Talk:Washington State Route 531
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Washington State Route 531 was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Topics |  Washington State Highways |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force. |
 |
A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Please add the code: |
[edit] Map
I have just created the map!
-Wiki890 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maps are supposed to be in SVG, per WP:USRD/MTF --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible GA?
I think this article could improve a small bit and may be a possible GA. What do you think? — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. Not even close. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Improving it "a small bit" won't get it to GA status. Articles can't be considered for a possible GA with only two references – and none in the history section. The prose also still needs some work. -- Kéiryn talk 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded the history section and added more references about WSDOT's projects. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like a good start at first glance. I'll take a look at it over the next couple of days to see what improvements I can make as well. -- Kéiryn talk 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Great. You may want to look over the new route description. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 02:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like a good start at first glance. I'll take a look at it over the next couple of days to see what improvements I can make as well. -- Kéiryn talk 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded the history section and added more references about WSDOT's projects. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Improving it "a small bit" won't get it to GA status. Articles can't be considered for a possible GA with only two references – and none in the history section. The prose also still needs some work. -- Kéiryn talk 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
I'm quickfailing this article at this time because it has some issues:
- The presence of the citation tag in the reference section alone is enough to quickfail.
- The map in the Route description section should be right-aligned under the MOS.
- The most minor reason is the non-standard infobox.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I wholeheartedly agree that this article was not ready for a GA nomination, the infobox is standard. {{Infobox WA State Route}} feeds parameters directly into {{infobox road}}. -- Kéiryn talk 02:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, that might be, but it was also the most minor reason given. I am curious why WA uses a specialized infobox when {{infobox road}} does a good job as is? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because Washington's infobox template was created after a long discussion at WT:WASH before infobox road was standardized nationwide. It's essentially the same, with a couple of tweaks that make Washington-specific things a little easier. -- Kéiryn talk 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have done everything on the list except the citations. There are no good sources via Google. Most are PDF documents, so I am taking off the template. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 04:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there are no "good" sources to support whatever you have to say, then you can't say it in an encyclopedia. To quote the message that's at the bottom of every edit window, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." For good article and above, it must be verified, meaning cited. I will go through the article tomorrow or on Monday (I've been meaning to for a while) and {{fact}} exactly what needs to be cited. There is a lot. -- Kéiryn (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have done everything on the list except the citations. There are no good sources via Google. Most are PDF documents, so I am taking off the template. — ComputerGuy890100Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 04:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because Washington's infobox template was created after a long discussion at WT:WASH before infobox road was standardized nationwide. It's essentially the same, with a couple of tweaks that make Washington-specific things a little easier. -- Kéiryn talk 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, that might be, but it was also the most minor reason given. I am curious why WA uses a specialized infobox when {{infobox road}} does a good job as is? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
