Talk:K-101 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Will review in a bit.  Sounder Bruce  21:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * any progress? --Rschen7754 22:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Rschen7754. It's been over two months!! Either abandon it or review it?! -420Traveler (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Review is as follows:


 * Lead
 * Remove "approximately" from the first sentence.
 * Move the county to the first sentence.
 * "Rural farmlands" needs only one descriptor, not two.
 * Remove the 0.55 mile length; better to describe it as a short spur.
 * No need to have a separate sentence for the changing designation of another highway; it could simply be noted with a parenthesis.
 * Link to K-96 should be on the first use; Wichita is also irrelevant.


 * Route description
 * "Southern terminus" isn't exactly a good opener; I suggest "K-101 begins at"
 * K-101 and "The highway" are repeated too often and need to be replaced with other phrases.
 * "Quickly enters" is vague.
 * No need for a comma after "Walnut Avenue"
 * "As it crosses" can just be "and crosses"; also, which railroad is this? Where's the citation for the grade?
 * "becoming known" can just be "becomes known"
 * "begins to pass by"...so it passes the airport?
 * Why is 9000 Road mentioned at all?
 * "a crossing over X Creek" is repeated and not particularly interesting to readers.
 * "continues [for] a short distance" is missing a word.
 * "tracks the traffic levels" is far too casual.
 * "On K-101 in 2020, they determined that, on average," uses too many commas.
 * AADT link should not be an easter egg
 * Second highest traffic count does not need to be mentioned; the other figures need to be explicitly mentioned as the highest and lowest counts.
 * If it's not on the NHS, then why mention it?


 * History
 * The 0.55 figure should be moved to here; mentioning in the lead without a corresponding figure in the body is odd.
 * "In a resolution approved on X" is repeated far too often. The prose is tedious and boring.
 * Exact dates are also not needed unless they are relevant to the timeline, like the April 28 date that follows an earlier action.
 * One of the Five Ws is missing here: the Why. Why was each extension made? Explanations are needed, since these decisions are not made without some analysis.
 * The 1971 crash seems to have no lasting effect, so it does not need to be mentioned.
 * The postponed vote sentence needs to be shortened to hold interest from your readers; my suggestion: "The city planned to widen the highway and add signals to the highway, but a vote was postponed due to opposition from two business owners concerned about the removal of parking spaces."
 * "Approved to widen"...approved a what?
 * The bids were received, but where is the proof that work was completed? Coverage is not comprehensive enough.
 * Far too many citations in the last paragraph. It could also be reduced to not overcover K-96 in an article about another highway.


 * Citations
 * KDOT should be linked in the first citation (Ref 2), not Ref 4

Sorry for the delay, things offline have been very busy. This one is in need of a lot of work and it took me a few reads to actually chew through the prose.  Sounder Bruce  06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * While there has been some progress, there's not been enough to let this one pass in its current state.  Sounder Bruce  06:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It's funny it took over two months for you to review it, but then you couldn't give me a little extra time to fix the few things you mentioned. But OK, I'll just renominate it. -420Traveler (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)