Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/Washington State Route 531/Archive1


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was nominator withdrew nomination. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington State Route 531 (-1 net support votes)
review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: This article has recently passed GA and is very well written and is illistrated by a map, and 2 photos, each with no copyright problems. All references are reliable and most are from WSDOT, the State's DOT.
 * Nominated by: --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support -- Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The prose is really choppy. The history section includes details of US 99 and I-5, which have nothing to do with SR 531. Does it really need three maps that show basically the same thing? There's no source for "many traffic improvement projects are currently in planning stages". What was the road before it became SR 531? --NE2 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The section involving US 99 does relate to SR 531 because SR 531 intersects Smokey Point Boulevard, which is a segment of the former route of US 99. I will fix that phrase later on and yes, we need 3 maps, one (infobox) comparing SR 531 to other local roads, another (history) showing an satillite image (or arieal) of SR 531 before it was a highway, and another (description) to show detail. Also, the road was really just the road names (E. Lake Goodwin Road, Lakewood Road, and 172nd Street) before SR 531. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So SR 531 intersects old US 99. You don't need two paragraphs detailing the history of US 99, just one or two sentences in the route description. If the road was the same before 1992, why do you need an aerial showing it before then? And it wasn't always the same - settlers didn't come to Washington and find all these paved roads ready to drive on. --NE2 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support-I was the GA reviewer of the article, this article had many prose issues before the GA Review, which was addressed by the nominator, before it would not meet A-standards. Though, after those many issues in the GA review had been addressed, I find the article to meet these new standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SRX (talk • contribs) 13:53, July 15, 2008
 * NE2, there is no information about the orgin of the road that is SR 531 today. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? --NE2 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I see some minor prose issues, which I will attempt to fix.
 * "Interstate 5" is fully spelled in the 3rd mention (in the history section) but abbreviated in the first two mentions. Usually, the first mention should be fully spelled and/or linked, and the later mentions abbreviated with no links.
 * There are some words that could be considered Peacock terms, that I will remove.
 * The MOS:SYL recommends that only specific and relevant dates should be wikilinked. Where dates are vague (i.e. late 2008) are not usually wikilinked.
 * If I messed anything up, revert. Also, other maps support distance computing, including Google Maps or Mapquest. I still advise to change to one of them, as I suspect wikimapia will be determined to be not acceptable at FAC. Dave (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I finished all the things you asked and I changed the Wikimapia references to Google Maps. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I also added a reference to WSDOT's official state highway map for 2008/2009, bringing the total count of references to 21. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Here are the most glaring issues (IMHO) at present:
 * "The highway's alignment has not changed since it was established." – Ref 3 (the state law) doesn't say that the alignment never changed. It means that it was never truncated or extended, but I'm pretty sure that bypasses and the like can be built without changing the state law.
 * "45 Road also runs southeast and serves as an alternative to the SR 531–Interstate 5 interchange, which is roughly 2.3 miles (3.7 km) east." – I'm not sure what's meant here by it being an alternative to the interchange. Looking at a map of the other end of 45 Road, there's no easy access from there to either I-5 or back to SR 531.  What is 45 Road an alternate route for?  (As an aside, the use of the word "alternative" seems awkward to me, and the word "also" at the beginning of the sentence seems incorrect, since you don't mention anything else running southeast.)
 * "The intersection of Smokey Point Boulevard and SR 531 is the historical crossing of U.S. Route 99 before that route was eliminated in 1968." – Neither of the two references given mention Smokey Point Boulevard being the former alignment of US 99, or give 1968 for the date.
 * "With the development of Lakewood Crossing, many traffic improvement projects are currently in planning stages." – fact
 * I saw this article when it started trying to move up the ladder, and it's definitely getting much closer to where it needs to be, but not quite there yet. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the comments on 45 Road, the intersection, and the phrase about Lakewood Crossing and other projects. I also added better map references that show the route of SR 531 (using the Directions tool).--CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that Image:I-5 from WA-531.jpg is irrelevant in this article. Sure, the bridge carries SR 531, but we don't get any view of the road or the bridge itself - just I-5. This would belong more in the I-5 article than SR 531, just my opinion. CL — 03:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to get a good image of SR 531 east from the intersection with Smokey Point Boulevard to replace the image. Hopefully, I can do it by the end of this month or in early August. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For these reasons alone, I can't support promoting the article at this time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Here are a few issues I found in just the first skimming of the article
 * There are misspelled words in the article. The word "highlighted" is misspelled in a caption.
 * There is an inconsistent application of date auto-formatting in the article.
 * While other articles use it, and infobox road supports it, the correct location for the commons cat is in the external links section. This was mentioned at the NY 32 FAC, and I've changed this usage on the M-35 and M-28 articles myself.
 * The I-5 photo does little to add to the article. In fact it should be removed since the article is about SR-531 and not I-5. I agree with CL about removing it from the article.
 * While not an MOS issue per se, but the Google Maps citations should be formatted using cite map and not cite web as they are maps.
 * The lead mentions that this is a "vital artery". This sounds like a point of view. This is also only mentioned in the lead and nowhere in the text of the article. I'd strike that description or find a source for that opinion and add that to the body of the article.
 * The route description prose could use a copy edit. While it does seem to accurately describe the routing, it reads as very dry to me, like the text just gives a turn by turn set of map directions. There's very little description of the terrain and the roadway's surroundings. A suggestion would be to add traffic count data for the roadway, maybe just mention where traffic counts peak and fall.
 * Another suggestion based on a personal preference of mine is to add a mini-lead summarizing the route description a little bit. I say this because you have the RD heading and then immediately after is a subheading. Maybe this would be a good location for some infomation about the highway as a whole before delving into specifics along the segments in the subheadings?
 * Per WP:MOSDATE, years alone should not be linked. 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011 are all linked incorrectly in the history section. Also the word "of" is redundant and unnecessary under the MOS in "June of 2006".
 * I withdraw this nomination. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.