Talk:K-30 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC) I am looking forward to working with you and hope that we can expedite completion of this review. Thanks. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

Is it reasonably well written?
A (prose):
Prose was concise and to the point.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
The David Rumsey map collection is a very nice historical tool. Should footnote 9 include its name as well as the name of the underlying map?
Sure, but I have no idea how.— P C B 15:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it. If there is a better way, someone can always improve it. Racepacket (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — P C B 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kansas Highways Routelog a reliable source? Is it the source of your statements that K-30 was paved in 1953? (From the map alone, you can only say "by 1953.")
I added the 1952 map so "in 1953" would work. No it is not a reliable source.— P C B 15:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Article is appropriate for the subject.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article represents significant work by its author, and only minor suggestion about sourcing and a possible RS question were raised. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]