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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking it up for a review. Making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert if i make any mistake. I hope you enjoy the review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dup links should be removed.
  • I removed non-essential duplicate links. The only remainders are those repeated from the lead (allowed under MOS) and some terms that are needed for context (e.g. Portage Bay, Microsoft, the floating bridges).
• Perhaps lead could be expanded a bit?
  • I don't feel the lead needs to be any longer. It covers the entire history section without being too detailed.
• Link Harvard Avenue.
  • The street doesn't have an article and is not notable enough to warrant one.
• It would be better if we could have the last image to the right. Although, it is just an opinion, and feel free to ignore it!
  • I prefer to have the images alternating between sides, beginning with a left-facing one in the RD.
• Link Lake Washington Boulevard.
  • Done.
• "between midnight at 5 a.m." is it "and"?
  • Fixed.
• It would also be better to mention what Bear Creek is, as there is no article on that either!
  • An article will be created eventually, but giving special mention to Bear Creek would mean each other waterway (Lake Washington, Sammamish River, Union Bay) would need their own descriptions.

• Yeah, giving descriptions to ake Washington, Sammamish River, Union Bay would surely look odd. It is ok as it is!

• "Everett–Seattle tollway (later Interstate 5)" and "Sunset Highway (later I-90)" Do we even need the earlier name?
  • Yes, because the interstate designations came decades later.
• Is there any reason why the temporary designation of SR 920 was given?
  • I think readers can infer that the existence of a "missing link" between the two completed segments made the SR 920 designation a necessity.
• "Eastside cities and groups" What do we mean by groups here? Are they certain sets of people, company, etc.?
  • Added "civic groups", which broadly describes the kinds of organizations that were involved (e.g. the chambers of commerce, citizen transportation committees, political parties).
• "and estimated the cost at $10 million (equivalent to $61 million in 2016 dollars)" perhaps it might be better to just keep "and estimated the cost at $10 million at the time", and remove the mention of 2016 dollars, as it might be irrelevant as time passes by (now 2017)...
  • The template is automatically updated, and inflation conversions are pretty standard when talking about large projects.

• Oh, did not know that it could automatically update! Then it is awesome. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A U.S. District judge ruled... would be better if we could have the name of the judge (if available). Feel free to ignore it, if you are unable to find their name!
  • Added.
• "re-signed" could it be reworded?
  • "signing" is a term used by governments to indicate a new highway shield (or rather, a designation) given to a road. It most accurately described the action in 1985.
• "approved $81.1 million (equivalent to $168 million in 2016 dollars)", "overpass's $30 million cost (equivalent to $36 million in 2016 dollars)" Same applies here.
  • See above.
• In ref 59, why do we need "via Google books", it seems redundant!
  • Generally, when an online reference is hosted by someone other than the publisher, it's customary to include them in the citation.

@Adityavagarwal: All items completed, with the exception of some unnecessary requests. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 21:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is a wonderfully written article, and is definitely a pass. Would you like me to review any of your other GANs, SounderBruce? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: Thanks for the review. A review of any of my three train station GANs would be appreciated (but totally optional). SounderBruce 21:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

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

2. 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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: