Talk:Washington State Route 520/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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Sounder Bruce 21:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:
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:
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):
Is it neutral?
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:
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:
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.