Result of discussion is Promote to A-Class. -- Holderca1 talk 13:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Interstate 70 in Utah ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
Comments - I will give this a full review later as well, but for now:
I will have more later upon a more complete review. -- Holderca1 talk 00:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
More comments as promised:
Okay, made it through the lead and route description. -- Holderca1 talk 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I know you are busy, but the history section still has not been reviewed. I can wait, but can you provide an estimate on when you can get to this? If you cannot please advise and I will solicit another reviewer to take a look. Thanks for your effort so far. I do appriciate it. Davemeistermoab ( talk) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I did a quick reading with my editor's fine-tooth comb and here are my comments, some of which might duplicate the previous review. I will say it's a very good article so it's just small details now.
The very first time you mentioned a US Highway, you might spell it out, but if it's wikilinked, that's even unnecessary to me, IMHO. I can't see any major problems in the article that would prevent me from supporting it's promotion to A-Class (or even feature article) once these little style issues are addressed above. -- Imzadi1979 ( talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Responses to numbered items above: 2.1: One of the maps already used for a reference makes it clear Richfield is the largest city. so I altered the sentence and used the map as a source. 2.4: I agree it doesn't sound right, however the source used only gives the length in meters. As such I assume I should use the units listed in the source as the primary. If there is a guideline that anybody is aware of, please advise.
3.4: I'll most likely have to remove the 3rd paragraph. I'm not finding good sources for this. I'll give it a few more days. Fixed the quotes.
I just gave the article a cursory look, here's what I found:
More to come in a little while. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 14:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC) As promised: reply
Overall, it was a pretty good read and well done. Aside from what I found, I'd say it's a rock-solid article. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Hopefully a very temporary oppose, as it is worthy. Most of my concerns are minor, but the last one absolutely has to be addressed for me to support.
-- Kéiryn talk 15:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Support. However, a couple of new tiny things that caught my eye...
But yeah, those are all tiny things. Great job this. :-) -- Kéiryn talk 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) reply