Talk:Utah State Route 68

"Projects"

Finetooth's excellent copyediting brought the second lead to say "Subsequent projects extended it..." However, the extensions didn't create new road as "projects" would make it sound, the extensions just went on pre-existing road. I wanted to change projects to "extensions," but "Subsequent extensions extended..." sounds redundant. I'm not a very good writer so I wanted to see if Finetooth or anyone else willing to opine has to say on the manner - CL — 02:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Projects" isn't really correct, since the 68/249 swap only involved changing signs. How about "it was subsequently extended"? --NE2 02:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I had trouble with "extensions extended" too but got stuck. How about "Subsequent changes extended it..."? Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"It was subsequently extended" would work also, but it's passive voice. The active voice usually has more "oomph". It's up to you, though. "Changes" might be a weasel word. Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"The state subsequently extended it"? (You can't get more specific than "the state" because changes are made by the DOT and legislature cooperating.) --NE2 03:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and changed it. CL — 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

RD

I just realized that the route description is too short for a 70-mile route. I'd expand it but I don't want to render Finetooth's copyediting obsolete by replacing it with my own version; if Finetooth were willing to copyedit that one section again, I'll expand the RD. CL — 19:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditor's thoughts

The course description seems better than before. I have a couple of questions.

• I got out my Rand McNally Road Atlas and rested it on my lap as I worked through the article. It appears to me that SR-68 crosses the Jordan River east of the airport. It seems to cross the Jordan Canal at least four times, and it crosses the Brighton Canal and the Surplus Canal, and others that my map doesn't clearly identify. I don't know if any of these crossings are important, but you might double-check the location of the Jordan River crossing.
  • I'll check it out.
    • I think the article is mistaking the Surplus Canal for the Jordan River crossing. ([1]) The Jordan River proper continues more or less straight north before crossing SR-68 up in Rose Park. I'll update the article accordingly. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• You mention multiple golf courses. It would be helpful to identify them by their specific names rather than just the generic "golf course".
  • Okay, I'll fix that.
    • Got the golf courses. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to include some mileages for reference. For example, from Bluffdale to just north of the airport, the road appears to be absolutely straight. It might be interesting to add a sentence saying something like "beginning at Bluffdale, the highway runs straight north for X miles".
  • That's a good idea; thanks for this suggestion
    • Something else to check out. I remember hearing as a kid that Redwood Road was the longest straight road in the city, or county, or state, or something like that. Maybe we could do some research and see if it's true. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll search Google News or something - CL — 05:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how the road can turn southwest at its northern end. The big map I'm looking at shows it going straight east across I-15 and into US-89.
  • SR-68 was recently expanded east, south and southwest; Rand McNally is sort of inaccurate with state routes; for example, SR-195 was decommissioned south of 3900 South in 2006 and entirely in 2007; however, in the 2008 Rand McNally atlas SR-195 remains present. Thanks for your advice and copyediting, again - CL — 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

Adding the golf course names is good, but linking directly to outside web sites from within the main text is frowned upon. If you think those links are important, they could go into an external links section below the end of the main text. See External links in the Manual of Style for details. Alternatively, it would be fine just to leave them black and unlinked. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even include them in the external links... they don't pertain to the highway at all besides being located on the road. I hope no one minds me removing the external links from the well-intentioned edits - CL — 05:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Utah State Route 68/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The route description still reads a bit dry, like a set of turn-by-turn instructions from Google Maps - should probably get a little more descriptive and natural before A/FA. However, it is thorough. Any other thoughts?

   I hope you don't mind giving a response to these questions, Ad. Anyway, you are right, I'm not the best descriptive writer, though Finetooth did improve the RD considerably. If anyone knows how to put some zing into the wording or something, that would be appreciated

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Why isn't it broad in coverage?

   Because I'm a retard and forgot to set the checkbox. :-P

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):

   Personally, I think the one image will get it through GA, but it probably needs more for A and FA.

   True, but right now the length of the article (and the infobox butting in) only supports one. Anyway, images aren't even required for GA so this is definitely better than nothing :) CL — 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good article overall. I can't find any glaring problems, but I'd like to grab a second opinion on the RD before I give the final thumbs-up. This is my first GA-review, and I'm still trying to feel out the differences between a GA article and a B article. DeFaultRyan (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The route description section seems fine in my opinion; I've seen other GA's with similar Route Descriptions. I think the article should pass, but of course I'm not the reviewer. Hope this second opinion helped. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 18:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Perhaps it will get dinged at A or FA review, but I'll put the GA through for now. Thanks for the second opinion. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to Redwood Road?

Can this page be moved to Redwood Road? Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the route is only known as Redwood Road in Salt Lake county, outside of Salt Lake county it is known by other names. Dave (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)