Talk:Montana Highway 87/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Kadzi (talk · contribs) 21:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Accepted Review: Is well written, respets laws and is clear and concise. Verifiable Very neutral, has the makings of a good article, good sources. Very well done!
- Huh? This doesn't seem like a very thorough review... --Rschen7754 21:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Since there have been a few concerns over this review, which I echo, I will take over reviewing responsibility. TCN7JM 21:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The second half of the lead is a bit choppy. What I mean by this is that every sentence begins with "In <year>" and there's really no sense of chronology. You should let the sentences flow into each other a bit more by using transition words.
- I've altered the sentences so that they flow a little better.
- The article already abbreviates US 287 in the lead, so typing it out in full with the abbreviation next to it in the route description is redundant.
- Shortened to just US 287.
- In the history, is "state highway 1" intended to be all lowercased? I can't really tell because I don't have access to the source provided for that statement, but I would imagine they would be capitalized.
- It was a mistake, capitalized now.
- General highway improvement, such as construction projects (which is what it looks like happened in 1998), aren't notable enough to be included.
- Although I thought the renovation of the entire route would have been notable enough, I've removed the sentence.
- Does the Montana Road Log exist online? If so, you should link to it in one of the citations.
- Was already done. It was linked in the "Bibliography" part of the References section.
Though the highway has already technically passed the review, these issues really should be fixed. TCN7JM 22:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't logged on today until just now, so I didn't even notice the original review. I replied to the above concerns, as I consider it the proper review of the article. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)