Talk:Washington State Route 224/GA1

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

Reviewer:  VC  03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   1a: The Route description says SR 224 is the main north-south highway through West Richland, but the highway looks east-west to me. The second paragraph of the History is confusing as to what WSDOT is planning. Make sure the route numbers are correct; I-84 is nowhere near there.
   1b: Secondary State Highway 3R redirects to the article in question. The wikilink should be removed and replaced with boldface. The Lead needs to be expanded to take in a bit from each section of the article. Based on what you have now, there should be at least a sentence for the history and one for the planned interchange upgrade.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References #2 and #8 are not necessary or redundant. Reference #2 is redundant because #1 mentions the park and ride in the log. For #8, no one is going to question that this highway is in Benton County, so the reference is unnecessary. All of the other reference are relevant and all are reliable. However, you should see if you can find something better for reference #5 because the map in the reference is tiny.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article is focused on the route at hand, but it appears to be lacking a lot of information. I have listed my specific concerns below so you can answer them point-by-point.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   There are no images, but that is not a requirement for GA

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There is nothing egregiously wrong with this article, but it looks like it was hastily put together, with several mistakes that could have been caught by sitting back and re-reading it a week later. This article seems incomplete, as there is a lot more information that could be added. For some of this information you may not have the resources available to reference, but for others I am certain you can add with the resources already cited. The specific points are below. I am confident you can improve this article within a week, so I will put this review on hold.  VC  06:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I copyedited the article and removed redundant wikilinks. This article is now good enough to be a GA. However, you should try to find resources to continue to expand the History. Passed  VC  03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like the highway crosses a railroad line southwest of West Richland. If the line still exists, it should be mentioned.
  • I dont see it on the map... where exactly is it? --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw what looked like a railroad grade where SR 224 turns from south to southwest near Keene Road. I checked the route log and no RR Xing is mentioned at that location, so it is probably abandoned. Therefore, it is probably not worth mentioning.  VC  21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The highway crosses a railroad line at-grade just west of its intersection with SR 240. That should be mentioned.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This highway has two- and four-to-five-lane segments. Mention the lane configurations.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If this highway has street names, I would mention them. For instance, it looks like the highway is named Van Giesen Street in Richland and West Richland.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like Van Giesen Street continues east from the terminus as a significant street in Richland. I would mention that.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Richland Airport is just north of the eastern terminus, so that would be a great reference point to mention. The highway intersects Terminal Drive, which is one of the entrances to the airport.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think the detailed explanation of AADT is necessary, especially to the exclusion of some of the above points.
  • To a roadgeek its unnecessary, but to someone who knows noting about AADT, its helpful, IMO. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The History only includes designation history. Please see if you can find information on when the highway was actually first built.
• Do you have any information on the bridge over the Yakima River, such as when it was built or any previous bridges?
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be great if you could find out when the highway was widened in West Richland and Richland.
• SR 240, as its name implies, is a bypass highway. Did SR 224 originally extend east into Richland, perhaps to a state highway to the east that may no longer exist?
• Kennedy Road looks like it was once US 12. That means it is possible SR 224's western terminus may have once been at its intersection with Kennedy Road.

The problem I have with history here is that the papers in the area do not keep online records for the most part and if they do they charge an arm and a leg via Newsbank, and well, I live in UT now, so driving to the library to check out the microfiche just isn't practical. I will see if I can dredge up anymore --Admrboltz (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem two is when the state switched from the PSH/SSH system in 64, codified in 70, they nuked all records from before then that I can search for. The code for 224 is here and I can tell you there was some change made in 87, but I dont know what because it doesnt say, just that there was something done. Any search on Google News or on wsdot or the legislature's website comes up with zilch. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the lack of resources can be frustrating, especially for a highway that has not had many changes in the last 20 years. I would keep looking for resources, but I will not hold the lack of resources against this article.  VC  21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is OR on my part, but I looked at StreetView and the signs on SR 224 at I-82 say Richland instead of Pendleton. I suggest changing the city on the first line.
  • I listed Pendleton because that is the next official control city. I can change it if you want though. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, Pendleton is fine.  VC  21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Saying "at-grade intersection" is not necessary on the third line, since SR 224 is entirely a surface highway. Depending on what you do in the Route description, I would include Van Giesen Street on the third line. You can use jct's road parameter.
  •  Done --Admrboltz (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a -  Done--Admrboltz (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 1b -  Done--Admrboltz (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 - are you referring to the Horse Haven Quadrangle map? If you go under the map theres a link that says Zoom then it will give you a zoomable map. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the link and figured out how to zoom in. That map shows the former rail line I mentioned above.  VC  21:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]