Talk:Washington State Route 410

References for the change

• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, Highway Designation Sought, April 23, 1967: the Washington Highway Commission chose the all-weather route for extending US 12 into Washington
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, May 29, 1967: [this is about the Lewis and Clark Trail] "On eastbound trip following spring, the explorers traveled overland, crossed the Columbia near Wallula, struck off across land due eastward until they hit the Touchet, then followed that river to Dayton before turning over the hills to Pomeroy and thence along present U.S. 410 back to the Lewiston-Clarkston area. The highway designation of the 1961 Washington State legislature six years ago had this wording: "Beginning at a junction with primary state highway No. 1 in the city of Vancouver, thence on the routes of primary state Highways No. 8 and No. 3 via Kennewick, Walla Walla and Pomeroy to the Washington-Idaho state line at Clarkston." Reasoning behind the routing through Walla Walla at that time was to bring easterners through the historic Walla Walla Valley generally and especially to such historic points of national interest as Whitman Mission National Historic Site, Fort Walla Walla and other historic spots of interest."
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, Highway 12 Route Will Run Through the City, June 22, 1967: "...from the Idaho border to the ocean, the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) said Wednesday...The U. S. 12 designation was awarded to Washington over an application by Oregon for the route to the Pacific on the south side of the Columbia River."
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, November 24, 1967: "The longest highway in the state is U.S. 410, which serves this area. Most of this road is to be re-numbered as U.S. 12, officials say. It gives the motorist a long ride, from Clarkston in the southeastern corner, to Aberdeen and the Grays Harbor area on the coast."
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, Highway 410 is now U.S. No. 12, December 27, 1967: includes a photo of a sign being changed: "Former U.S. Highway 410 route signs were changed locally Tuesday to an official designation as U.S. Highway 12 rom Clarkston to Grays Harbor, completing the mid-west and western portion of an eventual route from the Atlantic to the Pacific...U.S. Highway 12 formerly extended from Detroit, Mich., to Lewiston, Idaho, proceeding west through Chicago, Minneapolis, South Dakota, a corner of North Dakota, the northern tier of Montana to Helena, then southwest across the Lolo Pass to Lewiston. The new portion of U.S. 12 begins at Clarkston and continues to Walla Walla, the Tri-Cities, Yakima and across the Cascades on White Pass to Interstate 5. U. S. Highway 410 was designated through Chinook Pass. U. S. 12 changes at the Grand Mound interchange and follows former State Highway 8 to Grays Harbor. Purpose of changing the highway number, said White, is to [?]" "...display the "old" and "new" number designations which changed U.S. Highway 410 to a link in a future U.S. 12 scenic transcontinental route." "A similar route from Detroit to a point on the Atlantic coast is being sought to complete transcontinental U.S. Highway 12."
• Tri City Herald, Route 410 Renamed Highway 12, December 31, 1967: "Highway 410, which comes into the Tri-Cities across the Snake River Bridge from Burbank and extends on through Prosser, is now officially U.S. Highway 12...The highway, running from Clarkston to Grays Harbor, completes the mid-west and western portion of an eventual route from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. U.S. 12 formerly extended from Detroit to Lewiston, Idaho, proceeding west from Chicago, Minneapolis, South Dakota, a corner of North Dakota, the northern tier of Montana to Helena, then southwest across the Lolo Pass to Lewiston."
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, Highway 410 Is Now Designated 12, February 12, 1968: "The U.S. 410 number was dropped by the American Association of State Highway Officials because the highway was almost entirely within Washington. The new number, U.S. 12, begins in Detroit and now continues westward through Minneapolis to the Grays Harbor area. Part of the change included the naming of U.S. 830 as State Highway 14. The remaining portion of U.S. 410 has been changed to State Highway 410 from Naches Junction over White Pass to Enumclaw, Tacoma and Olympia."
• Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, U-B Action Line, September 29, 1968: "Why isn't highway 410 designated as such instead of just highway 12? This would help tourists immensly. Mrs. J.R. Answer: Since the route designation changes, highway 410 does not go through Walla Walla anymore. What is now marked as highway 12 IS highway 12, and so designated on 1968 road maps. Route 12 runs between Lewiston, Walla Walla, Yakima and over White Pass to Interstate 5. Route 410 now is between the junction northeasterly of Naches, over Chinook Pass to Puyallup and Tacoma, state Department of Highways Resident Engineer Orville Headding told Action Line."

