Jump to content

Talk:K-147 (Kansas highway)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:K-147 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 03:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    One thing I'm noticing is that there are some prose sections you use in multiple Kansas highway articles that may not always be the most relevant. Unlike K-156, K-147 itself was not part of an auto trail, and the connection to the National Highway System is tangential. I also feel personally that the traffic counting explanation feels and sounds a bit basic in your form; I tried to streamline it a bit.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The sentence "Rust in the bridge deck was not allowing the bridge to move freely." appears close to this Hays Post article and I'd suggest a reword. Otherwise there are no other copyvio issues.
  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.:
    Nominator is the only major contributor to the article since expansion work began in April 2020.
  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):
    There aren't any media in the article, though I can't find any freely available media to provide here, either, unlike with K-156.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'd like to see the "rust in the bridge deck" sentence tweaked before passing for GA, but it's pretty much there already. Ping me when this is fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
@Sammi Brie: I think I fixed the copyright issue properly. Let me know. Thanks, -420Traveler (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@420Traveler: Yes, that looks good. Approving for GA. Hopefully the comments I've made here help improve your other Kansas highway articles! Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: yes they will help me improve other kansas articles, thanks. Im trying to think of a DYK for this article if there is one, wondering if you had any suggestions? Thanks, -420Traveler (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@420Traveler: Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of one too. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]