Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/U.S. Route 12 in Washington

< Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class review
The following is an archived roads review. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the review was promote to A-Class. 4 support votes (Kéiryn, Holderca1, Davemeistermoab, Rschen7754), minus 0 oppose votes (none), equals 4 net support votes for promotion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 12 in Washington (4 net support votes)

edit

U.S. Route 12 in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Well-written article IMHO by myself and NE2, fully referenced, and recently featured on Did you know? I've also put it on WP:GAN at the same time. Any and all suggestions welcome, and I'd particularly appreciate any help on perhaps expanding the lead.
Nominated by: Kéiryn talk 15:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Holderca1 talk 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - There are some glaring issues that I have addressed below.

  • The article needs pictures, it currently doesn't have any. The highway passes by some pretty dramatic scenery, it should be depicted in the article.
Agreed, although that's not a problem I personally can solve, possessing neither a car nor a digital camera, and I can't think of any other USRD Wikipedians in Washington.
Actually I have some (although admittedly low-res); I can look if you want. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to jump back and forth between spelling things out, then abbreviating. The route description alone bounces back from U.S. Route 12 to US 12 back to U.S. Route 12 and so forth. The same applies to the other highways, such as I-5 followed a bit later on by Interstate 82 spelled out. The best way to address this would be to spell out the first instance and follow it by the abbreviation in parathesis, for example: U.S. Route 101 (US 101) or Interstate 5 (I-5). Then you can use the abbreviation for the rest of the article.
  • There are some referencing issues in the route description. Just looking at the first paragraph, I see that the first sentence is from reference 2, but the rest of that paragraph isn't referenced, where did it come from? There are several instances of this.
I see your point with the first paragraph, and the last which has none. But to what extent should the RD be referenced? Does every sentence need a reference of a different grid of the same map?  Done -- Kéiryn talk 19:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exit list has several issues:
    • The "West end of freeway" rows should only span the last two columns. That way if the freeway begins/ends within city limits, that can be specified and the mile marker that the freeway begins can be mentioned.
    • What is with the "See I-XX" rows? As a reader, I don't want to go to another article to get the rest of the US 12 exit list. The concurrent segments should be copied over from the other pages.
    • Why does White Pass span 2 columns?
I'll be happy to take care of the first two. White Pass spans two columns because US 12 goes over White Pass (i.e. it's not an intersecting road or destination).  Done -- Kéiryn talk 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references have some issues as well:
    • All references that are from the web need an access date.
    • I am confused by the references that start out "An act providing for..." What are these? Where are they from? I can't tell by looking at it.
Re: the first point, I thought they all did, but I do see a couple that are missing them, I'll get on that ASAP. Re: the second point, they're from the "Session Laws of the State of Washington" from the year and chapter listed. I'll fix that to clarify.  Done -- Kéiryn talk 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't taken a detailed look at the prose yet, the above issued just jumped out at me. --Holderca1 talk 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, pictures, very nice indeed, I think all the issues I had have been resolved, but I noticed one more thing as I looked back through it, the very last sentence isn't referenced. --Holderca1 talk 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I was going to reference it, but then I realized that the sentence wasn't particularly relevant so I removed it. The article doesn't make any previous mention of the former SR 12 along the Columbia River, and it's not spectacularly important what happened to the SR 14 designation after it was removed from this roadway. If you disagree, I'll be happy to add it back with a reference. -- Kéiryn talk 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All my issues have been resolved. --Holderca1 talk 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 03:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's 9 major junctions in the infobox, which is a bit too many. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty sure the limit we agreed to was 10? -- Kéiryn talk 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we said 8-10 was the max. I wouldn't oppose over this, but if there's an easy junction to remove, it's probably a good idea - just because we can use 10 doesn't mean that we necessarily should. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in principle. I originally left of SR 123, but when NE2 changed SR 410 to read "near Mount Rainier" saying it was a better location – well, it's not, cuz it's 50 miles away from that junction. So I added in SR 123 so the Mt. Rainier would be included. US 730 could feasibly be removed, the only reason it's included is because it's a US highway, but a pretty useless one IMHO. -- Kéiryn talk 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard I have always used is to include all highways of equal designation or higher and add in any freeways that don't meet that criteria. So for this article, I would include all Interstate and US Highways as well as any other freeways. If that inclusion criteria brings the junctions over 10, I start paring down from junctions with equal designation that just aren't that major of highways. --Holderca1 talk 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it makes sense to include all the interchanges on the I-5, I-82, and I-182 overlaps. --NE2 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could elaborate as to why you don't think it makes sense to include them, it would be helpful. --Holderca1 talk 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they're already on the other lists, it's rather redundant, especially given how long the overlaps are. --NE2 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it may seem redundant to us, someone reading this article will not want to go to 3 other articles to complete this article. From the fifth bullet of Wikipedia:The perfect article, "A perfect Wikipedia article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." --Holderca1 talk 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But does someone reading about US 12 really want all the exits on the Interstate overlaps? --NE2 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why they wouldn't, it is just as much US 12 as it is I-5 or I-82. For an example of not including them, the reader wouldn't know that US 12 goes through Grandview. --Holderca1 talk 20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be mentioned in the route description. Right now, the article doesn't say anything about it passing through Dayton, because there are no major intersections there. --NE2 21:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire exit list could be mentioned in the route description, I just don't understand why we would want to make the article less comprehensive. --Holderca1 talk 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not making the article less comprehensive; it's covering the information where it makes the most sense. --NE2 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, anyways, I won't support the promotion of any article that doesn't cover all aspects of the route. --Holderca1 talk 12:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (indent reset) I see the argument that it makes more sense to cover them in the interstate articles – but not covering them in this article by definition makes it less comprehensive. I'd be willing to work out a compromise where even though it's a freeway section, we continue to list only the state highway junctions instead of a full exit list. I realize it would be against current project standards, but we've made exceptions to standards in the past (i.e. the prose exit list on Kansas Turnpike). Either way, I think it's important for a reader to not have to bounce around between four different articles to get all the information. -- Kéiryn talk 14:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few photos:

