Talk:K-47 (Kansas highway)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 420Traveler in topic GA Review
 | K-47 (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: September 4, 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-47 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lectrician2 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Things needed to be edited before final review
editThis is a very well written article, but I see no images of the physical road, you do have illustrations, but I just don't feel this this could qualify as a "good article" without photos of the physical roadway. Other than that, great job!
- @Lectrician2:, I did add an image of the first sheild used, but can't find any photographs. Im pretty sure that they arent required for GA. -420Traveler (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I based this comment after examining other "good article" road related articles. For instance recently Japan National Route 119 was elevated to good article. While looking at this I noticed that it has photo's of the physical road. I just can't justify by feeling that this fulfills the requirements without a photo of a physical road. Maybe we could call in a 2nd opinion on this? Lectrician2 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- You could ask someone if you want. -420Traveler (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man I've noticed you are quite involved in good article nominations. Can I have a 2nd opinion on if I should require @420Traveler to have physical photo of the roadway? I feel that in order to meet the illustration criteria, it should at least have a photo of the physical roadway. For instance Japan National Route 119 was recently made a good article, and it has physical pictures of the roadway. I anticipate hearing your opinion on this. Thanks! Lectrician2 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Lectrician2: I checked the Good Article Criteria and in note #7 it says: "The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided." -420Traveler (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man I've noticed you are quite involved in good article nominations. Can I have a 2nd opinion on if I should require @420Traveler to have physical photo of the roadway? I feel that in order to meet the illustration criteria, it should at least have a photo of the physical roadway. For instance Japan National Route 119 was recently made a good article, and it has physical pictures of the roadway. I anticipate hearing your opinion on this. Thanks! Lectrician2 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- You could ask someone if you want. -420Traveler (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Future of this review
editAt this point, you pass!