Talk:Interstate 5 in Washington/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mccunicano (talk · contribs) 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article soon. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Overall the article seems ready to pass, though there are a few concerns I have noted below.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- A citation tag is present in the article in regards to the date of completion of a six-laning project along the interstate in Olympia, but that one tag shouldn't be enough to keep this from passing.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Good work expanding the scope of the article to be less focused on Seattle as was a chief concern in the article's last GA nomination.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- See my comment below about the position of an image
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Great work so far on this article, sorry for the wait. I have a few concerns before I pass this article. The left-aligned image under the "Skagit and Whatcom counties" subsection would be better off being aligned to the right since it's at the start of a subsection. Under "Suburban and rural construction", B.C. should be written out as British Columbia since its the only instance in the prose where its abbreviated. I also think it would be important to mention what happened to the fallout shelter in Ravenna that is mentioned in the "Seattle planning and construction section". ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mccunicano: Fixed the image alignment and BC abbreviation, added details on the fallout shelter, and temporarily removed the uncited information until I can find a suitable source (still waiting on some information from the state archives). Thanks for reviewing. SounderBruce 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking addressing those minor concerns and for making those additional spacing fixes. This article has passed. Keep up the good work. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mccunicano: Fixed the image alignment and BC abbreviation, added details on the fallout shelter, and temporarily removed the uncited information until I can find a suitable source (still waiting on some information from the state archives). Thanks for reviewing. SounderBruce 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Great work so far on this article, sorry for the wait. I have a few concerns before I pass this article. The left-aligned image under the "Skagit and Whatcom counties" subsection would be better off being aligned to the right since it's at the start of a subsection. Under "Suburban and rural construction", B.C. should be written out as British Columbia since its the only instance in the prose where its abbreviated. I also think it would be important to mention what happened to the fallout shelter in Ravenna that is mentioned in the "Seattle planning and construction section". ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.