Talk:Washington State Route 173

Washington State Route 173 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

United States: Washington / Eastern Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Eastern Washington task force.

U.S. Roads: State highways / Washington Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major 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.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Washington
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in Washington (state) may be able to help!

Okanagan Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Okanagan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Okanagan and Okanogan regions of British Columbia, Canada and Washington, United States, in addition to their native people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OkanaganWikipedia:WikiProject OkanaganTemplate:WikiProject OkanaganOkanagan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 173/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. I'll try to get to it tonight because I won't be on much tomorrow or Saturday. –TC N7 JM 01:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"(SR 173)" SR 173 should be bolded, but not the parentheses.
"a 11.86-mile-long" a → an since the first syllable of "eleven" is a vowel sound.

Route description

"The 2-lane street" Write out the number two.
NHS info?
- Not part of NHS, so it doesn't need to be there.

History

"The Brewster Bridge was completed in June 1928 as the roadway was first codified in 1931" I don't think as is the right word here. Maybe change it to and or with the route being codified in...
Not once do you give the exact year for the rebuilding of the Brewster Bridge. Is it not available?
- Not available. 1976 is earliest ref referring to a rebuilt bridge.

References

On second thought, you should probably shorten Refs 17 and 19 with hidden text

All other sections are fine.

Final verdict

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall: Just a few minor errors, and I can pass it. –TC N7 JM 01:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail:

Taken all suggestions and implemented them. Sounder Bruce 02:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be nice if you added in there that it isn't part of the NHS, but since that's mainly optional, I won't hold up the review for that small of an issue.

Congrats! –TC N7 JM 02:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]