Talk:K-34 (Kansas highway)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 04:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I will review this in the next few hours, or so.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Disambiguation and external links ok. (You may want to switch the GMaps link to the full URL instead of the shortened one though.)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is mostly good, just needs some minor copy editing as detailed below. Technically it's a "nay", but easy to change to an "aye".
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Although there is a small suggestion to avoid a minor misattribution issue, and some minor formatting clarifications.
 * 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):
 * No photos here, so this doesn't truly apply at this time.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good effort here, and really there are only a few minor tweaks to be made. This should be a pass with about 30–60 minutes of work, tops.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good effort here, and really there are only a few minor tweaks to be made. This should be a pass with about 30–60 minutes of work, tops.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead comments
 * "... from U.S. Route 160 (US-160) and U.S. Route 183 (US-183) near Ashland to U.S. Route 400 (US-400)..." Just a personal preference, but you don't need to spell out the second and third highway names in full; the abbreviations alone would be sufficient here.
 * "... via a concurrency with .." the word concurrency should be linked to concurrency (road) here.

RD comments
 * "A series of curves takes the highway... " takes it where?
 * You should add a footnote to the GMaps citation before the part of the sentence about the pre-1965 roadway designation. That way no one would infer that the first half of the first paragraph is only supported by the 1965 map.

History comments
 * "... terminus.[10][1]" I'd double check that the footnotes appear in order. Nothing requires that, but it does just look more professional that way.
 * "Since the next sentence after the above example uses the same citations, and there isn't anything that controversial or counterintuitive in it, you can drop the redundant cites and let the one set of footnotes cover both sentences.
 * "... the whole designation was paved." This is a bit of a quibble, but the designation can't be paved. The designation is the number assigned to the highway, and not the highway itself. You could say that "the whole highways was paved" though.
 * The next two sentences after the preceding example also use "designation" where a different word, or some variety would be better.

References comments
 * I'd include PDF on the citations that are to files in the PDF format. Not all readers can read those files, and not all browsers are configured to display the icon with the link.
 * Footnote 7 should have FHWA linked since it's the first citation that mentions the agency.
 * Footnote 8 should be revised. FHWA is the publisher, and in this case, there are three "authors" in the form of the contact persons for that subsection of the larger FHWA website (Stefan Natzke, Mike Neathery, and Kevin Adderly). The section of the website has its own name (National Highway System) which could be used in the work parameter, and the title of the page could be then designated "What is the National Highway System?". Up to you, but the author/publisher distinction should be clarified. Also, the webpage has "Updated: 09/26/2012" so the date could be supplied as September 26, 2012.
 * Footnote 13 should not have "1963-64" as the year. That might be the edition (with an en dash, –, instead of a hyphen, - ) but I would assume that the map was published in 1963. Publication years are typically just one single year, never a range.
 * Ditto footnotes 16, 17, and 18.

✅– TC N7  JM  03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And passing.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)