Talk:K-17 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks good enough to pass now. V C 05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]