Talk:Washington State Route 285

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 285/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are a couple issues with the prose, and there are a couple major MoS issues that ruin the entire article for me.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Only one image, and it's fine.

7. Overall: Though it has a few major issues, I won't fail it just yet. Fix the issues mentioned below and I just might pass it.

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• Alright, first things first. When using route names, you only need to write out one state route, one U.S. route, and one Interstate. Then you can abbreviate all the rest of that sort of highway. This goes for the whole article.
  • This will help with the confusion in the second paragraph, when you typed "U.S. Route 10 (US 2)."
  • The instance in the History where you wrote out Primary State Highway 2 is fine.
• The first sentence in the second paragraph doesn't read well, and should probably be split up into two sentences. The first sentence should tell about the highway originally crossing the bridge and the second should tell about the signage.
• The usage of "currently" in the last sentence can be removed, as "is currently" is redundant.

Route description

• I would change all uses of "couplet" to "one-way pair," and I would also link to one-way pair in the first usage of the term. This also goes for the RJL.
• Change the first conversion in the section to read "5.04-mile-long" by using {convert|5.04|mi|km|adj=mid|-long}. (except do it in template form...sorry, {{tlx}} wasn't working properly.)

History

• The word bypassing doesn't need to be linked in the second paragraph.
• This section looks fine, prose-wise. You just need to apply my first comment in the lead to this section to reduce clutter.

Major intersections

• An unnamed bridge over the Wenatchee River isn't really that notable, and should be removed from the RJL.
• Termini aren't incomplete, per se. They're not intended to be "complete" intersections, so they shouldn't use |type=incomplete. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the notes column either.
• Chelan County spans too many rows.
• Both remaining commas in the notes column need to be changed to semicolons.

References

• There aren't any problems with verifiability or plagiarism.

Comments

• Took all comments and made the appropriate improvements to the article. Anything else I may have missed? SounderBruce 12:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • See, US 2 and US 97 are both right next to each other in the lead, but since you've written out U.S. Route 2, you can just use the abbreviation for US 97, since they're both U.S. Routes. But I've fixed that myself. One thing I forgot to check for that you did anyway was adding non-breaking spaces. I'll pass the article. Good work! –TCN7JM 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)