Talk:Washington State Route 520

What parts were built when?

What parts were built when? The article does not say a thing about it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're personally curious, you can get rough dates from [1]. --NE2 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's only going to cover bridges. But, in particular, I believe SR-520 now extends farther east than it did originally.

I am moderately curious, but was really more encouraging whoever is working on this article to explore more of that history, which will probably turn out to be the most interesting thing about the topic. - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; history is very often the most interesting topic. You say that that site only covers bridges; however, since this is a freeway, every intersection includes a bridge. You can enter the state as Washington, the route as 520, and sort by bridge date to get a general history; the only anomalies will be when bridges were replaced. --NE2 13:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a brief planning history of SR-520 as well as what I can glean of the construction history. I don't know the timeline for the HOV widenings except in vague terms.SanDiegoFreeway (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington State Route 520. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130203221639/http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020208721_520arboretumxml.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020208721_520arboretumxml.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 520/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Picking it up for a review. Making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert if i make any mistake. I hope you enjoy the review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Dup links should be removed.
  • I removed non-essential duplicate links. The only remainders are those repeated from the lead (allowed under MOS) and some terms that are needed for context (e.g. Portage Bay, Microsoft, the floating bridges).
• Perhaps lead could be expanded a bit?
  • I don't feel the lead needs to be any longer. It covers the entire history section without being too detailed.
• Link Harvard Avenue.
  • The street doesn't have an article and is not notable enough to warrant one.
• It would be better if we could have the last image to the right. Although, it is just an opinion, and feel free to ignore it!
  • I prefer to have the images alternating between sides, beginning with a left-facing one in the RD.
• Link Lake Washington Boulevard.
  • Done.
• "between midnight at 5 a.m." is it "and"?
  • Fixed.
• It would also be better to mention what Bear Creek is, as there is no article on that either!
  • An article will be created eventually, but giving special mention to Bear Creek would mean each other waterway (Lake Washington, Sammamish River, Union Bay) would need their own descriptions.

• Yeah, giving descriptions to ake Washington, Sammamish River, Union Bay would surely look odd. It is ok as it is!

• "Everett–Seattle tollway (later Interstate 5)" and "Sunset Highway (later I-90)" Do we even need the earlier name?
  • Yes, because the interstate designations came decades later.
• Is there any reason why the temporary designation of SR 920 was given?
  • I think readers can infer that the existence of a "missing link" between the two completed segments made the SR 920 designation a necessity.
• "Eastside cities and groups" What do we mean by groups here? Are they certain sets of people, company, etc.?
  • Added "civic groups", which broadly describes the kinds of organizations that were involved (e.g. the chambers of commerce, citizen transportation committees, political parties).
• "and estimated the cost at $10 million (equivalent to $61 million in 2016 dollars)" perhaps it might be better to just keep "and estimated the cost at $10 million at the time", and remove the mention of 2016 dollars, as it might be irrelevant as time passes by (now 2017)...
  • The template is automatically updated, and inflation conversions are pretty standard when talking about large projects.

• Oh, did not know that it could automatically update! Then it is awesome. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• A U.S. District judge ruled... would be better if we could have the name of the judge (if available). Feel free to ignore it, if you are unable to find their name!
  • Added.
• "re-signed" could it be reworded?
  • "signing" is a term used by governments to indicate a new highway shield (or rather, a designation) given to a road. It most accurately described the action in 1985.
• "approved $81.1 million (equivalent to $168 million in 2016 dollars)", "overpass's $30 million cost (equivalent to $36 million in 2016 dollars)" Same applies here.
  • See above.
• In ref 59, why do we need "via Google books", it seems redundant!
  • Generally, when an online reference is hosted by someone other than the publisher, it's customary to include them in the citation.

@Adityavagarwal: All items completed, with the exception of some unnecessary requests. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 21:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

So, this is a wonderfully written article, and is definitely a pass. Would you like me to review any of your other GANs, SounderBruce? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Thanks for the review. A review of any of my three train station GANs would be appreciated (but totally optional). SounderBruce 21:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

---

1. 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:

2. 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:

   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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or 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.

Misc questions

Should it be called "freeway"? There is a toll for crossing the bridge section. Should the article include something about the sculptures? Prior to about 2005(?) by University exit there were a pair of mobile statues on the north and south side in the water. Then they were replaced by another statue. About 2017 they were removed. Should the article discuss the impact of the 2017 bridge on closures? Prior to the new bridge, there was a weekend closure about 52.0% of the time in the summer. Should the article discuss closures due to stormy weather, and how the new (2017) bridge can help solve storm closures due to being higher above the water? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjster (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the "free" in "freeway" means "free-flowing", not "free of charge". I'll defer to others for your other questions. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha, one could argue both meanings don't apply!  :-) (Depending on which dictionary and time of day.) User:Ericjster —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the other questions: coverage of the statues should be included in their own, separate article; I assume you're refering to these things, which probably fit the old bridge article better than this one. Same goes for the closures and storm resilience, the latter of which is mentioned in the new bridge article. This article is primarily about the whole freeway, not just the bridge. SounderBruce 01:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Terminus

@SounderBruce: I understand that the WSDOT and state legislative definitions state that the eastern terminus is SR-202, but this is not the reality on the ground. The route continues as a freeway until it reaches Avondale Road, which is a grade crossing. The interchange with SR-202 only makes use of ramps, and the freeway continues straight past it. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@DirtyHarry991: The lack of a source makes this discussion pointless. The interchange diagram makes it very clear that SR 520 ends at the overpass in WSDOT's eyes, and thus ours. There are plenty of highways that end at a point while the physical road continues onward under county or city maintenance. SounderBruce 08:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce the article could state that the freeway ends at both SR-202 and Avondale. According to the diagram you provided, the route ends at SR-202 as well as a set of ramps to Avondale Road. These ramps should at least be mentioned. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The continuation is already mentioned and would need a reliable source of its own if additional details were necessary. SounderBruce 09:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: It is not mentioned in the infobox. Sources in the article itself state that the freeway has ramps continuing to Avondale. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@DirtyHarry991: I don't think that the infobox needs any changes. Remember, it like the lead is a summary of the article, not a replacement for it. Sometimes, that means omitting fine details to keep things concise. As a quick summary, the terminus in the infobox is fine, and the article body expands upon it appropriately. Imzadi 1979 → 09:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)