Talk:Interstate 470 (Kansas)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Fredddie ™ 17:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See below for a full review of the text.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Three issues. 1) Why do you use Bing maps to show the route when there is a perfectly acceptable map of Topeka on the back of the Kansas state map? 2) Two references cite the Lawrence Daily Journal-World. Both use {{Cite news}}, but one of them uses |publisher= and the other uses |newspaper=. Why is that? 3) Dates in the references have inconsistent formats.
Removed some instances of bing maps. I need it for the miles. Fixed and fixed. --P C B 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I did a news search and found that a portion of I-470 was named after Martin Luther King, Jr. around 1982, though it did not say which portion. Could you find it and add it?
Can't find it. List of streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr. doesn't have Topeka either. --P C B 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Images would be useful, but are not required.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'll put this article on hold until these issues are corrected. –Fredddie ™ 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most issues. I am having problems with the history (there are no costs listed anywhere I've looked) and with the exit list. (KDOT's milepost page doesn't list all the exits, so Topeka Boulevard has to be referenced to bing maps.) Could I get a little advice on what to do on these? --P C B 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. What's here is certainly better than what we had before. I think it's a good idea to move the review below to another forum (WP:HWY/PR) I'll go ahead and bump it up. –Fredddie ™ 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review now located here –Fredddie ™ 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited second-opinion

Just an unsolicited opinion here -- the RD seems pretty short for a 14-mile long road. See something like I‑70 for what a 14-mile long road can look like. --Admr Boltz 04:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree, but I imagine this article will be moving onto a different forum after GAN. Skewer it then

–Fredddie ™ 02:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue it fails 3a (comprehensive) on WP:WIAGA with such a short RD. --Admr Boltz 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon the recent additions, I have no issue with the RD now. --Admr Boltz 23:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]