in existence. As part of I-15's construction in the 1960s, planners felt that two one-way streets with many lanes leading to and from the freeway would be better utilized.[3] The Salt Lake City and County Building is located at the route's junction with US-89.[5] <--That should be in the lead more than the Route description. If anything the route description should just be the second paragraph and/or maybe the first.

Done. Rather than integrating that paragraph into the two lead paragraphs, I just moved the paragraph in question to the lead, making three paragraphs. If you'd rather have me incorporate the info in the two original lead paragraphs, just say so.

1. B. MoS compliance:

   Please strike the bold names in the Route description. Also, please if possible, convert to the Jctint form for the Major intersections list.

Done: Removed bolding, but the major intersections list already is in jctint form, isn't it?

It needs the county and city in the box as well.^Mitch32^contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.

No it doesn't; see WP:ELG: "This column is optional for routes that are within a single subdivision/location". There's also no basis for requiring the use of {{jctint}} to pass GA. --NE2 15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I guess it's best here to revert it as it was, as it was in compliance in the first place. Hope this is okay, everyone. CL — 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The citations should be in Cite Web, Cite Map, etc. form.

Don't they do so already?

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Is there any data after 2000? It would be useful to the article

I searched on Google News Archive and took a look at the UDOT history PDF again and it looks like the route has been relatively untouched since then.

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   See below

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   There is no picture in the article. If there's any free ones it would be very helpful to the article.

I emailed the webmaster of this website to see if I could obtain permission to use the pictures on his website. Will the lack of pictures affect the GAN?

No this will not.^Mitch32^contribs 11:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article does need some work before Good Article status. Good luck and I'll probably pass once all is fixed.^Mitch32^contribs 13:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've attempted to address your concerns; how does the article look now? CL — 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I took care of the city and county in the box. CL — 15:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Junction list

I know that UDOT technically considers it to be a loop of sorts, but it's really a one-way pair. I think it should only have the eastbound direction. --NE2 17:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

UDOT posts separate mileages for the eastbound and westbound segments, and this way the last junction has the mileage that is listed in the route length in the infobox. CL — 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Should that really be listed as the length? It's a one-way pair, signed east in one direction and west in the other. --NE2 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, if we listed the length of just one pair as the length of the whole route, it would be as if it were one single city street with a really wide median with buildings in the middle. I think SR-269 should have that westbound segment length included, as it would probably be a fully intact route (with a small overlap with US-89) if UDOT wasn't absolutely against overlaps. And anyway, the two separate junctions with I-15/I-80 are somewhat different, so we might as well list the whole thing. CL — 18:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Utah is strange because there are very few one-way streets and thus very few one-way pairs. In any other state this would be inventoried as the other direction, but UDOT hasn't had to deal with enough (I can only think of SR-79 and SR-104, which are treated similarly; in the logs, they even call them eastbound and westbound lanes). You can see an example in another state here; ODOT (essentially; there are some irrelevant issues here) calls one direction 99E (1) and the other 99E (2). The mileage of 99E (2) is measured "backwards", and where the two directions rejoin, the figures are a bit different and a milepoint equation is needed to reconcile 99E (2) mileage. --NE2 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NE2 here. One-way pairs are fairly common (although not in Utah). If this weren't a one-way pair, then the entire length would be one-way, which is almost unheard of, so it's pretty obvious we should treat it as a one-way pair. The length listed in the infobox should be the longer of the two – it looks like eastbound is 0.904 miles, westbound is 0.902 miles, and each junction should be listed in both the infobox and the junction list only once. However, I have no problem with putting both mileposts in the junction list, with a note at the top or bottom explaining what's going on. -- Kéiryn (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with the current method is that it's signed east-west, and considered such by UDOT (see the SR-270 log), but as a loop it has north and south ends. --NE2 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible way of dealing with infobox with this new method: SR 202. Note the CW and CCW end, how about that? Or should we do a west end of I-15/I-80 and an east end of US-89? CL — 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

SR 202 is a two-way loop; this is a one-way pair with a west end at I-15 and an east end at US-89. --NE2 07:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How about now? It's not the best job (especially the junction list), but it will do for now. Feel free to improve it - CL — 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do soon, when I finish adding history to the routes between 211 and 269. --NE2 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph

I've been uneasy about moving the third lead paragraph from the RD to the lead. I think it belongs in the RD, but I don't want to do anything before more input. CL — 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The way it's written, I think it belongs in the lead. It's a little mix of route description and history, and doesn't really fit anywhere in the RD with a west to east progression. That being said, the lead should summarize the rest of the article, so if you plan on taking this article higher than GA-class, you should expand on the statements being made there and make sure there is something in the body about it. -- Kéiryn (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it needs a more reliable source than Utah Highways. --NE2 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, duly noted, the RD just looks a bit empty now IMO, especially for GA. I tried finding something to write more about, but couldn't really think of anything. And anyway, for the source, I used only the info that would be common knowledge at the time (like the bit about the Gateway, which was probably in the news non-stop in the late-90s). CL — 08:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Utah State Route 269/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There are many one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article that can be combined.
   • The sentence "The highway continues east three blocks (intersecting SR-270 and Main Street, including a light rail route used by all three lines of the UTA TRAX system) before state maintenance ends at US-89 (State Street)." needs to be reworded.
   • The sentence "The pair of viaducts were demolished in late-1998–early-1999, replaced with much shorter viaducts in 2000." sounds awkward.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Citations are needed in the second paragraph of the route description, the second paragraph of the history, and the statement "This replacement was made possible by the agreement of trackage rights during the 1980s allowing Union Pacific to use Rio Grande's line between Salt Lake City and Provo, and the subsequent acquisition of Rio Grande by Southern Pacific and then by Union Pacific itself. Mitigation for the removal of the lines was nevertheless necessary; most notably, the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub was built at 600 West to replace the functions of the Rio Grande and Union Pacific stations, both of which are now isolated from the former mainlines that connected to them from the south by traffic streaming to and from I-15 on SR-269 (as part of the Gateway development, the lines from the north were cut too)."
   • References are not needed in the lead unless the information is unique there.
   • Reference 2 is a WP:SPS and needs to be replaced.
   • References need to be formatted properly.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will put this article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been a week and since the issues have not been addressed, I will have to delist the article. Dough4872 21:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)