Talk:K-149 (Kansas highway)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "K-149's southern terminus is at..." is wordy
 * The first paragraph of the RD needs to be rewritten entirely for wordiness. I would shoot for  130 words (2/3 the current size).  Some pointers:
 * a. Instead of "flat rural grassland", just call it by its name, the Great Plains. You don't need to say much more than that.
 * b. Talk about the survey correction line instead of Q Avenue.
 * c. Just use the pipe trick to link to the Neosho River instead of mentioning it's a tributary.
 * d. The NHS line is only worth mentioning if it's included, and even then should be used sparingly.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Unit conversions:
 * Lengths are adjectives, so double check that any lengths are separated from other adjectives with a comma.
 * Anything mileage that converts to less than 1 km should be converted to meters instead of km.
 * Utilize 's area functionality instead of breaking up dimensions with conversions, i.e.:  → 6 x
 * Inflation:
 * Make sure you're using US-GDP for capital works projects like highways.
 * Also make sure you're using for the converted year.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * I have some questions about the bridge replacement. This is a common occurrence, so why mention it?  Why was the weight limit placed on the bridge in 1957?  Why did it take 20+ years to happen?  Why does it take 9 sentences to say a bridge was replaced?
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Route markers are all PD. I should know.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Could use an actual picture of the route, but that's not always possible.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold so the nominator can work on it. –Fredddie™ 07:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I believe I have fixed everything you mentioned. Let me know if I missed something. Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looked over it again and noticed something I didn't before. Are refs 8–11 supposed to support that K-149 was on these trails or US 56?  Either way, gleaning that from those sources is WP:SYNTHESIS. –Fredddie™ 02:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Refs 8-10 support what cities the auto trails terminated in. Ref 11 shows that those auto trails closely folllow what is now US-56. -420Traveler (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That first paragraph doesn't add anything to the article. Yeah sure, US 56 follows some auto trails, but it was some 30 years between the auto trails and K-149's designation. So that paragraph is just fluff; I would get rid of it. –Fredddie™ 02:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I got rid of it. Could have suggested that in the first place. -420Traveler (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your snarky comment almost made me fail the article. Instead of doing that, I'm going to be civil and ask for a second opinion. –Fredddie™ 14:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't mean to be "snarky" was just curious. If you had of failed it because I asked a question I would have been able to ask for a second opinion. Thanks -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are a few things I noticed on a glance.
 * passes through grasslands characteristic of the Great Plains - I'm not disputing that the land is grassy or that the highway passes through the Great Plains, but the fact that the grasslands are "characteristic" is neither sourced in the article nor particularly relevant.
 * I cant think of a different way to make it sound better, or should I find a source. Do you have any suggestions? -420Traveler (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fredddie told me that he actually added this, so I guess you can disregard this comment per WP:FACTS. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ok Sounds good. Other than that I think I have fixed all the other issues. -420Traveler (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All right. I think Fredddie would have to make a final decision now. My second-opinion comments are merely advisory and the original reviewer has the ultimate say over whether the GAN should be passed. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Epicgenius says it's fine, so I will pass the article. –Fredddie™ 17:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The highways alignment has not changed since it was created. - "highway's" is supposed to have an apostrophe.
 * -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from a 1/10-mile (160 m) jog to the east due to a survey correction near its midpoint - "Near its midpoint" should probably go right after "jog to the east".
 * I hadnt wrote it that way, @Fredddie had changed it to that during his review. -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the Great Plains be mentioned directly rather than having it piped like plains ?
 * -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was the bridge over the West Fork Neosho River new construction or a preexisting structure?
 * The new bridge replaced an existing bridge. -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * seal the entire length - I know what "seal" means in this context, but it's an uncommon usage of the word. I'd rephrase this.
 * Should be fixed now -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If they were particularly notable, I would've kept the details about the bridge's design or dimensions.
 * They were notable. -420Traveler (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's not really much to say here. Given how short the highway is, and the lack of features on it, I suppose that's all that can be written in terms of comprehensiveness. Otherwise, I agree with the comments Fredddie made in his review. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadnt wrote it that way, @Fredddie had changed it to that during his review. -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the Great Plains be mentioned directly rather than having it piped like plains ?
 * -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was the bridge over the West Fork Neosho River new construction or a preexisting structure?
 * The new bridge replaced an existing bridge. -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * seal the entire length - I know what "seal" means in this context, but it's an uncommon usage of the word. I'd rephrase this.
 * Should be fixed now -420Traveler (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If they were particularly notable, I would've kept the details about the bridge's design or dimensions.
 * They were notable. -420Traveler (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's not really much to say here. Given how short the highway is, and the lack of features on it, I suppose that's all that can be written in terms of comprehensiveness. Otherwise, I agree with the comments Fredddie made in his review. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)