Talk:U.S. Route 491

U.S. Route 491 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 4, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 17, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 13, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
August 5, 2008	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
August 16, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Roads: U.S. Highways / New Mexico / Colorado / Utah FA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major 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.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale.

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. Highways

Locations

New Mexico

Colorado

Utah

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article may or may not contain a junction list. Please check, then add |needs-jctint= to this template accordingly.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in December 2008.
	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in May 2008, June 2009.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arizona FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Colorado

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Colorado portal This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

United States: New Mexico

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	New Mexico portal This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico.

United States: Utah

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) .

No.--P C B 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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".
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):
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.
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):
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)[reply]

Thank you for the review. While searching for you requested more information on the New Mexico portion, I found a rather interesting document from the NM DOT about the fatality rates since renumbering. I have incorporated this into the History section. Please advise if I have erred in this content addition or if you feel this would be more appropriate in a different section. Thanks again, I believe this is ready for you to finish the evaluation.Dave (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it looks good enough to pass. Congrats! For FA, however, I still think you would need to expand the route description with the intersections and towns. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Page

This is the most popular page in the Utah State Highways WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Popular pages. Maybe people like 666 :p --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if those statistics are somewhat skewed because of the recent GA review and current A class review. I suspect this is indeed one of the more popular Utah highway articles, due to the "pop-culture" appeal, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see those stats drop once FAC is finished =-) Dave (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind those stats haven't been updated since early July (the one for Legacy Parkway has data end on July 12) so the results are a little outdated. C L — 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorder this page

The more I look at this article, the more I think the history section should come first. I propose to reorder the sections, and make the changes that would go along with it to make the text flow better once reversed. Any objections? Dave (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per USRD's standards, the RD should go first unless the article's in Texas. --P C B 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the standards don't prescribe the exact order, just that those two sections are required. Imzadi 1979 → 04:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, those are guidelines, not mandates. Any rule that rigid would quickly be laughed out of existence. IMO, the discussion should be based on which order makes for better reading. Dave (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, just one minute . . .

Doesn't the number 491 have its own demonic connotation? There's the Biblical reference that sins are forgiven not just seven times, but seventy times seven. Ergo, you get 7 x 70 = 490 chances, but on 491 you are beyond forgiveness. Not exactly sound theology, but grist for popular speculation. Why would they dump one infamous number for another? Was somebody pulling a fast one? WHPratt (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am hardly the first to note this. See this article about a 1964 film.WHPratt (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/491_(film)

Congratulations, but...

Congratulations to all the editors responsible for getting this article featured. Now to piss on the parade. Shouldn't US 666 and US 491 be split? (This is precedented — there are a number of articles on former US highways.) US 666 was (I think) more than twice the length of US 491 and is far more notable than US 491. This article seems to be a US 666 article masquerading as a US 491 article. — AjaxSmack 03:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be split. The two articles would be 100% redundant except for the history section where the dividing line would be 2003, not leaving much for history on the US 491 article. There is precedent for having articles on "historical" highways, however this is usually because no modern highway exactly follows the historical one. In this case, with the exception of the Arizona portion US 491 is a direct replacement for US 666. Dave (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dave on this. Before May 31, 2003, this was US 666, and starting June 1, 2003, it is US 491; that is a one-to-one replacement. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go Dave! I knew you had something to do with this as soon as I saw the words "four corners". On another note.... Happy Birthday America! --ErgoSum•talk•trib 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]