K-53 (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: March 25, 2021. (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 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 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-53 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best! jp×g 05:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Earwig's checker says that there is no copyvio from online text sources; most other sources are from maps.

• Y No controversy to speak of with this one.

• Y Written well. No real MoS violations I can see.
•   Some large blocks of text (like in §Establishment and realignments) could stand to be broken into multiple paragraphs.
  • Should be good now? -420Traveler (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N The first paragraph of §Route description has three references clustered toward the end, making it difficult to tell which statements are from which sources. Ideally, each statement would have its own citation, but at the very least, there should be more than one cluster at the end.

Should be fixed now. Let me know. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is better. I still don't see anything about a "Cowskin Creek", though: Google Maps, and both of the maps referenced, call that the Arkansas River. jp×g 18:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added second reference, should be good now.-420Traveler (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Dope. jp×g 07:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 1 (1927 atlas), used as citation for the construction date of the highway, is just an atlas from 1927. This source doesn't actually say that the highway was built in 1927; it just means that, in that year, it was shown on a map. Are there any actual records of when it was first designated?

Dont know what you want me to do with this? This is how its done in almost all GA and FA road articles. There are no actual records. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no sources that provide a date for something, we don't know when it happened; atlas features aren't usually a good source for this (a longer explanation is at WP:MAPCITE). In this case, there aren't even maps from 1926 or 1925 referenced, so it could have just as easily been designated in those years... jp×g 17:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I added a reference to my 1926 atlas, which shows no state highway there. -420Traveler (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Seems fine. I'll AGF on the ref jp×g 22:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 2 (Pavement Management Information System) doesn't actually give me any information: when I click the URL, I'm given a search page where I have to put in district and county number. The reference should specify these, because the search won't run without them.

The county is 96 and the district is 5, im just not sure how to add that to the citation. -420Traveler (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Okay, I was able to access the page and it confirmed the information in the article (also added the county and district number to the ref). jp×g 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I wasn't sure exactly where to add the info to the reference. -420Traveler (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 3 (City of Mulvane) does not give a scale, nor does it support most of the stuff in that paragraph ("through flat rural farmlands", "becomes surrounded by trees", etc).

Google maps shows if its forested and what the landscape is. This is done in almost all GA and FA road articles. The mulvane map shows the names of the streets. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fine, per comment on Ref 5. jp×g 18:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 4 (Sumner County) also says nothing about rural farmlands, Cowskin Creek (it says that it passes over the Arkansas River), or sylvan surroundments.

Google maps shows if its forested and what the landscape is. This is done in almost all GA and FA road articles. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fine, per comment on Ref 5.

• N Ref 5 is... to Google Maps. This is not generally acceptable for the claims that it's being expected to hold up in that paragraph.

Google maps shows if its forested and what the landscape is. This is done in almost all GA and FA road articles. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Well, I checked some highway FAs and I'll be damned if they don't routinely cite Google Maps. This seems absurd to me, but this GA nomination is not the place to argue about it. jp×g 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 6 (Traffic Flow Map) does not say anything about 1,900 vehicles, 4,470 vehicles, or any of the like: all it seems to say is that there were less than 10,000 vehicles. Is there another source here I'm not seeing?

It does, Look at the map again. Theres numbers with black lines pointing to spots along the highway. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YOkay, I see what you are talking about now. jp×g 17:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Ref 7 (NHS map) seems fine.
• N Ref 8 (National Highway System) doesn't say anything about K-53 being connected to the NHS at its intersection with I-35 (which is the statement it's attached to).

The map shows I-35 as part of the NHS, which is connected to K-53, so its is therefore connected to the NHS at I-35. This is done in many road articles. Same concept as Ref 11. -420Traveler (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map at Ref 8 ("What is the National Highway System?") doesn't seem to have anywhere near high enough resolution to show where I-35 is in relation to K-53. There isn't a higher-quality map of the NHS that could be used for this?jp×g 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would this map that shows Mulvane be better? -420Traveler (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one looks great. jp×g 22:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I added the Wichita map source. -420Traveler (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Cool beans. jp×g 07:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 9 (Pavement Management System Glossary), which is dead but I was able to find an archived version, says nothing about K-53.

You are correct, but it does describe what "partial design bituminous pavement" is. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Okay. It's paired with Ref 2 in its only appearance, which wasn't accessible at the time: now I can see that Ref 2 supports the bituminous construction, so this is fine now. jp×g 18:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Ref 10 (KDOT) does specifically talk about the section of K-53 in Mulvane.
• Y Ref 11 (1924 atlas) does show the Meridian and South West trails aligning with K-53's western terminus.
• Y Ref 12 (NHRP designation) does say that the Meridian Highway was from 1911.
• Y Ref 13 (1949 resolution) does slightly realign K-53.
• Y Ref 14 (1952 resolution) does slightly realign K-53.
•   Ref 15 (1953 resolution) talks about K-15, I'm not sure what this has to do with K-53. The map in that document doesn't seem to mention K-53 at all.

The section of K-53 in Mulvane was originally part of K-15, so this is part of the history. -420Traveler (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Have added a bit to clarify this. Seems fine now. jp×g 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•   Ref 16 (Great Bend Firm Low Bidder) does not talk about K-53 either, it's just about K-15 and K-42.

This was part of the project to move K-15 to the new alignment. Its part of the history of how the realignment progressed. -420Traveler (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Seems fine now. jp×g 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•   Ref 17 (Work Ordered To Begin) also doesn't say anything about K-53.

This was part of the project to move K-15 to the new alignment. Its part of the history of how the realignment progressed. -420Traveler (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Seems fine now. jp×g 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 18 (1956 map) shows K-53 in the place it's claimed to, but nothing about extending it along East Main Street.

Map shows that K-15 is on new alignment which means K-53 had been extended? -420Traveler (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't seem to say anything about East Main Street, unless I am missing something. jp×g 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more info to that sentence, will it work? -420Traveler (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't find anything in that map talking about East Main Street. Is there any source that mentions this? jp×g 23:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that mentions it directly. Would it be better to change it to "along the former section of K-15 (East Main Street) to the new alignment." to make it sound better? -420Traveler (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y That'd be fine to me. jp×g 07:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 19 (1957-1958 map) doesn't really clearly show anything that I can see; certainly not whether K-53 connects to the turnpike.

Theres no exit at K-53, so therefore it doesnt connect to the turnpike? -420Traveler (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Okay, I can see it now. jp×g 18:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 20 (1986 map) doesn't show exits.

Look again, it does but not at K-53. -420Traveler (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Okay, I can see it now. jp×g 18:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• N Ref 21 (1987 map) doesn't show exits either.

Look again, it does and shows one at K-53. -420Traveler (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that there's an exit there, but what's the number? The "33" in a black box, pointing toward the junction with the turnpike?jp×g 18:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes correct, that is the exit's number. -420Traveler (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Cool. jp×g 22:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@420Traveler: There are significant issues with the sourcing in this article, to the effect that virtually nothing in it is supported by the citations currently in it. If these issues are not fixed, I will have to fail it. jp×g 07:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I fixed some things, let me know. Thanks, -420Traveler (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@420Traveler: Okay, I have looked over it again. Most of the issues seem fine now, although there remain a couple. jp×g 18:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I fixed the other things except for a couple which I have a question about. -420Traveler (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@420Traveler: We are almost good to go. Thoughts on the last couple? jp×g 23:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@420Traveler: Okay, that red cross is the last edit I think this article needs. Ping me when you've done it and I'll pass :) jp×g 07:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Okay, all done. -420Traveler (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based! Passing now. jp×g 18:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]