Talk:K-17 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 January 2013 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• There are several two- and three-line paragraphs, at least as I see it. I would combine them (except for the traffic/NHS one) if possible so the prose does not look as choppy.

• You should mention Waterloo in the Route description.

• "K-17 was commissioned by 1932, and it first appears on the 1932 state highway map." The two assertions are kind of redundant. I would use one or the other.

• There is no mention in the History on when the highway's southern terminus was settled. K-17 probably did not always end at a diamond interchange with a freeway.

• I clicked the external link. It mentions a few history details that are not included here. If you can support them, you should add them.

• There is still a stub template at the bottom of the article.

Everything else looks acceptable for a Good Article. I will put it on hold for you to address the above concerns.  VC  00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made the suggested changes to the article. I hope I have addressed your concerns. –TCN7JM 03:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You addressed everything except part of the point about choppy paragraphs. The two paragraphs in the Lead should be combined into one.  VC  05:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good enough to pass now.  VC  05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)