Talk:Washington State Route 433
Latest comment: 14 years ago by ComputerGuy in topic GA Review
 | Washington State Route 433 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 30, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite being less than 1 mile (1.6 km) long, Washington State Route 433 is considered a Highway of Statewide Significance by the Washington State Department of Transportation? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 433/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –CGTalk 23:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Some concerns:
- Can you merge the AADT and NHS paragraphs together?
Done --Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good! –CGTalk 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The paragraph in the history about the Seattle–Portland Bicycle Classic could be moved to RD, since its not a historical event.
- Done --Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good! –CGTalk 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you expand the history to include the bridge's history?
- The article is about the highway, not the bridge. If the reader wants to know more about the bridge, they can click on the link. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Moving the shields to history would be more relevant.
- You're right, but the bridge article is lacking in information. ;) –CGTalk 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree, it would smush the text of the History section between the images & the infobox, which is not recommended in the MOS. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Now I see it, good point. –CGTalk 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you include an image of the bridge or highway from the bridge deck?
- Done --Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good! –CGTalk 00:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, –CGTalk 23:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)