Talk:Washington State Route 520/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Picking it up for a review. Making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert if i make any mistake. I hope you enjoy the review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Dup links should be removed.
 * I removed non-essential duplicate links. The only remainders are those repeated from the lead (allowed under MOS) and some terms that are needed for context (e.g. Portage Bay, Microsoft, the floating bridges).
 * Perhaps lead could be expanded a bit?
 * I don't feel the lead needs to be any longer. It covers the entire history section without being too detailed.
 * Link Harvard Avenue.
 * The street doesn't have an article and is not notable enough to warrant one.
 * It would be better if we could have the last image to the right. Although, it is just an opinion, and feel free to ignore it!
 * I prefer to have the images alternating between sides, beginning with a left-facing one in the RD.
 * Link Lake Washington Boulevard.
 * Done.
 * "between midnight at 5 a.m." is it "and"?
 * Fixed.
 * It would also be better to mention what Bear Creek is, as there is no article on that either!
 * An article will be created eventually, but giving special mention to Bear Creek would mean each other waterway (Lake Washington, Sammamish River, Union Bay) would need their own descriptions.
 * Yeah, giving descriptions to ake Washington, Sammamish River, Union Bay would surely look odd. It is ok as it is!


 * "Everett–Seattle tollway (later Interstate 5)" and "Sunset Highway (later I-90)" Do we even need the earlier name?
 * Yes, because the interstate designations came decades later.
 * Is there any reason why the temporary designation of SR 920 was given?
 * I think readers can infer that the existence of a "missing link" between the two completed segments made the SR 920 designation a necessity.
 * "Eastside cities and groups" What do we mean by groups here? Are they certain sets of people, company, etc.?
 * Added "civic groups", which broadly describes the kinds of organizations that were involved (e.g. the chambers of commerce, citizen transportation committees, political parties).
 * "and estimated the cost at $10 million (equivalent to $61 million in 2016 dollars)" perhaps it might be better to just keep "and estimated the cost at $10 million at the time", and remove the mention of 2016 dollars, as it might be irrelevant as time passes by (now 2017)...
 * The template is automatically updated, and inflation conversions are pretty standard when talking about large projects.
 * Oh, did not know that it could automatically update! Then it is awesome. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A U.S. District judge ruled... would be better if we could have the name of the judge (if available). Feel free to ignore it, if you are unable to find their name!
 * Added.
 * "re-signed" could it be reworded?
 * "signing" is a term used by governments to indicate a new highway shield (or rather, a designation) given to a road. It most accurately described the action in 1985.
 * "approved $81.1 million (equivalent to $168 million in 2016 dollars)", "overpass's $30 million cost (equivalent to $36 million in 2016 dollars)" Same applies here.
 * See above.
 * In ref 59, why do we need "via Google books", it seems redundant!
 * Generally, when an online reference is hosted by someone other than the publisher, it's customary to include them in the citation.


 * All items completed, with the exception of some unnecessary requests. Thanks for the review.  Sounder Bruce  21:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, this is a wonderfully written article, and is definitely a pass. Would you like me to review any of your other GANs, SounderBruce? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. A review of any of my three train station GANs would be appreciated (but totally optional).  Sounder Bruce  21:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: