# Talk:Washington State Route 31

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 31/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well-written article, however, there are some issues which prevent it from being passed in its current state. I made some minor copyedits, so please check to see if I have changed anything that I shouldn't have.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

PSH 6 (1937–1964 "north co-signed as US 195 until Newport to the Canadian border." "PSH 6 became SR 31 and US 2, which was signed over PSH 6 in 1948, during the 1964 highway renumbering," - No offense, but this entire section is rather confusing. Is it co-signed as US 195 until Newport or the Canadian border? Was PSH 6 renamed SR 31 and US 2 in 1948 or 1964? I would suggest a thorough copyediting of this section.
Fixed. –CG 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance: 

Wikilinks There are numerous wikilinks, which in itself is not a problem. However, some of them are repeated unnecessarily. The MOS states links should only occur upon the first mention of a subject, after that, the subject should not be linked (the city of Tiger seems to be the main culprit, but there are others as well). I suggest a thorough reading of the article to remove any redundant links. It is OK if there is one link in the intro and a secondary link upon the first subsequent mention within the main body, but third and fourth links should be removed. Also, there are several lakes which I doubt should be red-linked. I have no problem with red links, but if these are minor, non-notable lakes, it is doubtful there will ever be an article written about them. If anyone disagrees, then I suggest the creation of stubs (with citations, of course) to prove the notability of these lakes.
Fixed. –CG 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Article on hold until improvements can be made. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understood what I meant by redudant links (please see Wikipedia:Linking), links to other articles should only occur upon the first mention of a subject. For instance, when you mention the city of Tiger, you should link it on the first mention. Afterwards, if you mention the city of Tiger again, you should not link it again. I have taken the liberty of fixing the links myself. Article passed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Washington State Route 31. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410164014/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/TDO/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/HwyLog2006.pdf to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/TDO/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/HwyLog2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)