Talk:Washington State Route 96

Washington State Route 96 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
February 25, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

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.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in Washington (state) may be able to help!

United States: Washington Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Untitled

I removed the following because it was uncited, and I couldn't find anything at WSDOT relating to it.

“

WSDOT is also planning to upgrade the existing interchange with Interstate 5. The first phase will involve reconstructing the current four ramp Diamond interchange to a single urban point interchange, therefore moving all turning movements to one signal instead of two.^{[citation needed]}

”

-- Kéiryn ^talk 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 96/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 05:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to review Maryland Route 10, but I'll get to this one immediately after that one. Probably tomorrow. –TC N7 JM 05:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

SR 96 in parentheses should probably be bolded. I don't know why I haven't noticed this in any of the other articles I've reviewed from you.
- ✗ Per dispute at WT:USRD

Route description

Not sure suburban needs to be linked. City center is also questionable, but I can see where context is needed there.
- Un-linked
You've got a least busiest again.
- Changed to "least busy"

History

Turning lanes and traffic camera definitely don't need to be linked. The first just redirects to lane and the second is obvious in context.
- Un-linked

Major intersections

Should there not be a comma between Vancouver and BC?
- ✗ According to WSDOT SrWeb, it's marked as Vancouver BC (sans the comma).

Okay, this one is going on hold for you to fix stuff. Overall, it's a good article. –TC N7 JM 18:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to every problem, not sure how to solve the first until a full discussion over bolding in parenthesis. Sounder Bruce 05:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure how per dispute at WT:USRD is a valid reason not to bold the abbreviation, but I'll disregard that and pass the article since a lot of better articles don't have the bolding. –TC N7 JM 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]