Talk:K-17 (Kansas highway)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- There are several two- and three-line paragraphs, at least as I see it. I would combine them (except for the traffic/NHS one) if possible so the prose does not look as choppy.
- You should mention Waterloo in the Route description.
- "K-17 was commissioned by 1932, and it first appears on the 1932 state highway map." The two assertions are kind of redundant. I would use one or the other.
- There is no mention in the History on when the highway's southern terminus was settled. K-17 probably did not always end at a diamond interchange with a freeway.
- I clicked the external link. It mentions a few history details that are not included here. If you can support them, you should add them.
- There is still a stub template at the bottom of the article.
Everything else looks acceptable for a Good Article. I will put it on hold for you to address the above concerns. VC 00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have made the suggested changes to the article. I hope I have addressed your concerns. –TCN7JM 03:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- You addressed everything except part of the point about choppy paragraphs. The two paragraphs in the Lead should be combined into one. VC 05:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good enough to pass now. VC 05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- You addressed everything except part of the point about choppy paragraphs. The two paragraphs in the Lead should be combined into one. VC 05:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)