Talk:Washington State Route 113/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Elli (talk · contribs) 06:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Initial comments[edit]
I'll review this article over the next few days. Pretty short so should be doable in a reasonable period of time. Not seeing any immediate issues. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll be reviewing article prose for 1a and 1b, 2b and 3c, and 3a and 3b section-by-section in the next few days, verifying the citations etc.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- No issues
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- No issues
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- No issues
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No issues
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- No issues
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- No issues
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Route description[edit]
- Ref 3 ([1]) is a 404 error, but I've fixed the link with what I believe is the correct document and added an archive to it.
- Not exactly sold on Google Maps as a ref here. Not all of the information in the first paragraph is present in the wsdot ref (for example, it doesn't mention that the route starts at Sappho). I haven't reviewed many road articles so I'm not sure about the convention here, if Google Maps is generally considered acceptable and there isn't a better reference available I won't object, but I do think it merits mention.
- No issues with the rest of the section.
@SounderBruce: your thoughts on the use of Google Maps? Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli: Longstanding convention is to accept maps as primary sources, especially for road articles where a text description would be extremely hard to come by. The essay WP:MAPCITE has more details, but in short a basic interpretation is enough; I used the satellite and terrain views to source my information, which has been good enough for FAC and GAN. SounderBruce 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: thanks, just wanted to be sure there. If it's been acceptable at FAC it should be fine here. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli: Longstanding convention is to accept maps as primary sources, especially for road articles where a text description would be extremely hard to come by. The essay WP:MAPCITE has more details, but in short a basic interpretation is enough; I used the satellite and terrain views to source my information, which has been good enough for FAC and GAN. SounderBruce 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
History[edit]
- Section is acceptably sourced and comprehensive.
Major intersections[edit]
- Section is acceptably sourced and comprehensive.
Lead[edit]
- Good summary of the article, follows LEADCITE.
Overall[edit]
Article looks good, meets the criteria, so passing. Sorry about how long it took me to get to the rest btw, was surprisingly busy over Christmas and got distracted with other things. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)