Talk:Washington State Route 339/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it is short and needs images.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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):
 * 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):
 * You need to add a photo. Maybe one of MV Kalama or the ferry docks.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good luck improving the article. ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Passed. ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 00:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article needs plenty of work, and I strongly disagree with passing it. First, all footnotes need to be after the period. Second, the prose needs work. Third, the article lacks historical information. When was the road constructed? Designated? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reply as uninvolved, I myself am neutral) Uh, does that mean the creator has to include when the water was formed? Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? All I want is when the route was designated. The water didn't always have a 339 designation over a stretch of it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 339 was named in 1994 per the RCW which is listed in the article --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Passed. ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 00:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article needs plenty of work, and I strongly disagree with passing it. First, all footnotes need to be after the period. Second, the prose needs work. Third, the article lacks historical information. When was the road constructed? Designated? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reply as uninvolved, I myself am neutral) Uh, does that mean the creator has to include when the water was formed? Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? All I want is when the route was designated. The water didn't always have a 339 designation over a stretch of it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 339 was named in 1994 per the RCW which is listed in the article --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)