Talk:Washington State Route 528/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: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 09:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article, and will have comments soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• @SounderBruce: - update - comments are posted. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Bneu2013: Thanks for the review. I have replied to your comments on the RD and History sections. SounderBruce 05:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• County is missing in the infobox.
  • Fixed.
• No major issues with the lead, but consider a description of the type of highway, such as thoroughfare, arterial, etc., to distinguish it from freeways, limited-access highways, etc.
  • It's already described as using local streets, so I don't think this is necessary. In western states, "highway" is not synonymous with freeways. SounderBruce 22:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Route description

• Consider changing "SR 529" in the final sentence of the first paragraph to something like "This route". Someone skimming through the article might miss the previous sentence and mistake this for a typo.
  • Done.
• Consider juxtaposing some of the uses of "SR 528" in this paragraph with "the highway", "the thoroughfare", "the parkway", or any appropriate monikers.
  • Reshuffled to add some more space between uses of SR 528.
• Is 2016 the most recent year where AADT data is available?
  • The AADT log has not been published in static form since 2016; given the ongoing debate over dynamic maps (which are the only other option), I would rather play it safe for now and use an older source rather than one that will be deprecated.

History

• When was the US 99 designation established?
  • Dropped it, since it was only part of US 99 for a year and may not have been signed in time.
• A trail used by Coast Salish peoples had existed between modern-day Marysville and Lake Stevens by the 19th century.
  • I don't think this sentence is grammatically incorrect; by using "had", it emphasizes that the trail existed in the past, rather than continues to exist to the present day.
• An east–west corridor across Marysville was added to the state highway system in 1963 as a branch of Primary State Highway 1 (PSH 1) - based on information below, this corridor appears to have been incomplete at the time. Elaborate.
  • Added "to be built", but the explanation is in the following sentences.
• What improvements were made in 1972?
  • Added details from the same source.
• The highway remained split into two sections by Allen Creek, with 4th Street in downtown Marysville and 64th Street (also named Hickok Road) in eastern Marysville. - since it is already specified in the lead that this entire route is in Marysville, there is no need to repeat the name here.
  • It's important to mention that these two segments were in different areas of the city, so I've only dropped the city's name.
• When in 1986 did construction begin and when was the first phase of the connector completed?
  • The source does not give a definitive month for either event.
• The RD describes the SR 529 juncture as an intersection, while the history section refers to it as an interchange.
  • The RD and history are describing separate places on SR 529: the former is at the actual intersection in downtown, while the latter is an expansion of I-5 exit 198.
• Add inflation adjustments.
  • Added.

References

• Citation 3 is dead, and there is an issue with the template.
  • Fixed.
• Citation 11 is dead.
  • Fixed.

General comments

• Images are properly licensed.
• Passes the Earwig test.

All comments addressed. Passing. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2023 (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.