Talk:Washington State Route 129/GA1

GA Review

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

• Got some issues in the lead - state highway in Washington, not Asotin County
• Should not be a cite for the information in the lead, first paragraph
• Please read WP:LEAD - you have way too many cites in the lead - the lead is NOT to introduce more information; it is a brief summary of the article
• 2nd paragraph lead should be revised - Update now the lead is too short.
• Route description - you don't need to say the mileage a third time.
• First sentence took me some time to understand - rephrase
• Break up the cluster of references - you should NEVER have more than 3 references strung together like you do. (Update three references for two very short sentences?)
• Cite Google Maps only once - you don't need to cite a different Google Maps URL for every time you use it
• Third sentence of first paragraph is unclear what location you are referring to
• of the Enterprise, Oregon - never use "the" here
• Two u-turns? Please be more specific and less colloquial.
• north-northeast direction?
• and then - bad phrase to use = signals a run-on sentence (Update copyeditor added another "and then")
• The highway, which is on the opposite side of the river from Hells Gate State Park in Idaho. - this is not a complete sentence. - Update you still need to rewrite the sentence - change verb tenses
• Last sentence of RD is poorly written
• You don't say a whole lot about the spur - and what you have is poorly written.
• Another string of 4 references...
• Another question: do you really need four sources to cite the route description of a 0.07 mile route?
• I don't understand what you're meaning with the AADT data.
• No history about the spur anywhere in the article.
• A random slash in the spur section.
• You don't need to cite location in {{shban}}.
• History is not in chronological order.
• Second sentence - your verb tenses don't match.
• I don't like seeing the slash with no space in between the primary highway designation and US 295 - see if you can rewrite that so you don't use one.
• There is no US 295 in Washington. I assume you're referring to a decommissioned route? Specify. (Update wikilink decommissioned - per WP:HWY)
• PSH 3 DC from Oregon to Clarkston became SR 129 in 1964. - didn't you say that in the first sentence of history?
• I feel that you need more information than this in the history, or at least to clean it up. Update Two sentences will not cut it for the history. Three sentences will not either... you need at least a full high school paragraph. 7-8 sentences at least.
• You need to push down the headers with {{-}}, not multiple line breaks. (That being said, you shouldn't have to push down the header, you have enough text!)
• Also, the repaving - it happens all the time all over Washington, the U.S. and the world. Did it actually do anything to the road? - (this is a bit more nitpicky and an ACR level question)
• Major intersections table - why is SR 129 Spur linked?
• Again with the WSDOT diagram cites. I'm not sure if you really need them in there anyway.
• Continuation beyond OR 3??
• Combine the Rand McNally cites too.
• Address the new {{vague}} tag that got added.

WP:WIAGA criteria:

• 1a) no 1b) no
• 2) it might be verifiable but there are sourcing issues. so a) yes b) no c) yes
• 3a) no - needs more history b) borderline - you may consider taking some of the non-road explanation out.
• 4-5) yes
• 6) a) yes b) You could improve the PSH 3 DC shield caption - explain it a bit more or at least spell PSH 3 DC out.

• On hold I'm being generous here - this article could very well be failed. I'm not sure if these issues can be taken care of in a week. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mostly done - I think I missed a couple. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think I got some more to go. I just improved the article. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 15:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, but you still have a lot of things to fix. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I copy-edited the article. Please update the issues list above. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
          • It didn't fix much of the issues. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
            • OK, I took another look. Lead seems fine now, citing the google map each time allows finding the information easier, AADT is average annual daily traffic thats why its in () after it, the history section tells a brief history and I checked and it seems that there is nothing more to add, vague tag addressed, and "and then" is a perfectly valid phrase and works well with the sentence. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• {reset) I understand what AADT data is. The sentence referring to it in the RD is as clear as mud. You need to combine the Google map cites - it's too many references. History needs more information - I'm sure that there's more than three sentences for the length of time that the route has existed. "Cut through" is horrible phrasing. Some of my issues above still remain addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GA failed - issues not met. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)