Talk:Washington State Route 104
Latest comment: 11 years ago by TCN7JM in topic GA Review
Washington State Route 104 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 104/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 09:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Eh. Why not? –TCN7JM 09:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Lead
- Nothing wrong to note.
Route description
- "SR 104 begins at a partial cloverleaf interchange with an at-grade traffic signal in the center with US 101" This doesn't really read well, but I can't think of a better way to put it. Maybe...gah...I don't know. You try something. :\
- I removed traffic signal and moved at-grade in front of partial. It seems better. SounderBruce 22:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks better. –TCN7JM 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- "The highway between Discovery Bay and Kingston and between SR 99 and I-5 in Edmonds and Shoreline are designated as part of the National Highway System," Incorrect subject-verb agreement. Maybe say something like, "The segments of the highway between...are"
- Fixed.
History
- "to US 99 and PSH 1 Woodway" Did you mean in Woodway?
- Fixed.
Spur route/Major intersection
- You say in the Spur route section that SR 104 Spur begins at the county line, but this isn't displayed in the RJL. This is inconsistent.
Should I list both cities/both counties? Or use {{jctbridge}}?- Nevermind. Resolved in IRC. SounderBruce 02:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
References
- Refs 44 and 55 could probably be shortened a bit using hidden text.
- Fixed.
Final verdict
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall: Just these couple fixes
- Pass/Fail:
- Alrighty then. Passing now! –TCN7JM 02:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)