# Talk:K-143 (Kansas highway)

This review is transcluded from Talk:K-143 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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): 
"The route runs 4.658 miles (7.496 km) through mostly agricultural lands from a junction with Interstate 70 (I-70) in northern Salina, Kansas to a junction with U.S. Route 81 (US-81)." — you use "junction" twice, and "through agricultural lands" sounds strange. In addition, I'm wondering why you add those things in the parentheses. Maybe you could try rewording to something like "The route runs 4.658 miles (7.496 km) through lands mainly used for agriculture, from a junction with Interstate 70 (I-70) in northern Salina to an intersection with U.S. Route 81 (US-81)."
I changed this as best I could...really, both of them are interchanges with interstate standard highways, so I've changed it to that to try and be more accurate. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"The southern part of the route is a four-lane divided highway while the rest is a two-lane highway." — "is"? IMO, "use" would convey the meaning better; and you should explain that the two-lane part is the northern part, as there's no map to indicate whether it runs from north to south or east to west. "The southern part of the route uses four lanes, while the rest runs with two lanes." or something similar.
I have to disagree on this, I'm afraid, mostly because I think it would change the meaning of the sentence. I'm trying to convey exactly that the highway is a four-lane divided highway for the southern part and a two lane highway for the rest. I can clarify with the mileage value, if you feel that's better for explaining the south-north part. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"It has an annual average daily traffic (AADT) between 1580 and 4133 vehicles." — Add a comma in the numbers?
 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"It was first designated as US-81 Alternate and the designation was changed to K-143 in the early 1980s." — two problems. When was it designated US-81 Alternate, and the "and the" sounds slightly bumpy here. "It was first designated as US-81 Alternate in ____, which was later changed to K-143 in the 1980s [put a more specific date here, if possible]."
Fixed, I think. I'm trying not to be too specific in the lead about things like dates and AADT values so that the lead doesn't just turn into a restating of what's in the article. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, could you explain that the highway runs from north to south in the lede clearly?
 Done, but I'm not sure that it improved it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"For the first 0.9 miles (1.4 km) of the route the highway travels due north through commercial and agricultural land within the Salina city limits." — comma? "For the first 0.9 miles (1.4 km) of the route, the highway travels due north through commercial and agricultural land within the city limits of Salina."
 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"A short distance after this, it switches from a four-lane divided highway to a two-lane highway." — change to "A short distance this point, K-143 transitions from a divided four-lane highway into a two-lane highway" or something along those lines.
 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"It then crosses the Saline River and continues north through the primarily agricultural land north of Salina." — remove "the" — "It then crosses the Saline River and continues north through primarily agricultural land north of Salina."
 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"The total route length is 4.658 miles (7.496 km)." — sounds slightly awkward, can you reword it to something like "The total length of the route is 4.658 miles (7.496 km)."?
 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"K-143 has an AADT of 4133 vehicles in the southernmost 0.9 miles (1.4 km) of the route, with an AADT of 1580–1595 vehicles in the remainder of the route." — add commas into the numbers?
 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"The route is paved with a combination of full design bituminous pavement, composite pavement, and partial design bituminous pavement." — add hyphens between full and design, and partial and design; it also would be helpful to explain what "partial design" refers to
Got the hyphens in, and I would say what partial/full design are but I honestly have no clue myself...it's mostly why I linked bituminous. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"K-143's route was established between 1970 and 1971 as US-81 Alternate." — any specific year?
Unfortunately no...the history of such non-major highways is pretty much completely unavailable, so I had to determine the year it was established by seeing that it wasn't on the 1970 official Kansas highway map but was on the 1971 one. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"The numbering was changed to K-143 between 1981 and 1983." — same here
Same as the comment above. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
"The entire route is in Saline County." — I'd prefer it as "The entire route of K-143 is in Saline County", but that doesn't really matter.
I'd change it if I could, but unfortunately it's automatically generated by the template below. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Citation one leads me to a query page.
See the query results, which I have pasted at the bottom of the review. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand it, but since I can (sort of) verify some of the reffed stuff, I'll accept it. HurricaneFan25 23:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What makes Google's cartography reliable? Whose data do they use, or do they survey it themselves?
They survey themselves, but I cited the information I had cited with Google with a Saline County map, too, so hopefully that alleviates your concerns. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
All other refs are fine.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Is there more for history? (e.g. accidents, re-pavements, proposals, etc.)
Unfortunately not that I can find that would make for good inclusion in the article. [1] is a search of the local daily newspaper and suggests there have been some accidents (and even that unusual one at the top), but for one they're paywalled and for another I don't see that they actually merit inclusion in the article (I don't see any deadly accidents). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: