Talk:Washington State Route 161/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 06:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this page either tonight or tomorrow. –TC N7 JM 06:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The alternate names need to go. Alternate names are only supposed to be used in the infobox if the name is used on the entire length of the route, which neither name is.
- Done.
Where did you find that this was an auxiliary route of SR 410. In most articles I've seen from you that have been auxiliary routes of other highways, the fact that it's an auxiliary route makes sense because they're numbered similar. However, that isn't the case here.
- In the navbox at the bottom, SR 16x routes are either branches of SR 16 or SR 410. SR 16 has never extended east of Tacoma, and SR 410 once intersected SR 161 in Puyallup.

Lead

"SSH 5D (SSH 5)" I'm confused about this. Is this just an honest typo or does it actually mean something?
- Just a typo. Fixed.
"between Puyallup to South Hill." to → and
- Fixed.
You should try to remove the word currently from the last sentence. Maybe replace it with {{as of}}.
- Done.

Route description

"leaves the city on a 2-lane highway." Go ahead and write out the number two.
- Done.
"entering the community of Graham and intersecting a Tacoma Rail line" I don't think intersecting is the correct word here. To me, this implies passage from SR 161 to the rail line, which most likely isn't the case.
- Changed to crossing.
"SR 512 ends and SR 161 turns west (north) on a 1.83-mile-long (2.95 km) wrong-way concurrency with SR 167, traveling southbound." I'm a bit confused here as well.

The (north) isn't needed because the RD is, by default, written from south to north.

The last part of the sentence does not read well. It looks as if the roadway is traveling southbound, which contradicts the earlier statement about the highway turning west. Clarify that it is, indeed, the SR 167 designation that travels south and not the road.

Answering some of your questions and fixing the appropriate things. Sounder Bruce 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More on the route description

I still don't think that reads very well. Maybe remove the parentheses by saying something like "SR 161 northbound turns west..."
- Reworded.
"between 340 and 99,000 vehicles" ...seriously? Only 340 vehicles in one spot, but 99,000 in another?
- The highway travels through middle-of-nowhere type areas and then cities, with freeways.

History

"between the eastern end of SSH 5G in Downtown Puyallup to the southern end of SSH 5D." Same issue as before either

- Fixed.
Another usage of currently in the second paragraph needs to go.
- Done.
"A new interchange between I-5 and SR 18 is being constructed in Federal Way, with a new ramp from westbound SR 18 to SR 161 being completed in September 2012 and another ramp, from southbound I-5 to SR 161, is being constructed." This is worded pretty weirdly. Try rewording this. I know that's vague, but I don't know what to say there. It just doesn't read well.
- Reworded, not too sure though.

RJL

Use either commas or semicolons to separate notes, not both.
- Changed all to semicolons.

Final verdict

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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 few fixes need to be made.
Pass/Fail:

Cool beans. Watch as I magically pass the article! –TC N7 JM 01:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]