Talk:Washington State Route 11/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: –  T M F 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See detailed notes below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See detailed notes below.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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 map of Skagit and Whatcom counties with highways highlighting SR 11 in red." needs to be rewritten.
 * Still needs a rewrite. Changing the word order and adding commas doesn't really help.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Still needs a rewrite. Changing the word order and adding commas doesn't really help.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Detailed notes:

Placing. I'll take another look at the article when these issues are resolved. –  T M F 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed all of your comments and also requested the Graphics Lab clean-up the image. – CG Talk 20:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many issues remain, including some that were not addressed at all. I've revised some issues where applicable. –  T M F 03:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the remaining issues as closely as I could, except for the image issue. – CG Talk 04:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some resolved, some remain, and at least one - my comment listed in the checklist under criteria 6b - hasn't been touched at all. –  T M F 17:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your 6b comment and all the other concerns as best as I can. Also, the image problem has been solved. – CG Talk 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting there. I made some slight copyedits to resolve some of the issues, but a couple of things still remain. –  T M F 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the caption completely and added a reference to Samish Bay as the paralleled shoreline. – CG Talk 06:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that was basically the same wording from before, so I decided to reword it myself. The redlink for the bay made me a bit curious for some reason, so I decided to check out a topo map of the area. While it confirmed the bay's name, it also told me that you can get a lot more out of the RD than what's there. Not only does the road follow Samish Bay, it also follows Chuckanut and Bellingham Bays at different points. In Whatcom County, it parallels and enters Larrabee State Park, which was the first state park in Washington according to its article. Finally, the RD doesn't really convey the kind of terrain that SR 11 is shown crossing on the topo. From Blanchard to Bellingham, the topo indicates that the route runs along a narrow strip of land between the shoreline and the base of high mountain peaks directly to the east. All of this can and should be integrated into the RD in some way. –  T M F 12:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added some more information to the RD with refs for Larrabee's distinction as the first state park. – CG Talk 23:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the detail is there now, but it needs a makeover. For 21 miles and a route that traverses as much stuff as this one, the RD should easily be two paragraphs. The current RD's paragraph is too long, but the amount of detail can also be expanded a bit. Take the list of bays that the RD runs off: all three are listed before the route enters Whatcom County, but it doesn't pass Chuckanut Bay until it reaches the town (hamlet? village?) of Chuckanut, and it doesn't run past Bellingham Bay until it gets to Bellingham itself. Also: the RD goes from the Whatcom County line to Fairhaven in one sentence that tries to cram in a boatload of details. I'd split this into two or three to better describe the area. –  T M F 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Split the paragraph and added details. – CG Talk 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I've since learned that reference 28 is a map owned by another user. Are you sure that 1) you used the correct map here and 2) if so, that it shows what's being cited? –  T M F 22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the ref. Probably left over from copying/pasting the other refs (online maps that I use all the time). – CG Talk 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the RD's first paragraph is unreferenced.
 * "several suburban neighborhoods" - I'm not seeing them on the aerial. Waterside communities, perhaps, but hardly suburban neighborhoods. Additionally, the reference for that sentence doesn't back up what the sentence is saying - in fact, the aerial view that I assume is the reference for most of the RD is only cited once at the very end of the section.
 * The second paragraph of the RD still seems a bit rushed to me. I suggest taking a substantial amount of time to look over that part of the route, and rewriting the RD in a way that flows in more of an orderly fashion. It might be helpful to have someone else copyedit the section. –  T M F 03:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your concerns and did an excellent copyedit. –  CG Talk 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That user's copyedit was very good indeed. However, the RD still lacked the kind of details I was looking for. For some reason, whether it's the season or the thorough copyedit, I was inspired to flesh out the details myself - especially in Fairhaven, which the old RD kind of blew off. Now that the RD is to my satisfaction, I believe that this article is GA-quality and ready to be passed. Merry Christmas. –  T M F 07:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)