# Talk:Washington State Route 971

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 971/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 420Traveler (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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.: 
No edit wars
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:
Pass/Fail: 

I would add mileage to the lead.
Done.
"paved in the 1960s and" Add comma after 1960s.
Not necessary, as they are both independent clauses but joined by a coordinating conjunction ("and").
"SR 971 begins at a junction" I would change "begins" since technically it begins at both ends.
The southern terminus is the legal start of the highway, so there is no need for this to be changed.
It may the legal start as mile markers go, but to the average reader they would be confused. I could get a second opinion? -420Traveler (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
"volumes on SR 971 in 2016 ranged" Add comma after 2016.
Again, not necessary.
"680 vehicles near" Add "per day" after vehicles.
"maximum of 2,600 vehicles" Add "per day" after vehicles.
Added "daily" before the statements to prevent repetition.
Works good.
"Lake Chelan in 1910 with" Add comma after 1910.
Again, not necessary.
"resurfacing project in 1996 and" Add comma after 1996.
Again, not necessary.
Add locations and notes to Major intersections.
Per MOS:RJL, junctions in unincorporated areas should not be listed and notes should be kept to a minimum.
Thats all I have on first pass. -420Traveler (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@420Traveler: Had to reject half of these suggestions. Please make sure to make MOS-compliant suggestions in GA reviews. SounderBruce 21:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fredddie: I need a second opinion if you arent too busy. Isnt for example: "Northern terminus" usually added in the notes column for major intersections? Also is "begins" correct in the route description, because technically it begins at both ends? -420Traveler (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I hate the word terminus on road articles, so you'll never find me adding "northern terminus" or whatever direction.  I use begin and end in the lead and RD to describe the southern end and northern end, respectively, so I have no issue here. –Fredddie™ 00:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks Fredddie just wanted to make sure. -420Traveler (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: Everything looks good, will pass now. Also in the future you should say you "disagree" instead of saying "reject". I wouldn't say the word "reject" in response to comments about improvements, because it makes it seem like you don't respect the good article process. And not to mention kind of rude. Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)