Talk:K-60 (Kansas highway)

K-60 (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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Roads: State highways / Kansas Low‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. state highways
Locations	Kansas
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:K-60 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough 48 72 02:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Do not use "then" when describing progression of route in route description.
Removed instance of "then". — P C B 03:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Is a more exact establishment date for the road known?
I believe it is 1932 but I cannot verify this as I do not have a 1931 map. — P C B 03:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will place the article on hold for a couple concerns to be addressed. Dough 48 72 02:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will now pass the article. Dough 48 72 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic