Talk:Interstate 5 in Washington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interstate 5 in Washington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Interstate 5 in Washington 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
History in the History section
Prose that reflects actions taken in the past, such as the Columbia River Crossing program, should be in the History section. Unless and until that or a similar project is resurrected, it should stay there. Additionally, including "future plans" as part of "History" is inherently an oxymoron. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Planned events in the future (but are not yet confirmed) do not belong in the entirely optional Future section, per WP:USRD/STDS. As written, the section references past events (the planning of the bridge, the 2015 transportation package) and are more strongly associated with them than with their planned completion date (which is will inevitably change, as seen locally with Bertha). SounderBruce 03:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:USRD/STDS#Future, any reliably-sourced concrete future plans should appear under the Future section. Under your edit to Washington State Route 510, you claim that the section there is "far too short to stand on its own merits". A remedy *is* provided when the optional *Services* section is short; no such guidance exists in the standard for the Future section. Within *this* article, which contains a much longer Future section, your edit summary states, "reverting addition of separate Future section per my talk page comments; it's premature and pointless". As you've retained the prose in question, you clearly don't consider the *content* to be either premature or pointless, but the section containing that prose somehow is? Yet in your referenced talk page comments, you advance an entirely different argument: you appear to claim that *planning* for the future strictly constitutes past events; if this reading of the standards held true, then there could **never** be a Future section. These differing objections all sound too much like IDONTLIKEIT-ism. --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Incidents
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 5 in Washington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mccunicano (talk · contribs) 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article soon. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Overall the article seems ready to pass, though there are a few concerns I have noted below.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- A citation tag is present in the article in regards to the date of completion of a six-laning project along the interstate in Olympia, but that one tag shouldn't be enough to keep this from passing.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Good work expanding the scope of the article to be less focused on Seattle as was a chief concern in the article's last GA nomination.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- See my comment below about the position of an image
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Great work so far on this article, sorry for the wait. I have a few concerns before I pass this article. The left-aligned image under the "Skagit and Whatcom counties" subsection would be better off being aligned to the right since it's at the start of a subsection. Under "Suburban and rural construction", B.C. should be written out as British Columbia since its the only instance in the prose where its abbreviated. I also think it would be important to mention what happened to the fallout shelter in Ravenna that is mentioned in the "Seattle planning and construction section". ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mccunicano: Fixed the image alignment and BC abbreviation, added details on the fallout shelter, and temporarily removed the uncited information until I can find a suitable source (still waiting on some information from the state archives). Thanks for reviewing. SounderBruce 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking addressing those minor concerns and for making those additional spacing fixes. This article has passed. Keep up the good work. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Mccunicano: Fixed the image alignment and BC abbreviation, added details on the fallout shelter, and temporarily removed the uncited information until I can find a suitable source (still waiting on some information from the state archives). Thanks for reviewing. SounderBruce 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Great work so far on this article, sorry for the wait. I have a few concerns before I pass this article. The left-aligned image under the "Skagit and Whatcom counties" subsection would be better off being aligned to the right since it's at the start of a subsection. Under "Suburban and rural construction", B.C. should be written out as British Columbia since its the only instance in the prose where its abbreviated. I also think it would be important to mention what happened to the fallout shelter in Ravenna that is mentioned in the "Seattle planning and construction section". ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
