Talk:K-19 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ToThAc (talk · contribs) 21:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, here's my review for this article.

• Criterion 1A: Not sure. While decently written for the most part, there are several instances in which there could have been better-written sentences:
  • At this point K-19 changes from being signed as north–south to east–west. "Change" as a verb is used in a very broad context, and while this sentence is technically plausible, it sounds very awkward to say that a route "changes from being signed".
  • At this point K-19 is redesignated as an east–west route. This example uses a more specific verb. See how the sentence is less awkward here?
• Just one example, but it's recurring throughout the article. I'll likely post more issues of this kind later on.
• Criterion 1B: ✗ Fail. Stemming from the problems I noticed above, while the article's sentences are well-formulated, I'm noticing a recurring lack of cohesion in paragraphs. The paragraph detailing K-19's exclusion from the NHS is a perfect example of this; almost none of the sentences in that paragraph flow like a paragraph should, and I think the vehicular traffic data should go in the lead instead.
• Criterion 2A: ✓ Pass. No problems here.
• Criterion 2B: ✓ Pass. Nothing jumps out at me here.
• Criterion 2C: ✓ Pass. Nothing worth discussing here.
• Criterion 2D: ✓ Pass. Not seeing any violations.
• Criterion 3A: ✓ Pass. Clear enough.
• Criterion 3B: ✗ Fail for now. There's no good reason to mention K-219's decommissioning at all in the route description section; it goes in its respective article instead.
• Criterion 4: ✓ Pass obviously.
• Criterion 5: ✓ Pass of course.
• Criterion 6: Not sure. I hope I'm not being demanding, but would it kill you to provide at least one image of a certain point in the route?

@420Traveler: So yeah, I'm going to have to put this on hold until the appropriate changes are made. ToThAc (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: Thank you for starting the good article review. I fixed some of the problems to the article and it may kill me to drive over 1000 miles to take a picture right now, but I definitely will in the near future. Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC),@Imzadi1979:

@420Traveler: Thanks for fixing that one sentence I brought up. Here's another good example of a sentence requiring streamlining (two, actually):

• From here it continues eastward for another roughly 4.5 miles (7.2 km) and crosses into Stafford County. 1 mile (1.6 km) past the line it passes to the south of Radium. Both of these sentences sound awkward as they are now. Here's a list of every single problem I found with it:

  From here [...]

  • "From here" is objectively bad encyclopedic prose. As a filler adjective, "here" refers to the current location of the entity in question. This part should be "From there" instead.

  [...] it continues eastward for another roughly 4.5 miles (7.2 km) [...]

  • The words "another" and "roughly" should have their positions swapped; after all, you almost never place an adverb after an adjective.

  [...] and crosses into Stafford County. 1 mile (1.6 km) past the line it passes to the south of Radium.

  • This is my most recommended change. Since the latter sentence has weirdly-ordered clauses that aren't even properly separated by a comma, it's probably better to just consolidate the two sentence clauses into the previous sentence. (Recommended change below)

I think this is what it should look like:

• From there it continues eastward for roughly another 4.5 miles (7.2 km) and crosses into Stafford County, traveling south of Radium 1 mile (1.6 km) after crossing the county line. See how I conjoined the two sentences together? On related notes:
  • I replaced "it passes to the south of Radium" to "traveling south of Radium", though "passing Radium to the south" is also an acceptable alternative. "Pass" as a verb refers to going by an object, so it's illogical to say that something "passes to" something else (unless this was referring to a team sport involving a ball, which it's not).
  • "Past the line" conveys little to no actual meaning to the average reader, so I made it more specific ("crossing the county line"). Don't assume that the average reader automatically knows whatever it is you're talking about.

So yeah, just some basic Sentence Streamlining 101. Let me know if you need any further assistance. ToThAc (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: I fixed what you had mentioned, and thank you so much for the pointers on how to do so, but i dont appreciate the rude comments that you added, for example "unless this was referring to a team sport involving a ball, which it's not". Also criterion 6 says: "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio" (emphasis added). So while I understand it is better to have pictures, the criterion doesn't actually require them. I've never seen that as an absolute requirement to have media. (There are featured articles devoid of illustrations.) Thanks so much 420Traveler (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@420Traveler: I wasn't trying to be rude there, just saying that "A passes to B" is more of something that you would find in sporting events. ToThAc (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's fine if you can't get an image. Chalk that down to me misunderstanding the criteria. ToThAc (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: It's all good, I really appreciate the help. I will be taking pictures when I pass through the area in a few months. Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: I think I have fixed what needs to be fixed 420Traveler (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: Status? --Rschen7754 19:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Yeah, I think this meets GA status now. ToThAc (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: If you promote the article, you are expected to list it on Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology. --Rschen7754 03:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: My apologies; somehow that wasn't made clear to me from the start. ToThAc (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)