# Talk:U.S. Route 66 in Arizona

According to arizonaroads.com:

US 66 decommissioned 1985
but SR 66 formed 1984?
Can't find anything else :( --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 08:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

@SPUI:: I'm sorry a reply came 13 years after your originally inquiry, but I believe I have the answer you're looking for. US 66 was decommissioned by ADOT in 1984, but was recognized by AASHTO until 1985. Often times, states and AASHTO don't always see eye to eye with designations. Another example was the fact AASHTO recognized the eastern terminus of US 66 being at I-40 and US 666 in Sanders from 1979 to 1985, while ADOT recognized the western terminus as being at I-40 and US 93 in Kingman from 1979 to 1984. Since ADOT no longer recognized US 66 as an active US Highway starting in 1984, it made sense for SR 66 to be designated in its place from the moment ADOT recognition of US 66 ended. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I used some resources I've gathered for writing on other U.S. Highways in Arizona to spruce up the history a section a bit. However, I only reorganized and updated the origins of Route 66 in Arizona and the origins plus details of Historic Route 66. Because I'm currently trying to re-write the entire history section of U.S. Route 70 in Arizona to meet Featured Article status, this is as far as I'm going to take it for now. If anyone else would like to take over the improvement of this Route 66 article, by all means, please do so. I'll be busy with US 70 for the foreseeable future. I'd like to add as a final note, I also provided a new map of Route 66 as well as a KML file. Hope this helped a little. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: I re-wrote the entire history section to GA Article standards. When I get the chance, I plan on doing the same with the Route Description. I'm not doing this for my own personal benefit, I'm doing it because I feel like it's time US 66 got a good article. The mother road deserves her respect. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 66 in Arizona/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'll review this (comments should be here soon), and ask a friend who used to live in Flagstaff if she has any good photos in case you want to use them Kingsif (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Hi there! Thanks for reviewing this article! I hope everything is in order. I will do anything I can to improve the writing or presentation wherever issues are found. I look forward to working together! -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


### Style
Lead could be longer, but satisfactory
As much as we love the word 'heyday', perhaps a more formal phrasing is 'At the height of its use' (in lead)
I'd consider linking 'roadside businesses and attractions' to Roadside attraction, especially since that's quite a short page that already specifically mentions Route 66 in the Southwest
The fragment "The highway straddled the continued east into Coconino County"... what's this meant to say?
There's repetition that the Seligman assc. was the first Historic Route 66 association, two sentences apart ("Seligman is the birthplace of the first Historic Route 66 Association of Arizona, [...] The association was also the first Historic Route 66 association to ever be formed.")
Need clarification with "East of Seligman, old US 66 diverged from the current business route heading southeast on Crookton Road." - is it the old US 66 that is heading southeast or is it the current business route? (The next sentence doesn't massively help)
There are a few issues with tense through the route description, mixing both past and present verbs when talking about the 1940 route. Presumably, these should all be past.
Should wikilink Frontage road in at least the first instance (uncommon outside US)
Minor clean-up off extra words and grammar throughout done - but, in terms of written style, it's good.
Added a wikilink to bond issues.
The second paragraph of section The Early Years has this confusing part: "The secondary surfacing also existed on a section of US 66 from Crookton through Ash Fork to Williams. This section was approximately 21 miles (34 kilometres) long, a 21 mi (34 km) mile section running from Flagstaff heading west and the entire route between Meteor Mountain (just east of Canyon Diablo) and Holbrook." What's happening at the 21 mile part?
"years end" can just be 'the end of the year'.
What's a "lesser improved surface"?
Possibly use a term that's not pavement when referring to road surfacing and/or asphalt concrete - outside of the US, "pavement" means sidewalk. I recommend 'asphalt', with a wikilink. Or you could just say the road was paved.
Where "albeit" is used in discussion of US 70 paving, it doesn't really work well - I think these two sentences would be better as one. I also don't think there needs to be the "However" at the start, since the previous sentence does say the 66 wasn't the first. Perhaps use a semicolon and move the 'however' to replace 'albeit'.
Using "Most of the time" talking about Ed's Camp seems ...wrong? odd?... perhaps say that 'Edgerton was known for typically being willing...'?
"heavily rationed for the war effort and harder to come by" seems redundant, based on the definition of rationing
Next sentence also uses 'heavily' - maybe switch up the adverbs?
More comments to come - getting a bit of fatigue from the hours its taking to read this!
Reading through the rest, I've again tweaked some parts and it's otherwise good. I'll assume that everything above here has been checked off in the many edits? @MatthewAnderson707: Kingsif (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
If you don't mind me responding here @Kingsif:, yes they were. Although some of the edits were undone accidentally by Imzadi1979 when they came through and made some corrections of their own. I went back and re-did all the corrections they accidentally removed, while keeping their corrections in place. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 04:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