--NE2 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 410

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. – TMF 05:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't U.S. Route 410 have its own seperate article about its own history? All other defunct U.S. Routes do. ComputerGuy890100^Talk_Polls 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really; there are a lot of redirects in Category:Former U.S. Highways. Basically all information about the history of US 410 would be duplicated either here, in US 12, or in SR 8. --NE2 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

US 410 was split into six separately numbered highways when it was decommissioned. The information from US 410 could be split that way. Who wants to read 6 articles to find the information on one highway? I would retain a separate article for US 410 with appropriate inline links to successor highways. Sehome Bay (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would make sense to merge US 410 into WA 410 due to the common number. Whihe it was part of other routes, this would work as the best redirect target. For instance, U.S. Route 213 redirects to Maryland Route 213 even though much of the former US 213 is now US 50. ---Dough4872 16:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging Chinook Scenic Byway

I would definitely support merging Chinook Scenic Byway into WA 410 as the entire byway follows that route and the current byway article is a stub that cannot be expanded much further. ---Dough4872 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 410/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – TMF 11:46, 27 November 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:

Detailed notes

Resolved issues

• Prose/MOS compliance:
  • Lead
    • The first sentence makes no mention of the route being in the state of Washington - which is doubly problematic because the route's common name doesn't include the state name.
    • "Pierce County and King counties" - either use "Pierce and King counties" or "Pierce County and King County".
    • It seems like the first sentence is trying to give a synopsis of the entire route in one shot. As a result, it reads like a run-on sentence, and should be split up. The very first sentence of the lead should cover just the basic facts about the route: name, length, location, direction. Anything more than that will result in a large, run-on sentence.
    • I question the amount of detail in the remainder of the lead's first paragraph. Again, it seems like the lead is trying to summarize the route, yet cover everything on the route. I would either trim the amount of detail down or, at the very least, split it into two paragraphs to organize it better. See updated comments below.
    • The "SR 410" in parentheses in the lead should be in boldface per MOS:BOLDTITLE#Format_of_the_first_sentence.
    • "until 1926, when US 410 was established in 1926" - one of the 1926s should be eliminated, preferably the second one.
    • The lead says "US 410 was later decommissioned after US 12 was extended over the route of the highway" - implying that it completely supplanted US 410 - but goes on to say that two segments of US 410 received other designations.
  • RD
    • "State Route 410 (SR 410)" - the SR X abbreviation was already established in the lead, making this unnecessary.
    • Second sentence is a bit wordy.
    • "encounters the western terminus of SR 162 in a diamond interchange." - the use of "in" here is a bit weird to me. I would go with "by way of" or something similar to that.
    • "The interchange was the busiest segment" - an interchange, like an intersection, is just one point on a highway; I'm not seeing how it could serve as a segment. See updated comments below.
    • "interchanges" - Interchange isn't a verb in this sense. Better wording would be to say "connects to", etc.
    • "The other end of SR 168, named the Little Naches Road, is intersected" - reads awkward to me. Wording resolved, but see follow-up comments below.
    • "the byway ends at U.S. Route 12 in Naches" - since the US X abbreviation's already been established in the lead, that should be used here.
    • What I took away from the entire RD is that it has very little in the way of what kinds of areas the route traverses - rural, urban, etc. It covers what entities it traverses well - rivers, railroads, locations - but falls short in the former regard. As it is now, it's barely more than a map converted to prose - if it wasn't for some of the historical and individual location details, that's all it would be. See updated comments below.
  • History
    • Again, the first sentence runs on for a bit too long. In this situation, I would use the opening sentence to give a cursory description of the road (extended from point A to point B) and use successive ones to give details.
    • "White River-Natches Road" - should have a spaced en dash.
    • "Cowlitz-Natches Road" - should have an unspaced en dash.
    • U.S. Route 410 (US 410) - the abbreviation was already established long before this.
    • "The Pacific Highway has a brief concurrency with US 410 from Olympia to Tacoma" - if I'm understanding this right, this is an anachronism. At the point in the history where this is mentioned, US 410 hasn't been assigned yet, meaning a concurrency between the two at this point in time is impossible. This is underscored by a part of a sentence two sentences later, where US 410 is referred to as "future US 410".
    • "but its concurrent state highways changed their designations" - they didn't change their designations; the state did.
  • Junction list
    • Many MOSBOLD violations: any column-spanning cells that aren't headers should be center-aligned but not in bold. You can fix this by replacing the "!" starting the cell with "| style="text-align:center" |".
    • "E." - east? If so, I would spell it out, regardless of how it appears on signage.
• References check out as far as I can tell. There is thing I noticed, though: The AP is erroneously listed as the author of the story titled "Flooding from Naches landslide still a threat". They're the agency that published the story, not the author, and |author= should be replaced with |agency=.
• Aside from the issue with the RD I posted above, the article appears to hit all the major points. There are some tangents in the RD that I'm not sure I would have included, but at the end of the day these ones seem to be supplementing the rest of the RD. I'd be careful of going too far off-course, though.
• NPOV, stablility, and image requirements met. I'm not a fan of the image layout - on my setup all the images are bunched together below the infobox - but that's not necessarily part of the criteria.
• A note: the map has no source data - how the map was made, where the GIS data came from, etc. That's not necessary for GA, but it is necessary for every class higher than GA.

