Jump to content

Talk:Washington State Route 173/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. I'll try to get to it tonight because I won't be on much tomorrow or Saturday. –TCN7JM 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "(SR 173)" SR 173 should be bolded, but not the parentheses.
  • "a 11.86-mile-long" a → an since the first syllable of "eleven" is a vowel sound.

Route description

  • "The 2-lane street" Write out the number two.
  • NHS info?
    • Not part of NHS, so it doesn't need to be there.

History

  • "The Brewster Bridge was completed in June 1928 as the roadway was first codified in 1931" I don't think as is the right word here. Maybe change it to and or with the route being codified in...
  • Not once do you give the exact year for the rebuilding of the Brewster Bridge. Is it not available?
    • Not available. 1976 is earliest ref referring to a rebuilt bridge.

References

  • On second thought, you should probably shorten Refs 17 and 19 with hidden text

All other sections are fine.

Final verdict

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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):
  7. Overall: Just a few minor errors, and I can pass it. –TCN7JM 01:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:
  • It would still be nice if you added in there that it isn't part of the NHS, but since that's mainly optional, I won't hold up the review for that small of an issue.

Congrats! –TCN7JM 02:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]