Talk:Montana Highway 287

Montana Highway 287 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: July 8, 2017. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / Montana 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 articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. state highways

Locations

Montana

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.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in September 2018.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Montana Highway 287/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Floydian (talk · contribs) 20:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Canada is very big. Which highway, province or city did it connect to?
- I added the nearest towns on either side of the border in the History section, including the province for the Canadian town. I do not think we need that level of detail in the Lede. V C 04:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The highway was rerouted to assume MT 34 in the early 1960s and was removed from the cross-state corridor, along which it was mostly replaced by US 287, in the mid-1960s." - this sentence is rather confusing.
- I split into two sentences and made the wording clearer and less complex. V C 04:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

An official map can't reference the descriptions of the surroundings. Add Google maps as a reference, and possibly something else for the tailings piles (no doubt there is some local news article describing them and the history behind them). Ref [6] seems like a candidate.
- I added a local website and a Google Maps reference. V C 02:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel too many sentences begin with "MT 287". YMMV.
- I generally alternate MT 287 and "the highway" or "the route." If you notice any instances where consecutive sentences start with MT 287, I will fix them, but I think every other sentence is fine. V C 04:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may make sense to simply list the towns where it is known as Main Street rather than repeating that info at each applicable town along the route. Again, YMMV; both this and the above are up to you.
- I do not think it is excessive to mention each town's Main Street. V C 04:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DO you figure all of those redlinks are potential articles? The church and the houses seem iffy... but I'm not in on the local history at all.
- The redlinks are either tourist attractions, National Register of Historic Places, or secondary state highways. The first two are of classes notable enough to have their own articles, and the latter may be part of a list article someday. V C 04:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Any images that you can add of this highway? Can you provide a map perhaps?

I do not have any images. Images are not a requirement at the GA level. V C 04:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's somewhat subjective. Having an image is not a requirement if there are no suitable free photos, but if there is or are any, at least one should be included. Regardless, I assume you'd have one if there was one. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Overall, the history is very well referenced (though I say this having not completed a check of the refs themselves), and I have very few complaints. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review, Floydian! Good to hear from you again. I addressed all but one of your points. I will address the last in the next few days. V C 04:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good to me. Add another ref throughout the RD to address the physical surroundings and you're good to go! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added references to the Route description. V C 02:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the article meets the GA criteria as far as I'm concerned. I do recommend adding the province to the lede and using Google maps as a second source alongside the state road map, but I won't let either hold up the promotion. Great work! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]