Talk:K-101 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Will review in a bit. SounderBruce 21:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: any progress? --Rschen7754 22:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I agree with User:Rschen7754. It's been over two months!! Either abandon it or review it?! -420Traveler (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Review is as follows:

Lead

• Remove "approximately" from the first sentence.
• Move the county to the first sentence.
• "Rural farmlands" needs only one descriptor, not two.
• Remove the 0.55 mile length; better to describe it as a short spur.
• No need to have a separate sentence for the changing designation of another highway; it could simply be noted with a parenthesis.
• Link to K-96 should be on the first use; Wichita is also irrelevant.

Route description

• "Southern terminus" isn't exactly a good opener; I suggest "K-101 begins at"
• K-101 and "The highway" are repeated too often and need to be replaced with other phrases.
• "Quickly enters" is vague.
• No need for a comma after "Walnut Avenue"
• "As it crosses" can just be "and crosses"; also, which railroad is this? Where's the citation for the grade?
• "becoming known" can just be "becomes known"
• "begins to pass by"...so it passes the airport?
• Why is 9000 Road mentioned at all?
• "a crossing over X Creek" is repeated and not particularly interesting to readers.
• "continues [for] a short distance" is missing a word.
• "tracks the traffic levels" is far too casual.
• "On K-101 in 2020, they determined that, on average," uses too many commas.
• AADT link should not be an easter egg
• Second highest traffic count does not need to be mentioned; the other figures need to be explicitly mentioned as the highest and lowest counts.
• If it's not on the NHS, then why mention it?

History

• The 0.55 figure should be moved to here; mentioning in the lead without a corresponding figure in the body is odd.
• "In a resolution approved on X" is repeated far too often. The prose is tedious and boring.
  • Exact dates are also not needed unless they are relevant to the timeline, like the April 28 date that follows an earlier action.
• One of the Five Ws is missing here: the Why. Why was each extension made? Explanations are needed, since these decisions are not made without some analysis.
• The 1971 crash seems to have no lasting effect, so it does not need to be mentioned.
• The postponed vote sentence needs to be shortened to hold interest from your readers; my suggestion: "The city planned to widen the highway and add signals to the highway, but a vote was postponed due to opposition from two business owners concerned about the removal of parking spaces."
• "Approved to widen"...approved a what?
• The bids were received, but where is the proof that work was completed? Coverage is not comprehensive enough.
• Far too many citations in the last paragraph. It could also be reduced to not overcover K-96 in an article about another highway.

Citations

• KDOT should be linked in the first citation (Ref 2), not Ref 4

Sorry for the delay, things offline have been very busy. This one is in need of a lot of work and it took me a few reads to actually chew through the prose. SounderBruce 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

While there has been some progress, there's not been enough to let this one pass in its current state. SounderBruce 06:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: It's funny it took over two months for you to review it, but then you couldn't give me a little extra time to fix the few things you mentioned. But OK, I'll just renominate it. -420Traveler (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)