Talk:K-33 (Kansas highway)

K-33 (Kansas highway) 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.
Review: February 25, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Roads: State highways / Kansas Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Kansas
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:K-33 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EpicPupper (talk · contribs) 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. This is my first review, so I may take longer to go through the article. Thanks for your patience!

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Thank you for your work on the prose. I've copy edited some of it as well, and will ask for help at the GOCE for further improvements.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Soft pass. I don't see anything that needs working on.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. References are good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass. Citations are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Weak pass. I see that you've added additional sources, but some of the article is on the verge of not meeting GA criteria (e.g. the auto trails parts). I encourage you to add additional sources in order to improve the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, Earwig shows no results.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, thorough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, thanks for clarifying the NHS mention.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no NFC, proper license tags. I also added some tags to the files as well.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, added a wikilink.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. Thank you for your hard work on this article. I encourage you to read the comments of this review and the previews ones that you've received before nominating more articles for GA, especially comments on copy editing and citations.

Infobox and lead[edit]

I've added a short description, please feel free to change as needed.
Near the end of the second paragraph, there are a lot of uses of "by", e.g. "By [year] something happened. By [year] something else happened". Consider rewording in order to avoid Wikipedia:Proseline, which can make the prose harder to read.

I changed it a little, there are a few more remaining. Do you have any suggestions on how to further improve the end of the leads secomd paragraph? -420Traveler (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Created with Inkscape template on the image for the shield in the infobox (File:K-33.svg).
The auto trails mention is poorly worded.

Route description[edit]

I've improved the description for the image used.

Thank you -420Traveler (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too many exact distances; please tone them down for readability.

Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the mention of the NHS. It's not notable for inclusion. The connection is fine though.

I added the explanation as a footnote, will this be ok? -420Traveler (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please fully remove the mention of the NHS. To quote SounderBruce on Talk:K-116 (Kansas highway)/GA1, The NHS mention is still problematic because it's trivial filler and also not verifiable 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said to fully remove it, but I changed so it sounds less trivial. But let me know if you still dont like it and I will fully remove it. -420Traveler (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KDOT mention: The start of the KDOT sentence is not clear on whether it refers to highways in general, or K-33. Please make an edit similar to the one you did at K-63 (Kansas highway).

Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Early roads[edit]

Remove the link to Canada per MOS:OVERLINK and the countries mention. I might be biased, but I think Canada is well-known enough.

Fixed I agree -420Traveler (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The auto trails mention is poorly sourced. Please find WP:RS.

Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Designation and realignments[edit]

More "by [date], by [date], by [date]". Please reword to avoid WP:Proseline. This occurs in all of the 3 paragraphs.

Should be all fixed now, let me know if I missed something. -420Traveler (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some cases of years (e.g. 1934 and 1936) can be reworded to "two years later", etc.

Should be all fixed now, let me know if I missed something. -420Traveler (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Found a dead link. Please run IABot. I can't currently due to a longstanding bug.

Which link is dead? Ill try but ive been having the same problem with the bot. -420Traveler (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed myself using IABot. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is use of different years of different maps from different companies as a source for the chronology of an event. I think that this is WP:OR and does not meet the verifiability policy. Please have a read through Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles#Original research.

I did read through what you suggested. I dont think it is WP:OR because the same thing is done in (for example) New York State Route 73, New York State Route 28, New York State Route 28A and New York State Route 308 all of which are FA or A class articles. -420Traveler (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

@EpicPupper: I fixed almost everything I could, just have a few questions. Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: What else needs to be fixed? -420Traveler (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need a few more days to take a look at the article. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more specific comments, but please try to copy edit the article in general. There are numerous places that need some work. To quote SanderBruce here, Please try to take some of this advice and apply it to other articles before nominating them for GAN, as I can see this is a reoccurring issue. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: I read through and copy-edited a few things. Tell me specific things that I missed amd needs to be fixed. Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper: ?? -420Traveler (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've ✓ Pass'ed the review. Thank you for your hard work, and please read my comments above. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

Sushi725 (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]