--NE2 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Dave (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It then passes through White Pass at an elevation of 4,500 feet (1,400 m). As the first place in the article with the units of feet and meters, use the |lk=on here.
  • This article uses a lot of parentheses, more than any other article I've reviewed. I'm not in a position to state if this is appropriate or not, and would not vote oppose solely on this. However, you may want to have an english major look over it.
  • Are the exits numbered on the freeway portions not multiplexes with intestates? I would infer no by the Exit List Guide. If they are a column should be added.
  • I second the comment above: this needs some pictures. My own opinion is to try to get a pic of the Lewis-Clarkston bridge. If its important enough to mention in the ELG it should have a picture.
  • I second the comment above: the article goes back and forth between U.S. Route 12 and US 12. Your nomination is in the same position as mine about the inconsistency of the infobox (US 12 verses US-12) so I won't hold you to that one.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions, and I'll implement them as soon as I get off wikibreak in a few hours. I'm having a little trouble following a couple of them though. As far as I can tell, I can't see anything in ELG about when it's required to use a column for the exit number. If anything, I would use the opposite logic you're implying here – since the exits are only numbered along concurrencies, we shouldn't have a mostly-empty column for the exit number. That being said, on a second glance at the article, quite a few of the junctions are numbered, so the column wouldn't be that empty, so I don't have much of a problem adding it. Saves wordiness in the notes column at any rate.
Regarding the last one, it's a moot point since I am going to go over the prose with a fine toothed comb to make the abbreviation usage consistent and to weed out unnecessary parentheses, but as far as I can tell, the issue here and with the Utah article are slightly different. Here, the question is when is an abbreviation is used? – but when it's used, it's always US 12 (except maybe the Idaho line in the infobox, which I can fix by bypassing the template). There the question is which abbreviation is used (US 50 vs. U.S. 50 vs. US-50). But again moot point, and either way I'll get around to fixing it shortly. -- Kéiryn talk 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Idaho line is "US-12" because that's how the Idaho DOT writes it. --NE2 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the first time I read Dave's comments, I couldn't quite understand what he was talking about, but now I do. Since we're talking about two different DOTs, there's no harm in keeping a rogue "US-12". (However, since in the I-70 article, we're only talking about one DOT, then the prose probably should have been changed to US-50 instead of US 50 because that would solve the inconsistency problem.) -- Kéiryn talk 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above concerns – except for the lack of pictures – should be corrected now. -- Kéiryn talk 23:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC) OK let round 2 begin:=-)[reply]

  • Lead: The lead jumps back and forth between the Washington portion of US 12 and the national portion. I would change the following to be clear: "although portions of it are concurrent" -> although portions of US 12 in Washington are concurrent...
  • Lead: Maybe add a sentence or two to better summarize the history section. IMO it's inadequately represented.
  • Route description: "US 12 exits itself" should be re-worded, that's confusing to non-roadgeeks.
  • "The former secondary State Road 5 was realigned to head not east but north from near Packwood, alongside the Ohanapecosh River to the old McClellan Pass Highway at Cayuse Pass, west of the summit of the Cascades." IMO this sentence needs some work, maybe "The former secondary State Road 5 was realigned starting near Packwood following the Ohanapecosh River to the old McClellan Pass Highway at Cayuse Pass."
  • "now included four entrances to the vicinity of Mount Rainier National Park," Shouldn't that be in the vicinity?
  • "but was not yet drivable across the Cascades at Chinook Pass" this sounds rough to me, perhaps "but the route across Chinook Pass was not yet finished"?

