Talk:K-181 (Kansas highway)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

As always, some comments and suggestions below are not strictly required for GA status, but by using them to improve the article, it will be a good article. Compliance, or not, with the extra suggestions will not impact the ultimate promotion, or not, of the article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below for specific comments. Some parts of the prose need work to meed the standards of a GA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   However, there are some suggestions to improve the references.

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.:

   No evidence of edit warring.

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):

   I hope that the nominator has done a basic search online for images as advised in my comments during the last GAN. I will assume this has been done without success.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for copy editing.

• Lead/infobox:
  • You should round off the length in the prose so that it reads more naturally. It's fine to leave it at full precision in the infobox.
  • There's no need to link "U.S. state"; the link to "Kansas" is sufficient, and if a reader is confused by the concept, he or she will get it there.
  • "K-181's southern terminus is at K-232 southeast of Lucas by Wilson Lake Dam and the northern terminus is at U.S. Route 36 (US-36) and US-281 south of Lebanon." You're missing a comma before the first "and"; the two halves of that sentence can each be read intelligibly as separate sentences, so a comma is needed. Also, you don't need a citation there because this is the lead and the information is covered in the body.
  • "... January 7, 1937 it..." There is a comma missing after the year portion of the date. For "American-style" dates in running prose, because the year is set off by a leading comma, it needs to be followed by a trailing comma to complete the appositive.
  • I would break up and expand your summary of the history in the lead. That current sentence is a bit unwieldy, and frankly, there should be a bit more summary of the history of the highway in the lead based on the length of the section below.
• Route description:
  • "Lincoln/Russell county line", en dash (–) not a slash (/), so "Lincoln–Russell county line".
  • You didn't link K-232 in the first sentence, probably because it's so close to a link in the lead, but the
  • "It continues north and..." missing comma before "and".
  • "It..." "It..." "It..."... how about some variety: "the highway", etc.
  • You might want to tone down all of the distances. It makes the RD a bit tedious to read. Also, for measurements that are even distance under 10, add |spell=in to {{convert}} so that "4 miles (6.4 km)" becomes "four miles (6.4 km)".
  • The first sentence of the last paragraph is essentially meaningless to the general reader. I would drop it completely.
  • The sentence on traffic counts is badly worded.
    • Sometimes you can't avoid starting a sentence with a number. This is not one of those times.
    • "annual average daily traffic" is not a proper noun, so this should not be capitalized. Wikilinks work just as well with the first letter in lowercase. Also, since AADT is not referenced again, the abbreviation is superfluous. That said, it's also a technical term that can be avoided in the running prose by piping the link.
    • My teachers in high school always stressed that a proper measurement had two components: the value and the unit. What's the unit of measurement on the traffic count? Without the unit, the numbers are devoid of context.
    • You're missing a good spot to mention KDOT.
    • "2017 Annual average daily traffic (AADT) on K-181 ranged from 200 southwest of Sylvan Grove to 825 just north of US-24 and K-9 intersection."→"The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) tracks the traffic levels on its highways, and in 2017, they determined that on average the traffic varied from 200 vehicles southwest of Sylvan Grove to 825 vehicles just north of US-24 and K-9 intersection."
• History:
  • An overall comment first: I'm not sure we need this level of subdivision. The second subsection has just one paragraph of two sentences. Perhaps things can be merged together a little bit and the subheadings removed?
  • "Auto trails" in the first sentence should not be capitalized; it isn't a proper noun.
  • "mid 1948" → "mid-1948", "mid 1950" → "mid-1950", "mid 1954" → "mid-1954"; "mid" is considered a word particle, so it needs to be hyphenated.
  • "...bridge, and it was officially extended from Downs.." → "...bridge, and the highway was officially extended from Downs.." "it" is ambiguous here.
• Major intersections:
  • Looks good. The table complies with MOS:RJL, although that's not strictly required for a GA.
• References:
  • Overall, this section looks good.
  • Two suggestions: all map citations should include the scale (except dynamic maps like Google Maps), even if that is |scale=Scale not given. Second, citations should have a publication date, and if unknown, |date=n.d. (for "no date") is an acceptable option.
  • Just a quick consistency note, but there are some SHCK/KDOT citations missing |location=Topeka that I would add just to make things more uniform.

Comments

@Imzadi1979: thank you for assessing the article. I fixed all the problems you had mentioned. In the intro I fixed the history section too. Im not totally sure if the history section in the into has enough detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 420Traveler (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything looks good now. Imzadi 1979 → 10:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)