Talk:K-147 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 03:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

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.:

   Nominator is the only major contributor to the article since expansion work began in April 2020.

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):

   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.

7. 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)

Comments

@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)