Talk:Interstate 5 in Washington/GA1

GA Review

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mccunicano (talk · contribs) 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article soon. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 07:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Overall the article seems ready to pass, though there are a few concerns I have noted below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A citation tag is present in the article in regards to the date of completion of a six-laning project along the interstate in Olympia, but that one tag shouldn't be enough to keep this from passing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good work expanding the scope of the article to be less focused on Seattle as was a chief concern in the article's last GA nomination.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See my comment below about the position of an image

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Great work so far on this article, sorry for the wait. I have a few concerns before I pass this article. The left-aligned image under the "Skagit and Whatcom counties" subsection would be better off being aligned to the right since it's at the start of a subsection. Under "Suburban and rural construction", B.C. should be written out as British Columbia since its the only instance in the prose where its abbreviated. I also think it would be important to mention what happened to the fallout shelter in Ravenna that is mentioned in the "Seattle planning and construction section". ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

   @Mccunicano: Fixed the image alignment and BC abbreviation, added details on the fallout shelter, and temporarily removed the uncited information until I can find a suitable source (still waiting on some information from the state archives). Thanks for reviewing. SounderBruce 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking addressing those minor concerns and for making those additional spacing fixes. This article has passed. Keep up the good work. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 06:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.