### Coverage
Route description extensive and well covered
I'm fairly sure that "At one point artist Bob Waldmire was a resident of Hackberry. Waldmire was also owner of the Hackberry General Store from 1992 to 1998." is irrelevant
History section also very in-depth
Coverage wanes in the Structures section; e.g. Restaurants could definitely include the Galaxy Diner. And there are probably other famous structures that I don't immediately think of.
Road segments should ideally expand on the "various" parts.
Still to come with coverage for the Structures part @MatthewAnderson707:.


### Illustration
I think the image of Oatman burros is not needed, nor the one of the Peaks
Other images for Oatman include the road with burros or just the road as it approaches Oatman

Other images for Flagstaff include a historic street sign and potentially the Santa Fe depot w/ outside Route 66 art visible

Otherwise, good spread and selection of images
Good use of National Old Trails Road infobox
I like the format of the old markers
Good use of map in Historic section
Standard use of table


### Neutrality
Removed "an outstanding" - just let the number stand for itself.
Same with "historic" - when the preceding paragraph makes this clear, using the term when referring to its destruction is emotive.
"Even still, the writing was on the wall. The glory days of US 66 were coming to an end." Is this a narration to a show about how sad the end of Route 66 was? (Removed) Kingsif (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
And "Unknown to highway planners, the Seligman bypass would prove to have profound consequences during the years that followed." - notably worse for not even establishing what such 'profound consequences' are (the Historic Route 66 association, yes, but it doesn't mention that in this part at all), so the sentence is entirely for dramatic purposes
"With that, US 66 was left to fade into the history books", also removed.
With these removed, passes.


### Stability
Appears stable - one main editor
Pass


### Verifiability
Sources look good
Google Maps noted as reliable for being an official route map of historic route
Everything cited inline
Pass


