Talk:Washington State Route 31/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well-written article, however, there are some issues which prevent it from being passed in its current state. I made some minor copyedits, so please check to see if I have changed anything that I shouldn't have.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

PSH 6 (1937–1964 "north co-signed as US 195 until Newport to the Canadian border." "PSH 6 became SR 31 and US 2, which was signed over PSH 6 in 1948, during the 1964 highway renumbering," - No offense, but this entire section is rather confusing. Is it co-signed as US 195 until Newport or the Canadian border? Was PSH 6 renamed SR 31 and US 2 in 1948 or 1964? I would suggest a thorough copyediting of this section.

Fixed. –CG 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:

Wikilinks There are numerous wikilinks, which in itself is not a problem. However, some of them are repeated unnecessarily. The MOS states links should only occur upon the first mention of a subject, after that, the subject should not be linked (the city of Tiger seems to be the main culprit, but there are others as well). I suggest a thorough reading of the article to remove any redundant links. It is OK if there is one link in the intro and a secondary link upon the first subsequent mention within the main body, but third and fourth links should be removed. Also, there are several lakes which I doubt should be red-linked. I have no problem with red links, but if these are minor, non-notable lakes, it is doubtful there will ever be an article written about them. If anyone disagrees, then I suggest the creation of stubs (with citations, of course) to prove the notability of these lakes.

Fixed. –CG 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~Article on hold until improvements can be made.~~ --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I meant by redudant links (please see Wikipedia:Linking), links to other articles should only occur upon the first mention of a subject. For instance, when you mention the city of Tiger, you should link it on the first mention. Afterwards, if you mention the city of Tiger again, you should not link it again. I have taken the liberty of fixing the links myself. Article passed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]