Talk:Washington State Route 410/GA1

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

Reviewer: –  T M F 11:46, 27 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):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Detailed notes:
 * 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:
 * Detailed notes:
 * Detailed notes:
 * Detailed notes:

There's quite a few issues with the article, but I believe they can be fixed rather easily. Placing on hold. (Note: this was my first-ever GA review; my apologies if I've been too harsh.) –  T M F 12:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review, TMF. Its very surprising this is your first, since its done better than some reviewers. I've fixed most of the problems, except for the map problem, since all three have no source information. Two were made by NE2 and he doesn't post a full image description, while PHenry is retired and we cannot receive source information from him. – CG Talk 18:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It should probably be noted that while this is my first GAR, I've made many ACR reviews. ;)
 * As for the article, it definitely reads better this time around. I still have some prose concerns, though:


 * Resolved issues have been struck; some of the original issues remain in addition to the new ones I just posted. –  T M F 07:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One more item: the infobox has "Existed: 	1967 (as SR 410)[1][2] – present". Since the infobox is detailing SR 410 and the article is about SR 410, it's implied that the 1967 establishment date is for SR 410. Now, if you want to show that SR 410 was something else prior to 1967, I suggest using the "history" parameter to do it. The current setup is a bit strange for my tastes. –  T M F 08:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. – CG Talk 17:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking much better. I made some fixes myself, adding more non-breaking spaces where needed, fixing a few more dates, and getting the lead straightened out. Also note that I replaced all uses of nowrap with non-breaking spaces; when nowrap is used for a link that displays text like "U.S. Route 12", it erroneously results in a lack of a break in between U.S. and Route. For links with only one space, it's fine, but I prefer to use the actual spaces instead. Now, I do have at least one more round of concerns:


 * Everything else prior to these comments has been resolved in one way or another, so I've struck and/or hidden them. –  T M F 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Finished with the last three items. Thanks for removing the nowraps and I've added "the proposed" before SR 168 and removed the "the" before Little Naches Road. Also added  to junction list and revised the detour sentence. –  CG Talk 13:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * needs to be added to the junction list's column headers, not the table's first line. The page that I linked to shows exactly how to do it.
 * It's still not clear to me if Nile Road is now permanently part of SR 410 or not. Adding "in the lanslide (sic) area" didn't really do much for the section. –  T M F 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – CG Talk 23:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that the detour section is 100% correct after looking at the section's sources, but I'm not going to press the issue any further since that's more of an issue for A-Class or FA. On that note, this article probably needs some more copyediting to reach those levels. I have only one concern left, and it literally came to me as I was preparing to wrap up this review. The westernmost end of SR 410 is a freeway, but the article doesn't cover when said freeway was built. I'm assuming it wasn't constructed in the early 20th century along with the rest of the road. ;) –  T M F 03:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a short sentence describing the freeway's construction between 1965 and 1972 with two maps I found/have in my inventory. – CG Talk 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, all of my concerns have been addressed at this point. I also made a few last tweaks to the article to fix a couple of areas where the wording was a bit choppy or wordy. Passing. –  T M F 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)