Talk:Washington State Route 125/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving this one a look. —Ed!^(talk) 23:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass Dab links, external links tools show no problems. Copyio tool returns green. I do note some duplicate links though if those could be removed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Source Spotcheck Material in refs 20, 57 and 58 all properly back up details cited in the article. I note several offline sources on the article, accepted in good faith.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Does the road go by other names at any point in its span? I note a reference to a Pine Street but I can't immediately tell if it's co-named or not there.

   • All of SR 125's official names are listed in the Route description; generally, state highways outside of cities and suburbs are left unnamed.

   • Is there a geography of the road? Generally hilly? Relatively few turns?

   • I believe the Route description adequately covers the terrain. Most of the turns are in the narrow valley (which I've added).

   • Traffic stats are daily? I would make clear.

   • Added to the sentence with the actual volumes, though the preceding one mentions the average annual daily traffic formula used in the statistics.

   • Any details on the population change in the principal towns around the road that could be added to the history section? How usage of the roadway has changed over time would be useful context I would think.

   • I don't think that population changes that can't be directly attributed to SR 125 should be included.

   • Is there a cost to construct the spur?

   • I couldn't find the cost, as it was using an existing city streets that was not significantly rebuilt.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Seeing a decent selection of public, journalism and independent sources.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Four images tagged CC and PD where appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Ed!: Thanks for picking this one up for review. I've replied to your comments above and will work on SR 500 shortly. SounderBruce 01:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. all of this works for me, and I think at this point the major points have been addressed. Going to Pass the GAN as it meets the criteria as I see them at this point. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 02:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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.