Wikipedia:Peer review/List of state highways in Pend Oreille County, Washington/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of state highways in Pend Oreille County, Washington[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list is probably the best list I have ever written, and combines elements from the FL List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan and former FL/list List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York [deleted]. I hope to see this list as the Washington State Highway WikiProject's first FL.

Thanks, –CG 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not think I would use a deleted article that is also a delisted FL as a model. This is not that similar to the Michigan model - perhaps it should be made more similar. Your mileage may vary. Anyway, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I would ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates whether the list has enough members to meet the FL requirments. Lists with less than 10 members may be too short and this only has five highways.
  • The lead needs to do better job of summarizing the article as it is supposed to do per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every section should be mentioned in the lead in some way, but the Traffic and Selkirk loop are not in the lead at all that I can see. I also found the lead confusing in places in that it appears to disagree with the text of the article. Examples follow:
    • First off, I tend to think of US highways as somehow more important than state routes. The article lists US 2 first (but also lists the highways in numerical order). The lead lists US 2 last. I would have the lead and text list the highways in the same order. The Michigan model lists US routes first.
    • The lead says Idaho State Highway 41, an Idaho highway that has a 0.41-mile (0.66 km) section partially in Washington To me this says 41 is an Idaho state highway in Washington state, but the text says it is the shortest Washington highway. Which is it? I also think the 0.41 mile section is what is entirely in Washington state (and the text seems to back me up here).
    • I would also try to describe each highway in similar terms in the lead - I like best the ones where the length and rough direction (east-west or north-sourth) are given. In any case I would try to be consistent
  • Avoid needless repeptition - two examples. In the lead and one route on the U.S. Highway System in Pend Oreille County—U.S. Route 2. We have already been told the county, why not give the length and direction instead? In History The first designated highway in Pend Oreille County was State Road 23, which was first designated in the State Road system in 1915 ... why say designated twice? How about something like In 1915 State Road 23 became the first designated highway in the State Road system in Pend Oreille County ...?
  • Any chance for a map of the county showing these routes? US Census maps are free and show highways. The Michigan model has such a map.
  • Per WP:See also the section is generally for links not already in the article, so why include the county and US 2 links?
  • Problem sentence The roadways in Pend Oreille County fall into one of two general classifications: state highway and local streets. The next sentence talks about US 2, which is neither (so aren't there three classifications?) (or would it be state-maintained highways and local streets, with an explanation that state maintained highways include state roads and US highways)
  • Any chance for a picture other than maps and road number signs?
  • Looking at the AfD for the deleted article, people noted that there was nothing new in the list that was not in the individual articles. Is that the case here?
  • The placement of the traffic subsection seems odd to me - it is in a section called Roadways, but it is not itself a roadway - it seems like a better fit in History as most of it is comparisons of AADT in 1970 and 2007.

Hope this helps - I think this needs a fair amount of work before it is ready for FLC. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]