# Talk:Utah State Route 279

This review is transcluded from Talk:Utah State Route 279/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The prose is generally very good (probably better than I could do). However, there are some minor grammar and MoS issues. First, should you mention in the lead that the road is in Utah? In the sentence, State Route 279 was constructed in 1962-3, "1962-3" should be "1962–1963", with an en dash instead of a hypen. Also, in the sentence, While in the colorado river canyon..., "Colorado River" should be capitalized.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 
Spectacular images!
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

A high-quality article, but there are some minor issues. I've put the article on-hold for those issues to be addressed. Good luck, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the fast review, and the kind words. I believe I have addressed your concerns, as well as fixed a couple of minor errors I just notices. Please advise if you have additional concerns. Dave (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, looks much better. Passes GA without hesitation. Good work! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the SR-279 history PDF, the map shows what became SR-278 using a piece of the existing road to Dead Horse Point. This road became SR-313, so, unless you have a source that UDOT actually reconstructed the road, I don't think it's accurate to say "A small stub of proposed SR-278 constructed inside Dead Horse Point State Park". --NE2 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case strike the word "constructed" and the sentence would accuratly reflect the PDF. I have in my collection a map of Grand County, dating from the 1960's that showed SR-278 as proposed in Long Canyon (UDOT calls it Day Canyon, nobody else does) and under construction on top. However, I am so far unable to locate this map.Dave (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Day Canyon and Long Canyon are separate canyons: [1] --NE2 00:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a map (swear it) that shows the proposed routing of SR-278 in Long Canyon (although it may have started in Day canyon and through switchback ended up in Long canyon or something like that, I don't remember. However, I can't find it. Until I can, I guess the best thing is to leave the route description as is. I don't agree with having a link for Potash, Utah. It's an invented place name. Nothing exists there. And Texasgulf probably won't have an article either. I will make some minor changes, as this article is GA class, and shouldn't have disputed statements.Dave (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There's definitely enough information for an article about TGS: [2] As for Potash, the place appears on USGS topos and therefore in GNIS. It may not be enough for an article, but it at least should redirect somewhere that it is mentioned. (On the other hand, maybe the plant is notable enough for an article, and it can redirect there.) --NE2 06:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
For now there's Intrepid Potash#Moab. --NE2 07:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
You did a lot of work just to spite me, but my ego has and will again take the bruising for the sake of knowledge. If that's what motivates you to do good work, so be it. For the record, being in the GNIS is not a sufficient argument by itself (IMO rail sidings are not usually notable, yet many are in there, including Potash). However, the way you've written it works, resolves my concerns, and my hat is off to you, good job.Dave (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I assure you that I did not write that to spite you, but because I felt it would be a good addition to Wikipedia. --NE2 03:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)