Talk:Washington State Route 512

Washington State Route 512 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 14, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Washington State Route 512 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 May 2022, and was viewed approximately 3,208 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the construction of Washington State Route 512 included a new high school football stadium to replace a demolished one?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Washington State Route 512.

Wikipedia

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

U.S. Roads: State highways / Washington Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Washington
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 512/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Panini! (talk · contribs) 11:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewin'. Panini! • 🥪 11:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little comments for this article, so I'm going to Pass this review right off the bat. Everything here is neatly formatted and neutral and all sources are verifiable. This is all I have for you:

"The state government revised its plans for the Puyallup section ahead of construction bidding in 1969 and reduced parts of the freeway to a divided two-lane expressway in the interim to save costs on the $11 million elevated viaduct." This is a long sentence and is difficult to wrap the mind around. Could a comma or semicolon be used to break up tension?
I see a {{when}} tag next to "The cloverleaf interchange with I-5 in Lakewood was modified in the late 1990s". It does have a "possibly 2002" comment, but this claim doesn't line up with the "by 1994, approximately 20,000 vehicles used the interchange on a daily basis" statement that follows. Could you find a general source to fix this matter?

Once again, Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 12:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Washington State Route 512 has an overpass designed for pedestrians and school buses? Source: Tacoma News Tribune
- ALT1: ... that the construction of Washington State Route 512 included a new high school football stadium to replace a demolished one? Source: Tacoma News Tribune
- Reviewed: Yi Jeonggyu

Improved to GA status by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 20:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Article was brought to GA status on time and no close paraphrasing was found. QPQ still pending. ALT1 is cited inline and verified. My preferred hook is actually the original, but neither the article nor the source seem to say that the overpass was solely designed for pedestrians/school buses but rather they were taken into account during construction. This issue will need to be clarified before approval. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Narutolovehinata5: I would've ticked ALT1 and left ALT0 up to further work- having one viable hook is usually good enough if the article is okay. As for ALT0, doesn't the article say pedestrian–school bus overpass at Franklin Pierce High School? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It does, but there's no direct mention of the overpass being designed solely for pedestrians and school buses, rather it was built with those in mind. The sticking point here was the term "solely". In addition, it has been a week since the review and a QPQ still needs to be provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we should probably ping SounderBruce. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Added QPQ and removed "solely" from the hook. Sounder Bruce 22:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Issues have been resolved, I'll let the promoter pick what hook they want, although now I think about it, I think ALT1 might actually be more unusual than the new ALT0 since "solely" was what made the original hook unusual to me and without it the hook becomes less unusual. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]