Jump to content

Talk:Russellville Bypass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Russellville Bypass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 22:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Is there a map in existence for this bypass? The route description would be a lot easier to visualize with a map.
    • I agree about visualizing, but a map or any other kind of image is not a requirement at GAN. VC 02:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it's not required. I just thought I'd ask, as if one does exist, it should be added. I can't find a free one though, so the current state is fine
Route description
  • " The remainder of the bypass is in unincorporated Logan County" - This implies that the Russellville city limits are not in Logan County. Can this be rephrased to make it clear that the whole thing is in Logan County, but part of it is out of city limits? Also, the county is going to be incorporated as a county. If Logan County is rural or semi-rural, you can state that
  • "is a principal arterial" - Is there a link for arterial?
  • "In 2019, KYTC designated the US 79 portion of the bypass as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Highway.[8]" - Move this to history
  • "The bypass passes Russellville High School and cross Town Branch" - crosses
History
  • "and the state acquired enough right of way to later expand the two-lane road to a four-lane divided highway" - Through market purchase or eminent domain?
Major intersections
  • "The entire route is in Russellville, Logan County." - You've previously said that part of it wasn't in Russellville
  • The stuff in the table doesn't seem to be supported by the citations.
    • Since the bypass comprises three different numbered highways, the numbers are compiled from arithmetic. The exact method is not required to be explained at GAN, only that a source be provided. VC 02:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's fine for GA, but if you bring this to a higher level, a less opaque citation format will probably be requested.

I'll check back once these get addressed. Hog Farm Bacon 14:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, Hog Farm. VC 02:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay for the GA criteria, although I'd have some additional comments for any higher levels of reviewing. Hog Farm Bacon 16:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]