There's quite a few issues with the article, but I believe they can be fixed rather easily. Placing on hold. (Note: this was my first-ever GA review; my apologies if I've been too harsh.) – TMF 12:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review, TMF. Its very surprising this is your first, since its done better than some reviewers. I've fixed most of the problems, except for the map problem, since all three have no source information. Two were made by NE2 and he doesn't post a full image description, while PHenry is retired and we cannot receive source information from him. –CG^Talk 18:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that while this is my first GAR, I've made many ACR reviews. ;)

As for the article, it definitely reads better this time around. I still have some prose concerns, though:

Resolved issues

• I think it's kind of a turnoff for a reader to have to go five sentences into the lead to get both of the route's termini - which I consider to be a vital piece of information for any highway. I think the ideal lead for this article would have the first paragraph devoted to information about the entire highway and leave the place-by-place description (such as "Traveling eastward, the roadway serves Bonney Lake and Buckley, crosses and eventually parallels the White River into Enumclaw and Greenwater.") for the second. That said, the first sentence of the lead sentence is much, much better; I'd leave that alone now.
• In the lead, delink and bold Chinook Scenic Byway since it redirects here. (Since it's already bolded at the outset, it doesn't need rebolding. It does need to be delinked in the junction list, though.)
• "US 410 was later decommissioned after US 12 was extended over the majority of the highway in 1967" - the sentence works now, but the "later" is redundant since the year of elimination is given very shortly afterward.
• "SR 410 was initially parts of various state wagon roads until 1926, when US 410 was established, extending from Aberdeen to Lewiston, Idaho." - this would flow better if it didn't have three clauses. I'm not a fan of how the second flows into the third, but it works for GA. Instead, I suggest eliminating the comma after 1926. Also: the front half of the sentence is a bit off. I think "initially parts" is what's doing it. For a fix, I would go with something like "Modern SR 410 was part of various state wagon roads until 1926 when...".
• RD: "The interchange was the busiest recorded part of SR 410 in 2008 with a daily average of 59,000 motorists using the freeway." - part still implies segment to me. You could say that the junction is the busiest point on the freeway if that's what the source indicates. However, most states calculate AADT by segment instead of by point.
• Delink Chinook Scenic Byway again.
• The last three paragraphs are fine in terms of development detail; however, I still find the first (which is on the verge of needing to be split) to be lacking in this regard. As it reads right now, it implies that the route passes through exclusively densely developed urban areas, and since neither I nor most of this article's readers are familiar with the road, that should be clarified if that isn't the case.
• History: The WSDOT acronym isn't defined anywhere in the article. I know what it is, you know what it is, but will the average reader?
• References: There's a glaring date format discrepancy between the article's prose (MDY) and the references (DMY). The entire article should use one date format, and since this is an American article, it should be using M D, Y.
• Other: After looking at the source code, the article's usage of non-breaking spaces is a bit spotty. Per the MOS, there should be non-breaking spaces between the date number and month name in dates, and non-breaking spaces between a road's name and number (so in between "Road" and "5" in State Road 5) and such. Also, as far as I can tell, there are no non-breaking spaces whatsoever between road names and numbers that appear on the displayed end of piped links. A common misconception is that items in links don't wrap, which is definitely not true.