### Copyright
Check looks good
Images all appear to be licensed appropriately
Pass


### Overall
on hold and @MatthewAnderson707: there's a lot of rookie mistakes - half sentences, repeated words - that should have been picked up on. I've corrected where obvious, but there are some incoherent parts mentioned. It's also a heavy read - I've been at it for hours - so I'll finish up with comments in the latter parts soon. Kingsif (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Thanks for the feedback. I'm currently correcting the mistakes you pointed out with better grammar and more coherent sentences. I'll be at it for a while. So far, most of the issues you posted, save for the past/present tense in the route description section are fixed. I'm currently in the process of fixing the tense issues in route description and should be done shortly. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Sorry to ping you a second time. I just finished the tense corrections and ran the major sections through some grammar checkers a few more times. I'm currently reading through the article trying to find any further mistakes. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@MatthewAnderson707: No problem, keep me updated and I'll be reading through it! Kingsif (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Wonderful! I just finished my revision reading and eliminated any remaining errors I could find. I'm ready for whenever you have the chance to check it again. Hope it all holds up. -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Is everything in the article corrected enough or do I need to do more work? -MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 @MatthewAnderson707: I pinged you to coverage, because it's still scarce. Ideally should have more examples of the notable attractions, I even gave one in the comment. Kingsif (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Note, that is all that is left to do. It's a minor thing, even a brief overview of just a few more things that span the entire route would be useful. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Can you please clarify a little more on the coverage part? Are you talking about the coverage of attractions and structures only in the attractions and structures section or throughout the entire article? If it's just the Structures and attractions section that needs further additions, I can do that. I would like to note however, that this section was not written by me. It was part of the original barebones article that existed prior to my involvement. Also, I hope you don't mind me asking, but besides Galaxy Diner, what would be a few other additions I could make to this section for better coverage? I have a good idea on Route 66's history and prominence in Arizona and have traveled it many times, but I'm not the best at telling out the notable attractions from lesser attractions. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 05:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@MatthewAnderson707: Yes, it is just adding more attractions, and maybe rewriting them into less of a list - in addition to the ones already there, I can think of the Galaxy Diner, Meteor Crater, and Louie the Lumberjack (that link has a lot of history, and you can also mention that as a statue it mirrors the Gemini Giant at R66's Eastern terminus), and google helps with the Kozy Korner motel and Giganticus Headicus, Cool Springs Station, and several museums: Arizona Route 66 Museum, Pete's Route 66 Gas Station Museum, Old Trails Museum, and Mohave Museum. I'm sure there's more, this is just from the top of a 'famous route 66 attractions arizona' search! Kingsif (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Great! I'll try to get to work on the final section this weekend. I've been busy helping fix the US 290 article and resolving a dispute regarding US 95 in Arizona, so I had to take a break from Route 66 for a bit. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 04:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@MatthewAnderson707: I was wondering how you're getting on with expanding on the structures? I'm happy to keep this open because I can see you're doing a lot of good work with these articles, but I don't know if you want to move onto the R80 review soon? Kingsif (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I'll be honest, I've hit a massive writers block with this section. I could use a lot of advice on how to rewrite the section besides adding those extra attractions. I was able to get the others done fairly well at a quick pace mainly because it's something I've been doing for a long time. I've never tried to write one of these sections before and I don't know how to start.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 17:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@MatthewAnderson707: Hmm, I guess when I feel I don't know where to start on a section, I just open a bunch of sources and copy to the talk page or a note all the things that I think would be valuable to Wikipedia, then get the article open in visual editing and start writing around the information until it's structured alright. You could try editing like that if you're stuck, but I don't know if it would work for you? Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Thanks. I think I'll try to give that a shot. I'll try to find the sources first, then figure out a way to structure it. Perhaps in a similar fashion to U.S. Route 66 in Illinois section?— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 22:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@MatthewAnderson707: Yeah, the section over at that article looks good! Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Great! I'll use that as my basis! I'll be slow going at first though. I plan to do all the rewriting work in my user sandbox too.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 23:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 @MatthewAnderson707: I've added info on the Galaxy Diner and Kozy Corner, which I think are the most relevant of those I listed above that fit into the current subsections. This article now passes. I still think that it could be expanded to cover more of the attractions mentioned above, but currently is expanded enough! Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Thank you very much! I'm sorry I didn't get around to it myself. I've been very busy finishing up my last semester of college and haven't had the spare time.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 05:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Do we care about anachronisms in the infobox? Or should the infobox only list junctions that existed when US66 was an active route? I ask, as on the national U.S. Route 66 we do care about anachronisms. The infobox in that article has an (in 1947) next to the major junctions, and the infobox represents junctions as they were in 1947.  However, in this article there are at least three highway junctions in this infobox that did not exist until the 1990s, years after US 66 was decommissioned, those are SR 89 at Ash Fork (would have  been US 89 at the time), SR89A at Flagstaff (again would have been US89A at the time) and US 191 at Sanders (would have been US 666 at the time). I can see valid arguments either way. Listing the modern designations would aid someone attempting to trace the route on Google Maps, etc. However, there's value in how the national US66 article handles it too. Which way should this article go? Thoughts? Dave (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I ponder it this way. If Wikipedia existed decades earlier, we'd have updated the articles as each truncation was made, and then certain details would have been fixed in place when the designation was decommissioned, including the designations at the junctions. As time passed, new facets would have emerged to be added, like the tourism/historic route/popular culture/etc. I don't think that we'd have gone back post-decommissioning to revert content to an earlier year.
So applying this to US 66, I figure that the infobox would reflect the final pre-decommissioning status of the highway for each state as would the junction list tables, although the map might reflect former alignment/greatest extent. (See U.S. Route 33 in Michigan for a map showing the greatest extent or County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) for former alignments.) The notes in the junction list may say something like "Now SR 89" to give context for the junction in Ash Fork. Imzadi 1979 →  02:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. These days, I generally try to follow Imzadi's rule when it comes to US 66 and the sections of old US 80 marked as a historic route officially by states in the same fashion as US 66, (which with US 80 is currently just California and Arizona). At some point, People, when they see a historic route, generally like to think of the highway as it was in its prime, before the interstate came around. Far as I'm concerned, any route up to the first section of Interstate opening up with these designated historic routes should be fine. I know in the past, I tried to do this with several highways, and wrote US 80 in New Mexico that way (which I intend to eventually re-work into reflecting US 80 in 1989 when NMDOT stopped recognizing it as an active highway), but I've changed my approach to try and stay more in line with the standard.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 17:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)