Talk:Washington State Route 304

Washington State Route 304 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
Date	Process	Result
January 10, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 27, 2022.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Washington State Route 304 was accidentally removed from the state highway system by the Washington State Legislature for two years?

U.S. Roads: State highways / Washington Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Washington
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

United States: Washington / Seattle Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 304/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skarmory (talk · contribs) This is my first GA review, so please notify me if I am doing anything wrong. 04:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"State Route 304 (SR 304) is a state highway in Kitsap County, Washington, United States." - I would rewrite this to be more in line with the majority of the other Washington road GA articles, to be something like "State Route 304 (SR 304) is a 3.14-mile (5.05 km) state highway in the U.S. state of Washington, serving Kitsap County." or something along those lines. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That style is deprecated and would be misleading here, as the mileage figure does not include the ferry route (as noted in the infobox).
Alright, that is good then. Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"SR304 begins at a partial interchange with SR3 in the community of Navy Yard City, southwest of downtown Bremerton. The interchange, adjacent to a wastewater treatment plant, lacks a ramp from southbound SR304 to SR304, but provides access in the remaining three directions." The source map here seems to state that it's southbound SR3 to SR304, and I am also not seeing anything to back up the wastewater treatment plant or Navy Yard City in the source. Maybe bring the Google Maps source up to support that point? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the typo, and Google Maps covers all these points and is fine at the end of the paragraph.
I completely missed the Google Maps cite at the end of the paragraph - that's on me. Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Average traffic volumes on the highway in 2016 ranged from a minimum of 1,100 vehicles at the Bremerton ferry terminal to a maximum of 30,000 vehicles at the SR3 interchange." What does 1,100 and 30,000 vehicles mean? Should be specified what it is (I'm guessing per day?) in the article. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is explained in the preceding sentence about AADT.
Somehow missed that too, though I think this one is a bit easier to miss - still good though. Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The state ferry system was established in 1951 by acquiring the domestic operations of the Puget Sound Navigation Company, which included the Seattle–Bremerton ferry, notably served by the MV Kalakala from 1935 onward." Onward to when? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead Y

Layout Y

Words to Watch Y

Fiction Not Applicable

List incorporation Not Applicable

I don't see this in any of the MOS links, so I don't believe this is required, but Washington State Ferries is linked 4 times throughout the article, which seems a bit excessive. I would probably remove the one pointing to it via the redirect from Bremerton ferry terminal in the Route description section, and the one in the History section. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the link in the History section, but the redirects are fine. An article about the terminal itself will be written eventually, so there's no need to remove those links.
Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:
"The five-lane highway (including a westbound high-occupancy vehicle lane during peak hours)" does the source support this statement? I think I'm seeing 3 lanes on both sides of the road in the source, but I don't know if I'm reading it correctly. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The highway log shows the lane counts in the "NBR LNS" columns and explicitly mentions the HOV lane and 3+2 configuration.
I think it says 3+3 from 0.77 to 0.82 (or 0.72 to 0.77), unless I'm reading it wrong. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skarmory: The relevant bit is the row with SRMP 0.63 (ARM 0.68); the section you're looking at is at the first signalized intersection. Besides that, we typically don't count turn lanes. Sounder Bruce 12:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks good then. Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The ferry crosses Puget Sound in approximately 60minutes and ends at Colman Dock in Downtown Seattle, which is also served by a state ferry to Bainbridge Island carrying SR305 as well as several passenger ferries." I'm not seeing anything in the 2 sources to support the 60 minute mark. I zoomed in on the map PDF and looked at the key, didn't see anything there, but I could've missed something. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The inset map shows the 60-minute schedule; all of WSDOT's links were broken after the GAN was nominated, so things are still messy. Sounder Bruce 22:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good in that case. Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
"In 1991, the state legislature inadvertently removed SR304 from the state highway system instead of SR306, which had been transferred to Kitsap County." (article) seems too close to "It was recently discovered that during the transfers in 1991, the Legislature inadvertently removed SR 304 from the highway system instead of SR 306, which was scheduled for transfer." (source). That should be changed to less closely paraphrase the source. (I would also add the note about the accidental removal in the lead, after this gets rewritten). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skarmory: Reworded, but had to keep "inadvertently" due to it being the only suitable word I can think of to describe the action. Also did not add this to the lead, as it was an inconsequential event. Sounder Bruce 19:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: It was already in the lead, I was looking for inadvertently to be added to the sentence in the lead (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying). The paraphrasing is still a bit close, but I can't easily think of any better way to write that first part before the comma, so I think it's good. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The images should have alt text, but that is not a necessity for GA status. I also think the article might look better if one of the images was shifted to the left, but that again is not a necessity. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Left-aligned images are discouraged per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
Huh. Never saw that guideline - I will keep it in mind. Y Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Couple more minor things, but it looks pretty good, and once they are fixed I'd be willing to pass this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to pass this article now - congratulations! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Washington State Route 304 was accidentally removed from the state highway system by the Washington State Legislature for two years? Source: Washington State Legislature
- Reviewed: Phil Williams (Alabama senator)

Improved to Good Article status by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 19:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hook looks interesting. Mentioned in quoted source. Recently promoted to GA. No copyvio issues. Still pending QPQ.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ZKang123: QPQ added. Sounder Bruce 03:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P4