Talk:K-181 (Kansas highway)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ToThAc (talk · contribs) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, here are my opinions on this:
 * Criterion 1: ❌ for now. Though well-written on the surface, I'm not seeing any actual cohesion between sentences. The worst example of this is the paragraph detailing the highway's exclusion from the NHS (which I honestly think is odd to even include considering it's clearly a highway maintained at a regional level). I'm also a bit irked by the fact that the history section consists of a single paragraph, where it might be more appropriate to split it into different clauses depending on the situation.
 * Criterion 2: ✅. No immediate problems here.
 * Criterion 3: . While GA does allow for smaller articles, I feel that this article might be a bit too small to be a decent example of what a good article should be. Open to suggestions, though.
 * Criterion 4: ✅. No problems here.
 * Criterion 5: ✅. Nothing to say here.
 * Criterion 6: ❌. Only relevant image used in the article is of the highway's shield marker, and nothing more. It would benefit a bit from two or three images showing certain points of interest on the route (and, if there are any, historic images relevant to the history section).

Overall, I'd say this unfortunately fails the good article criteria, with #1 and #6 being the worst offenders. ToThAc (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments
thank you for assessing the article. I tried to fix some of the problems that you had addressed. I can change how the article is written but I won't be able to get pictures of the road at the moment until I go through Kansas on my way to Colorado, as I live in New York State. Thanks and let me know if there's anything else I can do 420Traveler (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * just two comments on the review. First, criterion 6 says: "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio" (emphasis added). So while I understand the desire to have illustrations, the criterion doesn't actually require them. The criterion does go on to prescribe some requirements for media in the article (licensing, captions, etc), but I've never seen that as an absolute requirement to have media. (There are featured articles devoid of illustrations.) I would suggest to 420Traveler that we should create a KML, and from there, add the interactive map to the infobox. Then we should make a quick search for usable media on Flickr, et al. just to make sure that we don't have any options short of a Wikipedian driving to that area of Kansas. Second, the length of the article is a little short, but otherwise fine by my estimation. I'd personally expand the RD section some more. At 70 miles, I'd expect to see two paragraphs of description, plus any supplementary commentary in the last paragraph. So basically I'd double the first paragraph that exists now. (That paragraph is also devoid of citations, so I'd plot the driving directions in Google Maps and set it to show the satellite view. That gives you a chance to zoom in to briefly describe the landscape. Pair that with a citation to the current official KDOT map, and you'd be golden.) I'd also revise that last paragraph a bit in two respects: trim out the extra traffic counts (highest and lowest is sufficient) and add the standard description of the NHS for context. Otherwise, that paragraph reads well enough for its purpose. I hope these comments are helpful.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I expanded the RD. I also tried to create a KML file for the article. But as it was my first KML file I created, something is wrong and it needs fixing. Thanks for the help. 420Traveler (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What else would need to be done besides fixing a few sentences in the route description? Thanks. 420Traveler (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why was this article failed, because everything that needed fixing was fixed.? 420Traveler (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easier to just renominate the article than to bother asking any further questions here. ToThAc (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)