Talk:U.S. Route 491

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 U.S. Route 491 is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Date: 06:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer review U.S. Route 491 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics U.S. Highways New Mexico Colorado Utah State Highways
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as B-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Route 666 (Texas 666)

Photo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/99696887@N00/32689707/

is right isn't it? It's cc-by-2.0 Dunc|☺ 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not US 666. --SPUI (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

FARM TO MARKET ROAD NO. 666
Minute Order 42972, 10-31-57; Adm. Circ. 1-58, 1-1-58
From SH 359 & BS 359-B at Mathis, southward via Banquete to FM 70, northwest of Bishop, a distance of approx. 36.6 miles. (San Patricio and Nueces Counties)
That's Texas, not U.S. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't it be US 666?

Shouldn't this article be US 666 Decommissioned instead of US 491? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.118.225 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Why is this article tagged citation needed?

Why tag this article "citation needed" for the claim "well constructed roadway"? It's just as easy to remove the claim (as it really adds no value anyways). I'll remove this. If any objections just revert.

Davemeistermoab 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little more information would be nice

I think that this article needs more information. The author has provided us with only a general information (the author hasn't even explained those in details), and it would be nice to have the map where the highway is located (Click here for an example). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ainstushar (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

FYI, I have driven this route from end to end and at least once and am fairly familiar with it from Monticello to Cortez. I am willing to work on the Utah and Colorado sections. It's on my get arount to it list. Just been real busy lately. I do hope there is somebody else here who can work on the New Mexico section as I've only driven it once that I recallDavemeistermoab 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mythology

i think there should be mention of the the myths legends and stories of what happens on this road such as the flaming truck and the demon dogs.I am Paranoid 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps some mention of Natural Born Killers (Released 1994 starring Woody Harrelson and Juliet Lewis, written by Tarantino, directed by Oliver Stone) being set along this highway? Perhaps some of the notoreity arose from this movie; the script was surely written before or at least during the Arizona governmental activity to get it renamed. Greg 22:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I removed the trivia tag:

Per Wikipedia:Trivia sections: "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list.

The guideline also says: A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, which are often grouped into their own section labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc.

That does not apply to the "Media and pop culture" section of this article. This section has a clearly limited scope, is organized, and all content in the section is relevant to the section title.

Also, this information was specifically requested to be included in the article in above comments on this talk page.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just an observation

There is a section in the article about extension into Arizona and Utah. US 491 has never been in Arizona, so I am assuming this is referring to US 666. As this article should be the history of US 491, it shouldn't mention this part of US 666. This information should be in the US 191 article which replaced US 666 in Arizona. --Holderca1 talk 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN comments

I see User:Mitchazenia is reviewing this article, so I just have a couple comments. First, since the route has a fairly involved history, I'd like to see the lead expanded to two paragraphs. Second, I'd like to see consistency with US X and U.S. Route X. You go back and forth between the two, so I think it would be better to stick to one or the other. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Compliance with the WP:MOS to this level is usually required at the FA level, not the GA level. However, the point is duly noted and I'll start. I was wondering if we could get this to FA ASAP and nominate it for the featured article on May 31st =-) I think July 1st is a better option, however.Dave (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 491/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):
    Prose is generally great. Just one comment. As the highway gains altitude the highway passes through large Pinto bean farming regions. Try to cut down on the use of "the highway".
  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):
    I know the route is pretty boring (route description wise), but I'd like to see the RD expanded some. Especially for the New Mexico section, you should write the intersections, towns passed, and I think it crosses the San Juan River.
  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:

An excellent article overall, but there are some minor issues. I've placed the article on-hold for theses issues to be addressed. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)