Promoted to A-Class. -happy5214 22:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: It's been a decade since this article was promoted to GA status and unsuccessfully submitted to ACR. I've nuked and re-written the article to be far less of a mess. The highway itself has been jerked around with different numbers and varying degrees of importance for most of the 20th century, and has now been widened and modernized (at the expense of its southernmost 2.5 miles).
In the lead you mention the highway travels 9 miles yet it actually travels more than that. You should either indicate is travels for "over 9 miles" or "9.29 miles".
You should probably define that US 99 is the abbreviation for U.S. Route 99 in the lead rather than in the history since the lead is the first mention of it.
You should indicate what county the highway is located in in both the route description and the infobox.
I noticed a lot of redlinks in the route description. Are these intended to get articles anytime soon? If not I would say to delink them.
In the route description, you should mention how many lanes wide SR 527 is and whether or not it is a divided highway.
You do not need to define the abbreviation for SSH 2A again in the history since it was already defined in the lead.
In the history, you should indicate that the southern terminus of SR 527 was at SR 522 before it was cut back to I-405 in 2011. Dough4872 19:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dough4872: All done, except for the US 99 abbreviation, where I felt it would be simpler to keep the full form and avoid confusion with SR 99. I do plan on creating articles for the redlinks eventually, so I don't see them being a big issue. SounderBruce 23:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Concerns addressed (By the way, I fixed the SSH 2A abbreviation myself, and while I feel like you don't need to define US 99 again in the history, I can see how you want to avoid confusion since both US 99 and SR 99 are mentioned in the history.) Dough4872 23:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming a spot. Commencing shortly. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
I tend to use north–south as an adjective. How you have it, I'd say "It travels from north to south..."
Re-ordered and re-worded.
Regional highways?
Saying "including" seems odd when you list all of the highways SR 527 intersects.
Removed the "regional highways" bit entirely to convert this into a straight list.
"The Bothell–Everett Highway was built in the 1910s as part of the intercity Pacific Highway and briefly formed part of U.S. Route 99 (US 99) until the opening of modern-day SR 99 in 1927." This should be two sentences. Additionally, I don't think I would mention SR 99 just yet. The way it reads, the road was SR 99 in 1927.
Split and re-worded.
Where is nearby?
Listed out locales.
State governments don't widen highways. They appropriate money to widen highways.
Fixed.
RD
Linear shopping center? It's a glorified strip mall.
I'll use the "lifestyle center" label. Was trying to convey that it runs parallel to the highway.
I read steep angle and thought it was talking about grade. Sharp angle? Acute angle?
Changed to acute.
...with an auxiliary street to the west used for the remaining movements to southbound SR 527." I would revise this as a separate sentence.
Split with a semicolon.
"...curves westerly along the shore..." I think you can omit westerly.
Removed.
"...along the lake's side..." just sounds off. I don't have a fix for it.
Tried my hand, though I may have added one too many directions.
History
The second paragraph, where you're talking about renumberings is where I would mention when US 99 became SR 99.
The trouble is that SR 99 was renumbered two years after the interchange was completed, so it feels awkward to jump around dates so quickly.
I'm just wondering what your thoughts are about using {{Inflation}} for those figures.
I'm thinking that it's a bit too recent to necessitate the templates.
That's all I'm really seeing. The history is by far the best section of the article. –Fredddie™ 03:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fredddie: Thanks for the review. I'm open to further feedback on the changes, since I'm not entirely confident in them. SounderBruce 03:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Y I'm happy to support. –Fredddie™ 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done --Rschen7754 22:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to support. –Fredddie™ 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)