Talk:Washington State Route 124/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

A good start on a GA, but there are a few things that need attention first.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I wouldn't exactly say a road and a rail line "split" since they were never joined in the first place. See below for some gaps in coverage that affect the prose.
 * ✅ Done, I said it stopped parelling the highway. ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I have one request concerning references. Not all of them are consistent. Can you reformat some of the legislative citations to be more uniform? Just point to the appropriate legislation, and not just a quote? Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Can you provide some of the seventeen projects documented by WSDOT? A summary of these projects would be beneficial to the article instead of just dismissing them in one sentence. That's a lot of history overlooked in the article. Also, a brief summary of the history of the two previous secondary highways should be provided as well since when I clicked on those two links, they redirected back to this artlcle and Washington State Route 125.
 * Most projects are not notable enough, but I expanded on a 1941 paving project along with some info about SSH 3D and SSH 3E. ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see even a summary of those projects listed. Why spell out how many projects were done with a specific number, and not describe them better. It just teases and frustrates a reader. If you won't detail them better, then drop the number and change it to "serveral"? Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, Changed to several ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * There are no images beyond shields and the map at this time. Could you add one in the future? The map could be improved so that I wouldn't have to look in at atlas to find where in WA this highway is located.
 * How about a map with shields and major cities, such as Image:Washington State Route 531.png? ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would work, or even an inset showing where in WA the zoomed in map is, à la Brockway Mountain Drive. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Image:Washington State Route 124.png? ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would work, or even an inset showing where in WA the zoomed in map is, à la Brockway Mountain Drive. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Image:Washington State Route 124.png? ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I can't pass this article given the historical deficiencies. The two secondary highways aren't covered in separate articles, but redirect here and to another article. Since they are a part of the history of this highway, they should at least be summarized here, but since the one redirects here, it needs full coverage. Please correct this issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did all the things that were needed to be done and I found an image of SR 124 in Waitsburg and added it. ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still some things incompletely addressed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Like what? ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 01:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Like the sentence about 16 projects. Either spell out the project or summarize them better. I suggested changing the sentence at the very least from the number to "several". Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, Changed to several ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a fair amount of overlinking with the references. Please delink all extra links to Google Maps, WSDOT, Rand McNally. Only the first reference to each publisher needs a wikilink. Also, can you directly cite the section of legislation without quoting the whole section? Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion from Admrboltz (talk)

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * WP:LEAD: Since the lead is just an introduction, and not introducing new facts, please do not cite the lead, since you will cite the info later on. Also, please bold the first instance of 3D and 3E in your lead since they redirect to the article. "Even though SR 124 was established in 1964, no signs went up until the law that made SR 124 was approved by the Washington State Legislature in 1970.[2]" is new information that is not mentioned elsewhere in the prose, please either move this into history, or delete the sentence from the lead. The first mention of US 12 should be spelt out (U.S. Route 12 (US 12)).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Please merge the Rand McNally Road Atlas cites into one cite. Also are the "Session Laws of the State of Washington" online? If so, please remove the direct quotations in the reference, and link to the page containing the information; if it is offline where did you get these documents? WP:OVERLINKing is going on in your references. We only need to be linked to WSDOT once, and to Google Maps once, please audit your references to fix this. Refs rcw 2 and ice harbor do not use citation templates.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Projects. Why does Joe Wikipedian care that the latest project cost just over $145,000?
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is just a second opinion. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is just a second opinion. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No recent activity/improvement to the article in white a while, so I'm closing the review as a fail. 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The session law quotes are from a transcription I typed up: WikiProject Washington State Highways/1937 laws --NE2 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)