Washington State Route 161 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 January 28, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Washington Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. U.S. Roads: State highways / Washington Mid‑importance 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 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 161/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 06:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-28T06:06:00.000Z","author":"TCN7JM","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TCN7JM-2013-01-28T06:06:00.000Z-GA_Review","replies":[]}}-->

I will review this page either tonight or tomorrow. –TCN7JM 06:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-28T06:06:00.000Z","author":"TCN7JM","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TCN7JM-2013-01-28T06:06:00.000Z-GA_Review-1","replies":[],"displayName":"TC"}}-->

Infobox

• The alternate names need to go. Alternate names are only supposed to be used in the infobox if the name is used on the entire length of the route, which neither name is.
  • Done.
• Where did you find that this was an auxiliary route of SR 410. In most articles I've seen from you that have been auxiliary routes of other highways, the fact that it's an auxiliary route makes sense because they're numbered similar. However, that isn't the case here.
  • In the navbox at the bottom, SR 16x routes are either branches of SR 16 or SR 410. SR 16 has never extended east of Tacoma, and SR 410 once intersected SR 161 in Puyallup.

Lead

• "SSH 5D (SSH 5)" I'm confused about this. Is this just an honest typo or does it actually mean something?
  • Just a typo. Fixed.
• "between Puyallup to South Hill." to → and
  • Fixed.
• You should try to remove the word currently from the last sentence. Maybe replace it with {{as of}}.
  • Done.

Route description

• "leaves the city on a 2-lane highway." Go ahead and write out the number two.
  • Done.
• "entering the community of Graham and intersecting a Tacoma Rail line" I don't think intersecting is the correct word here. To me, this implies passage from SR 161 to the rail line, which most likely isn't the case.
  • Changed to crossing.
• "SR 512 ends and SR 161 turns west (north) on a 1.83-mile-long (2.95 km) wrong-way concurrency with SR 167, traveling southbound." I'm a bit confused here as well.

1. The (north) isn't needed because the RD is, by default, written from south to north.

• Expanded to northbound, helps to show wrong-way concurrency.

1. The last part of the sentence does not read well. It looks as if the roadway is traveling southbound, which contradicts the earlier statement about the highway turning west. Clarify that it is, indeed, the SR 167 designation that travels south and not the road.

• Fixed that.

More to come... –TCN7JM 14:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-28T14:57:00.000Z","author":"TCN7JM","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TCN7JM-2013-01-28T14:57:00.000Z-GA_Review","replies":["c-SounderBruce-2013-01-28T19:15:00.000Z-TCN7JM-2013-01-28T14:57:00.000Z"],"displayName":"TC"}}-->

Answering some of your questions and fixing the appropriate things. SounderBruce 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-28T19:15:00.000Z","author":"SounderBruce","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SounderBruce-2013-01-28T19:15:00.000Z-TCN7JM-2013-01-28T14:57:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Sounder"}}-->

More on the route description

• I still don't think that reads very well. Maybe remove the parentheses by saying something like "SR 161 northbound turns west..."
  • Reworded.
• "between 340 and 99,000 vehicles" ...seriously? Only 340 vehicles in one spot, but 99,000 in another?
  • The highway travels through middle-of-nowhere type areas and then cities, with freeways.

History

• "between the eastern end of SSH 5G in Downtown Puyallup to the southern end of SSH 5D." Same issue as before either

1. between → from, or
2. to → and

• • Fixed.
• Another usage of currently in the second paragraph needs to go.
  • Done.
• "A new interchange between I-5 and SR 18 is being constructed in Federal Way, with a new ramp from westbound SR 18 to SR 161 being completed in September 2012 and another ramp, from southbound I-5 to SR 161, is being constructed." This is worded pretty weirdly. Try rewording this. I know that's vague, but I don't know what to say there. It just doesn't read well.
  • Reworded, not too sure though.

RJL

• Use either commas or semicolons to separate notes, not both.
  • Changed all to semicolons.

Final verdict

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall: Just these few fixes need to be made.

   Pass/Fail:

• Cool beans. Watch as I magically pass the article! –TCN7JM 01:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-29T01:37:00.000Z","author":"TCN7JM","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-TCN7JM-2013-01-29T01:37:00.000Z-GA_Review","replies":[],"displayName":"TC"}}-->