Jump to content

Talk:Washington State Route 276

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWashington State Route 276 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2013Good article nomineeListed

KML and jct list

[edit]

Due to the uncertain nature of SR 276's route, a KML file and a junction list aren't necessary. SounderBruce 05:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 276/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime soon. –TCN7JM 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting discussion. Next time wait until the first reviewer finishes to leave comments. –TCN7JM 03:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

[edit]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable
    Has an appropriate reference section Sainid (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

The sentence "the latter averaging up to 19,000 vehicles in 2011 according to a survey conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) measuring average annual daily traffic (AADT)" is confusing because I'm not sure if traffic is averaging 19,000 vehicles/year or 19,000 vehicles/day. It does include a link to the average annual daily traffic, but it would be helpful to have it explicitly stated. Sainid (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's per day. That's what average annual daily traffic means. I will begin a review of this later tonight. –TCN7JM 23:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • located in the U.S. state of Washington flows better than located in Washington, United States.
    •  Fixed

Route description

  • In the second and third sentences, I'd change both uses of "in" to "at". I don't normally describe myself at being in an intersection, rather at one.
    •  Fixed
  • You know what? Maybe the other guy was right. Just using "19,000 vehicles" is a bit cryptic unless you somehow reword the sentence to mention AADT first.

This is going on hold for you to fix stuff. –TCN7JM 03:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the article. Nice job! –TCN7JM 04:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]