Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Washington State Route 104

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington State Route 104[edit]

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.
Withdrawn per user request. Dough4872 13:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Toolbox

Washington State Route 104 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I think its time I came back and nominated a second A-Class review. It will need work, but I'm confident that the foundation in this article is solid and can become Washington's third A-Class. Pretty interesting highway too: a floating bridge and a ferry thrown in.
Nominated by: SounderBruce 22:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing this ACR due to a lack of time and the fact that this article isn't really my "best work" since coming back in January. SounderBruce 04:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie[edit]

Infobox
  1. Auxiliary route of US 101. We'll come back to this one in the RD section. I'm just noting my concern in the infobox.
    See below.
  2. We may want to go through the innards of Infobox road and change it so RCW links to Revised Code of Washington. I'd change it so it would read "Defined by RCW 47.17.175
    Changed in Template:Infobox road/law/USA.
  3. Do you have the exact date the 1964 renumbering took effect?
    No real date for it that I can find. December 1, 1965 is when the records of the renumbering were published by the Department of Highways and 1970 is the year that the renumbering was added to state law (RCW).
Lead
  1. No abbreviation definition? (and yes, it should be bold)
    Added and bolded
  2. In the past, I've read that it's a bad idea to have three-plus wikilinks in a row. Consider revising the sentence listing the counties.
    Split up into three regions
  3. You should use a wikilink ([[#spur route|spur route]]) to the section about SR 104 Spur when you mention it in the first paragraph.
    Done
  4. The second paragraph reads like it is out of order.
    Re-ordered
  5. If you disagree with the above, at least change one of the instances of "established" in the first sentence.
  6. Try rewriting this paragraph as best you can to use the active voice.
Route description
  1. "SR 104 begins at an at-grade partial cloverleaf interchange with US 101 in rural Jefferson County south of Discovery Bay, located on the Olympic Peninsula.[3]" strikes me as wordy. I think we'd be fine with two of the three locations listed in the sentence.
    Moved Jefferson County to next sentence
  2. I'm not sure how exactly I would describe the US 101 intersection, but "at-grade partial cloverleaf interchange" is not it.
    Removed the whole description, just an intersection
  3. Look over where you use "..., <verb>ing ..." Most of the time, these can be rewritten.
  4. Unless I read it wrong, the "second longest" link is wrong because the Hood Canal Bridge was third on the list.
    Fixed
  5. It may go without saying, but you should say that the SR 3 intersection is on the east side of Hood Canal or at least near the foot of the bridge.
    Mentioned
  6. "...the northern Kitsap Peninsula..." sounds like there are two Kitsap Peninsulas.
    Removed "northern"
  7. Any reason Port Gamble is linked twice so close together? Port Gamble redirects to Port Gamble, Washington.
    Removed the redirect
  8. "The ferry, operated by Washington State Ferries (WSF), is on a 5.95-mile-long (9.58 km) route and is approximately a 30-minute crossing. ..." Rewriting this paragraph, but I had some questions:
    1. Is 5.95 miles statutory miles or nautical miles?
      I did a quick check on Google Maps with a distance measurement tool, and it seems that it is just statutory miles. Google also says that 5.95 miles ≈ 5.1 nautical miles.
    2. Are the 26 crossings really just 13 round trips?
      Point taken and fact corrected
  9. Would it be better to say SR 104 resumes in Edmonds?
    Agreed and corrected
  10. to Woodway -> towards Woodway?
    Fixed
  11. Intersecting an interchange with 5th Street?
    Added a better explanation
  12. I'm not sure if a high school is the best landmark.
    Removed
  13. You kinda glossed over a part of the city. You went from the HS to SR 99 kind of abruptly and it reads like they're right next to each other. They're close, but not that close.
    Removed HS, so it doesn't seem so close
  14. Instead of "as Ballinger Way" you should say "along Ballinger Way". This occurs a couple more times earlier in the paragraph.
    Removed as many instances as I could find
  15. Are the creeks relevant? I don't think they're worth mentioning.
    Removed creeks
  16. Would it be OR to take the ferry's 2.025 million vehicles, divide it by 365.25 and use that as an AADT figure? That is, we should have comparable figures for the highway and for the ferry. Right now it's sorta like comparing apples to orchards.
  17. What makes SR 104 a "Highway of Statewide Significance"?
    Added an explanation of the system and a ref
  18. Like I said in the infobox section. The infobox states that SR 104 is an auxiliary route of US 101, but nowhere in the article does it mention how that is the case. We USRD members know how Washington's numbering scheme works, but does the casual reader? I would assume not.
    Added a ref explaining the numbering system
History
  1. Instead of a picture of the ferry, which is very nice, I think a map of SR 104 showing the former designations would be more useful.
  2. The history should be in chronological order. However, I see potential in the first sentence of the section. You could possibly rework that into a mini-lead for the whole section and then start a new paragraph with the 1915 establishment.
  3. "The east span of the bridge was replaced between 1997 and 2010, ..." That reads like you don't know when it happened. You could say it was replaced in sections between 1997 and 2010 and that would sound better.
  4. Now that I looked into it, 1997 is not mentioned at all in your sources. You should remedy that.
  5. The early tolls should be inflated to 2013 dollars.
  • I will come back to this section and review it again after it's in chronological order.
Spur route
  1. You already mentioned that WSDOT "conducted a series of surveys to measure traffic volume" in the RD. Just give us the AADT.

Overall, a decent effort. –Fredddie™ 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754[edit]

I plan to review this too, but after Fredddie is finished. --Rschen7754 03:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I can say right now: please add shields and labels to give context to the map. --Rschen7754 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872[edit]

I will also review once Fredddie and Rschen are done. Dough4872 03:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check by TCN7JM[edit]

I am starting an image review now. –TCN7JM 21:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check by TCN7JM
Image check[edit]

Alright, that'll about do it! –TCN7JM 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you got rid of the period. The images are now good to go!

Support –TCN7JM 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Washington_State_Route_104&oldid=1206625689"