# Talk:Washington State Route 162

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Washington State Route 162's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "log":
From Washington State Route 410: Washington State Department of Transportation, State Highway Log, 2006
From Washington State Route 165: Washington State Department of Transportation (2006). "State Highway Log" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-04-10.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 162/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The route description has a lot of long and choppy sentences such as "The highway continues south through rural Pierce County, following a Ballard Terminal Railroad line and the Pierce County Foothills Trail to the west and the Puyallup River to the east,[5][6] serving the community of Alderton." and "SR 162 crosses the Puyallup River on the McMillin Bridge, listed on the National Register of Historical Places,[8] west of its confluence with the Carbon River and becomes Washington Avenue, traveling southeast through Orting and serving Orting High School." I would suggest either rewording or splitting them.
Split and reworded
The sentence "The McMillin Bridge is being replaced by WSDOT with a newer, wider span over the Puyallup River scheduled for construction in 2014 because of the older bridge showing signs of deterioration due to age." needs to be reworded and split.
Moved deteriorating to describe the bridge (in front) and removed the last section
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Is it really important to mention repaving and the installation of guardrails in the history?
No other work has been done to the highway and will be done (except the bridge replacement).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I will place the article on hold for a couple fixes to be made. Dough4872 03:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded to your comments. SounderBruce 06:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I will now pass the article. Dough4872 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)