Talk:K-55 (Kansas highway)

K-55 (Kansas highway) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 3, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Kansas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Roads: State highways / Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics  U.S. state highways   Locations  Kansas   This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it. This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists. This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:K-55 (Kansas highway)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ncchild (talk · contribs) 19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

• Will review this shortly. This will be my first GA review so it may take a second as I make sure I'm doing everything correctly.--Ncchild (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See comments below

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   B. All

   reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

   :

   See the one comment about the BNSF railroad, which is a minor issue at best.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

   A quick Commons search didn't show anything so good to go here.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• There are several instances where you use the same word to start a sentence back to back. K-55 is used back to back in the first and third paragraph. You also have a string of three "By ____" in the third paragraph of the lead. The same word probably shouldn't start the same sentence back-to-back, although I understand theres only a limited number of options.
  • Should be  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

• "and soon" (first paragraph): This might be just me but it would be nice to have an actual distance or an approximation of the distance.
  •  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "the highway" "the roadway" comes up several times back to back in the first paragraph. It would be great to have some sort of differentiation between the two. K-55 could replace the first instance of "the roadway" but the others might be harder.
  • I think I got them all. -420Traveler (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps place the Udall map citation after the mention of the BNSF railroad track. You can cite it again at the end of the paragraph, but its easier to tell exactly where you determined it was BNSF.
  •  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "By 1931"..."By 1932": Once again, some differentiation would be good. I think "By 1932" could easily be moved to the back of the sentence to create the differentiation.
  • Should be all  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For the 1930 construction, did you ever get a date of final completion? I know you mention the completion of the Arkansas River bridge but not the Cowskin Creek one.
  • I couldn't find info for that bridge. -420Traveler (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "By October 1941, SHC engineers and surveyors were planning the new route from Wichita to Winfield." Some clarification on which route would be great. I am assuming this is for K-15 but I can't really tell.
  •  Fixed -420Traveler (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major intersections

• Looks good to me.

Overall

• @420Traveler: Overall it looks quite solid, the main issues I can see are quite minor. I'll read over it again tomorrow and see if I find anything else and if so I'll tell you. Let me know if you have any questions.--Ncchild (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ncchild: Fixed most of what you said, let me know if you see anything else. -420Traveler (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @420Traveler Looks good to me, I'll go ahead and pass it! Ncchild (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]