Talk:K-147 (Kansas highway)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sammi Brie in topic GA Review
 | K-147 (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: January 2, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- 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)
- 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.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- 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.
- 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.:
- Nominator is the only major contributor to the article since expansion work began in April 2020.
- 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):
- 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.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- 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 • t • c) 03:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
edit- @Sammi Brie: I think I fixed the copyright issue properly. Let me know. Thanks, -420Traveler (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @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 • t • c) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @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)
- @420Traveler: Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking of one too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- @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)
- @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 • t • c) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)