Talk:K-146 (Kansas highway)
 | K-146 (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: September 26, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:K-146 (Kansas highway)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing later. Are you sure you're done with the article?—– 21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. Go ahead and start whenever you're ready. TCN7JM 21:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay then.
- Does ref #6 have a title?
- Ref #5 is dead.
- Ref #2 is blank.
Those three are the only problems. —– 21:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Replies:
- Added.
- That was a traffic count map, but the same (possibly more specific) info was included in the PMIS data, so I used that instead.
- Fixed.
- I believe everything has been addressed. TCN7JM 21:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, passing.—– 22:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
OR
edit@LilianaUwU: I can't find where it says "K-146 is not part of the National Highway System" in the source. The analysis being done appears to be that because it is not included we can conclude that it is not part of it... But that is clearly OR. Absence has never been evidence on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Primary source overuse
editA primary source overuse tag was removed but every single source appears to be primary, can you explain your thinking on this one @LilianaUwU: or was this just collateral damage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- She doesn't need to explain anything. Have a nice day. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 02:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- She does not, but I can't think of a reason she wouldn't. Never met an editor who wasn't willing to explain their edits. How did you find this conversation? You don't appear to have ever edited the page or the talk. Are you present here as the result of an off-wiki discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)