Resolved issues have been struck; some of the original issues remain in addition to the new ones I just posted. – TMF 07:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

One more item: the infobox has "Existed: 1967 (as SR 410)[1][2] – present". Since the infobox is detailing SR 410 and the article is about SR 410, it's implied that the 1967 establishment date is for SR 410. Now, if you want to show that SR 410 was something else prior to 1967, I suggest using the "history" parameter to do it. The current setup is a bit strange for my tastes. – TMF 08:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All done. –CG^Talk 17:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking much better. I made some fixes myself, adding more non-breaking spaces where needed, fixing a few more dates, and getting the lead straightened out. Also note that I replaced all uses of {{nowrap}} with non-breaking spaces; when nowrap is used for a link that displays text like "U.S. Route 12", it erroneously results in a lack of a break in between U.S. and Route. For links with only one space, it's fine, but I prefer to use the actual spaces instead. Now, I do have at least one more round of concerns:

Resolved issues

• "After a junction with the other end of SR 168, named the Little Naches Road, the highway exits the Wenatchee National Forest and enters Naches." - the sentence gives the impression that SR 168 currently exists in some form. Of course, it exists on the books, but to the general public, it doesn't. The quickest fix here would be to insert "the proposed" before SR 168. Also remove the "the" prior to Little Naches Road.
• The junction list's column headers need scope="col" added per the MOS.
• I'm slightly confused by the Naches detour at the very end of the history. "Nile Road became the permanent detour for the highway," - does this mean SR 410 was permanently realigned onto Nile Road, a la Pennsylvania Route 61 near Centralia? "and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) completed paving on November 20" - on what? Nile Road? A rebuilt SR 410?

Everything else prior to these comments has been resolved in one way or another, so I've struck and/or hidden them. – TMF 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Finished with the last three items. Thanks for removing the {{nowrap}}s and I've added "the proposed" before SR 168 and removed the "the" before Little Naches Road. Also added scope="col" to junction list and revised the detour sentence. –CG^Talk 13:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• scope="col" needs to be added to the junction list's column headers, not the table's first line. The page that I linked to shows exactly how to do it.
• It's still not clear to me if Nile Road is now permanently part of SR 410 or not. Adding "in the lanslide (sic) area" didn't really do much for the section. – TMF 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. –CG^Talk 23:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the detour section is 100% correct after looking at the section's sources, but I'm not going to press the issue any further since that's more of an issue for A-Class or FA. On that note, this article probably needs some more copyediting to reach those levels. I have only one concern left, and it literally came to me as I was preparing to wrap up this review. The westernmost end of SR 410 is a freeway, but the article doesn't cover when said freeway was built. I'm assuming it wasn't constructed in the early 20th century along with the rest of the road. ;) – TMF 03:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a short sentence describing the freeway's construction between 1965 and 1972 with two maps I found/have in my inventory. –CG^Talk 20:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, all of my concerns have been addressed at this point. I also made a few last tweaks to the article to fix a couple of areas where the wording was a bit choppy or wordy. Passing. – TMF 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Bridge accident

@SounderBruce:I get the whole WP:NOTNEWS and all that, but isn't a construction accident that kills three people at least worth a mention here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd wait to see any lasting effects from the investigation (e.g. changes in WSDOT's policy on construction or contractors) before including it in here. It's still a bit too recent to tell. SounderBruce 03:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So, should we yank the bit about the 2009 landslide? It rerouted the highway for a couple years, but that had no real lasting effects. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It created a signed alternate route designated by WSDOT, which makes it notable on its own. It also permanently re-routed the roadway, which should be covered. SounderBruce 04:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Still, the way I see it, it's fine to include it (the bridge) if we give it the proper weight, and I see one or two sentences as totally proper. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to ask at WT:USRD for this particular one, I (personally) see it as borderline. --Rschen7754 13:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would include both the landslide and the bridge accident. However, I would rewrite the bridge accident section entirely. Anyone can write that a chunk fell and people died, but that doesn't really tell our readers anything. I at least want to see how and why it happened. –Fredddie™ 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think a couple sentences describing the bridge accident are worth including in this article as it is a notable event that has gotten significant media attention. However, we do not need to go overboard in covering every little detail of the accident. In addition, I think the detail and coverage of the mudslide is fine as that was a significant event that affected the route for a few years. Dough4872 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would omit the bridge accident unless it results in some lasting change to the highway. The landslide has done that based on the above comments. However, it does not sound like the bridge accident will permanently change the highway, so it should be omitted from the article. Imzadi 1979 → 03:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A similar incident has been listed in Oklahoma State Highway 145 for years, although that incident spurred the state legislature to take action to increase DOT funding. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)