More to come. Davemeistermoab (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that's my observations. I still think it needs photos, I hope you can find some. I noticed some of the sub articles have pictures (Chinook pass, etc.) maybe those can work.Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a change of heart regarding the photos... I should be able to get some between Aberdeen and Yakima this Saturday, and some of the Clarkston/Lewiston area the following Saturday. Sniffing around other articles is a brilliant idea as well. I should get around to fixing your prose suggestions either today or tomorrow. -- Kéiryn talk 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dave's round two concerns above should be addressed. -- Kéiryn talk 08:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) PHOTOS!!! :-D So ummm.... what else can I do ya for? -- Kéiryn talk 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very close. I only have one concern. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article.
  • Unlike several other U.S. Highways in the Western United States (notably US 99 and US 66), U.S. Route 12 remained after the Interstate Highway System was established, although portions of it in Washington are concurrent with Interstate 5 (I-5) and Interstate 82.
This statement appears to be original material. I don't see anywhere else where the the article there the decommissioning of US routes due to the formation of interstate highways is discussed. It's also misleading, as per the history section US 12 in WA wasn't fully established until 1967, after the Interstate Highway system was established.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally right, that's just something I threw in to pad the lead. Consider it stricken. -- Kéiryn talk 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? The part about it not paralleling interstate highways is easily citable using a map, although it's not currently explicitly stated in the route description section. I suppose I could expand the r.d. a bit to make it so. Hmmm... -- Kéiryn talk 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all of my concerns resolved. However, I second the grammar concerns Rschen has noticed. Fix those, and I'm happy. Dave (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support- All my issues addressed. I still think the article is light on photos. However, I recognize you've done what you could. I encourage you to add one or two more as good quality pics become available.Dave (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple more I could feasibly add, but I think the 4 + 1 historical map currently on the article are sufficient. If I try to shoehorn any more in, it might affect the layout for me – although I tend to view Wikipedia in large windows at high resolution, so the text takes up significantly less room for me than it might for other editors. -- Kéiryn talk 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Starting with RD
    • U.S. Route 12 begins in Aberdeen on a pair of one-way streets; Heron Street eastbound and Wishkah Street westbound.[2] - just use a comma
    • US 12 then leaves Aberdeen to the east, paralleling the Chehalis River, mostly on a four-lane divided highway, passing through the towns of Central Park and Montesano.[3] - could improve on that sentence's structure
    • It passes through the town of Mossyrock, intersecting SR 122, then passes by Mossyrock Dam and Riffe Lake. - try to use a different verb the second time around.
    • In the town of Morton, it intersects SR 7 comma which heads north to Tacoma.[8]
    • It then ascends the Cascade Range, passing south of Mount Rainier, and intersects SR 123comma which serves the Stevens Canyon entrance of Mount Rainier National Park.[9]
    • It then... It then... change one of those
    • Descending from the mountains,
    • US 12 then runs concurrent - is it "concurrently" or "concurrent"? Not sure on this one.
      It should be concurrently. --Holderca1 talk 19:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that the portion east of the Tri-Cities gets glossed over - having driven on part of this road, there is stuff to write about...
    • More later once the RD concerns have been addressed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the route description slightly, and hopefully addressed all of the above except...
  • Descend can be used as a transitive verb, so this is correct. Ascend is also properly used in its transitive sense in the previous paragraph.
  • I'll get to the "east of the Tri-Cities" section tomorrow. :-P
-- Kéiryn talk 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 1,000 apologies for the delay. -- Kéiryn talk 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • History - First paragraph - hard to tell how this is connected with US-12. I mean, it leaves the reader to guess.
  • This differed from present US 12 between Elma and Naches, in that it followed the route through Olympia and Tacoma rather than along the Cowlitz River. - no comma
  • Washington introduced a new system of sign route numbers in 1964 - may want to link to renumbering article if it's not done so already.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This diff shows the changes I made. Does the bit I added to the first paragraph allay your concerns? Or does it need more? -- Kéiryn talk 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be good. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has 4 net support votes, but there is an apparent objection, so it is uncertain if this can be closed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived roads debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page, on WT:USRD, or another applicable discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/U.S._Route_12_in_Washington&oldid=1126878884"