Talk:K-17 (Kansas highway)/GA1

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

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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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.  V C  00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made the suggested changes to the article. I hope I have addressed your concerns. – TC N7  JM  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.  V C  05:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good enough to pass now.  V C  05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)