Talk:Interstate 5 in Washington

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

I added this small section on the BLM protest death, linking to a longer description:

On July 4, 2020, two Black Lives Matter protesters were hit by a car when the Interstate was closed, one being killed.

It was reverted by SounderBruce, saying "Not notable enough for this section, which is expected to cover events that have long-lasting impacts". I cannot find where this is stated, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards says nothing relevant and the talk page archives are also no help. This isn't a routine car crash and the section is not outsized, so why censor it? Fences&Windows 11:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: I think this is a matter of WP:PROPORTION. This is an isolated incident in relation to the subject of the article. Even a single sentence is unbalanced coverage given that, yes, this event has not had and will not have any lasting impact to I-5. Imzadi 1979 → 13:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As Imzadi said above, it's about the proportional share of the page dedicated to single events. There have been many deadlier incidents on I-5 in its 50-year history and listing them all would make this article far too long to read. Only events with a documented lasting impact should be listed, and this can be done at a slower pace as things unfold. SounderBruce 03:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Overall the article seems ready to pass, though there are a few concerns I have noted below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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

7. 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)

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.

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 Amkgp (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Interstate 5 in Seattle has a set of express lanes that reverse direction to follow commuting patterns? Source: The Seattle Times
  • ALT1:... that a fallout shelter was built under a section of Interstate 5 in Seattle? Source: HistoryLink

• Reviewed: Home Life Building

Improved to Good Article status by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 07:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC).

• - Recently promoted GA, hooks are neutral. Hook statements are cited inline, and the sources look reliable enough. QPQ done. Good to go here, I think. The article looks policy-compliant. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Notes for later

• This webpage from the Seattle City Clerk claims that 40,000 people were displaced by the construction of I-5, which seems a bit high. Can't find newspaper sources to back up the claimed number. SounderBruce 05:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• @SounderBruce: Hey there, I noticed this sign while driving the other day and got curious about it. I contacted WSDOT about the sign and got this response: "Sounds like we added that shield indicating a business loop a few years ago when we had another project that had all of southbound I-5 in that area closed/re-routed into the collector-distributor lanes. It was meant to let people know that even though they were exiting the mainline of I-5, they were still on the interstate (they weren't exiting into the city) and should stay on it to continue on I-5. We decided to keep it up until the Revive I-5 project ends in that area in a couple years." Do you think this is notable for inclusion somewhere in this article? Looking forward to when we can meet up at Allegro. Best, ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 20:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think signage mistakes are worth mentioning, especially if they're short term. Heck, the whole Revive I-5 project isn't particularly notable by itself. SounderBruce 05:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For future reference - Construction and expansion projects in Lewis County

Hey everyone!

Not in my realm of expertise, but there is a large project meant for a stretch between Centralia and Chehalis. Something about widening, bridge work, meters, and roundabouts.

In case it warrants inclusion under the Future projects and proposals, here you go.

Happy editing!

Shortiefourten (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Shortiefourten (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Highest point

Is there any reference for the highest elevation on Interstate 5 in Washington state? When I researched it, I found it to be in Whatcom County, near Lake Samish. --  Denelson83  04:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)