Talk:Interstate 605 (Washington)

Original source

This seems like a original source. Why don't we move and rename this page. I dont think there will be I-605 in WA. --LAFreeways (Conf) 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• R#Interstate 5 in Washington-Kurumi is total original source and newspaper is jst rumours. --Freewayguy (Meet) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Need citations to support existence of subject

Well, the SeaTimes citations farther down the articleestablish that there was such a proposal as I-605. But the style of this article is very weird in that the assertion of the existence of the subject in the lead is unsubstantiated. The assertion in the lead is only backed up indirectly, but the burden shouldn't be on the reader to sort through citations that are not clearly relevant; far better would be to cite the article as evidence of the existence of such an idea as I-605. Regards, PhilipR (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried briefly to fix it myself but didn't care enough to learn the details of the new editor, and I don't see how to switch it to simple markup so I can copy/paste. - PhilipR (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Never built in infobox

The infobox for this article makes it appear that this freeway exists. Could this be revised to make it clear that it isn't built? Is there an infobox for proposed, never built freeways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.4.53 (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no other road infobox other than the one that is used. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 20:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 605 (Washington)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rschen7754 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose review

Lead - Proposals have been around since the 1960

 Done --Admrboltz (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Washington State Department of Transportation has no projects designated I-605, however a project converting Washington State Route 18 to a full limited-access freeway is nearing completion, which is south and east of both I-5 and I-405. - run-on

 Done --Admrboltz (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposals - Some of the first plans for a new interstate freeway, bypassing I-405 surfaced in 1968, - the commas make this really hard to read. Try adding one after I-405.

 Done --Admrboltz (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Same sentence - another run-on

 Done --Admrboltz (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Better, but there's still a run-on. -Rschen7754 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Now? --Admrboltz (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Next sentence - another run-on

 Done --Admrboltz (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the WA-18 article, I don't see the need for the infobox.

 Done --Admrboltz (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

On hold - should be quick fixes, and then a pass. --Rschen7754 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Passing article. --Rschen7754 01:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Highway 18

I'm tempted to delete all mention of highway 18's improvements. Certainly highway 18 has been part of some 605 proposal, but, more importantly, highway 18 is not 605, and in no way serves the function 605 was intended to. As a matter of fact, if 18 was made an interstate, it would probably be called 490. If the highway 18 stuff is gone, you know why. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple comments, but if State Route 18 is connected to proposals surrounding I-605, then it should stay. Second, but in Washington, they're State Routes, not Highways, so it kinda makes you look slightly less than knowledgeable when you use the wrong terminology. I've restored stuff you removed from the article, and honestly, you need a source that states that WSDOT has cancelled the highway, otherwise, we will assume that there are still proposals floating around out there with the same level of possibility as the article states. Imzadi 1979 → 03:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead?

Why list this as proposed? There has been no action on this in over a decade, and unlike SR 168 and others, it is not legally defined as a state highway. I suggest, for the sake of templates, we change the category to unbuilt. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 605 (Washington). 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/20101121095735/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr18/auburntoi90/ihobart_i90 to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr18/auburntoi90/ihobart_i90/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)