Interstate 605 (Washington) 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rs chen 7754 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
On hold - should be quick fixes, and then a pass. -- Rs chen 7754 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Interstate 605 (Washington) 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rs chen 7754 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
On hold - should be quick fixes, and then a pass. -- Rs chen 7754 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)