Talk:K-368 (Kansas highway)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail of GA Review

Unfortunately, this article, which contains a Lead plus 9 sentences, fails potential consideration of GA status as described at WP:WIAGA under the criteria "Broad in its coverage". Five of the seven refs are maps, so perhaps additional RS would assist with an article expansion. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: Size is not part of the criterion. Unfortunately, there are not many sources, and I couldn't write more than there is.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 22:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the article. I read it, and re-read it, and re-read it before I quick failed it. I empathize that you have found only a few sources at this time, but I don't believe this article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" to the degree which satisfies the GA requirement. If you're able to expand the article, please ping me and I'd be glad to review it again. Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneIsaac: Yes, I think if you really can find no more than 9 sentences about a road then you shouldn't take them to GA. I've passed a few minor road articles myself in the past which are questionable, but they at least had more information even if the sources were mostly maps. The bare minimum should be something like Delaware Route 92 I think. I understand this is a minor country road in Kansas which is only a mile long so it's naturally not going to have much written about it if at all, but I think there does need to be a line drawn with the information it provides.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]