# Talk:K-101 (Kansas highway)

This review is transcluded from Talk:K-101 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Will review in a bit. SounderBruce 21:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: any progress? --Rschen7754 22:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: I agree with User:Rschen7754. It's been over two months!! Either abandon it or review it?! -420Traveler (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Review is as follows:

Lead
Remove "approximately" from the first sentence.
Move the county to the first sentence.
"Rural farmlands" needs only one descriptor, not two.
Remove the 0.55 mile length; better to describe it as a short spur.
No need to have a separate sentence for the changing designation of another highway; it could simply be noted with a parenthesis.
Link to K-96 should be on the first use; Wichita is also irrelevant.
Route description
"Southern terminus" isn't exactly a good opener; I suggest "K-101 begins at"
K-101 and "The highway"  are repeated too often and need to be replaced with other phrases.
"Quickly enters" is vague.
No need for a comma after "Walnut Avenue"
"As it crosses" can just be "and crosses"; also, which railroad is this? Where's the citation for the grade?
"becoming known" can just be "becomes known"
"begins to pass by"...so it passes the airport?
Why is 9000 Road mentioned at all?
"a crossing over X Creek" is repeated and not particularly interesting to readers.
"continues [for] a short distance" is missing a word.
"tracks the traffic levels" is far too casual.
"On K-101 in 2020, they determined that, on average," uses too many commas.
AADT link should not be an easter egg
Second highest traffic count does not need to be mentioned; the other figures need to be explicitly mentioned as the highest and lowest counts.
If it's not on the NHS, then why mention it?
History
The 0.55 figure should be moved to here; mentioning in the lead without a corresponding figure in the body is odd.
"In a resolution approved on X" is repeated far too often. The prose is tedious and boring.
Exact dates are also not needed unless they are relevant to the timeline, like the April 28 date that follows an earlier action.
One of the Five Ws is missing here: the Why. Why was each extension made? Explanations are needed, since these decisions are not made without some analysis.
The 1971 crash seems to have no lasting effect, so it does not need to be mentioned.
The postponed vote sentence needs to be shortened to hold interest from your readers; my suggestion: "The city planned to widen the highway and add signals to the highway, but a vote was postponed due to opposition from two business owners concerned about the removal of parking spaces."
"Approved to widen"...approved a what?
The bids were received, but where is the proof that work was completed? Coverage is not comprehensive enough.
Far too many citations in the last paragraph. It could also be reduced to not overcover K-96 in an article about another highway.
Citations
KDOT should be linked in the first citation (Ref 2), not Ref 4
Sorry for the delay, things offline have been very busy. This one is in need of a lot of work and it took me a few reads to actually chew through the prose. SounderBruce 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

While there has been some progress, there's not been enough to let this one pass in its current state. SounderBruce 06:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: It's funny it took over two months for you to review it, but then you couldn't give me a little extra time to fix the few things you mentioned. But OK, I'll just renominate it. -420Traveler (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:K-101 (Kansas highway)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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 non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
It would be nice if there were some photos of the roadway, but that doesn't prevent promotion.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Looks good now, ready to promote. Imzadi 1979 →  21:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)