Talk:Montana Highway 87/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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. T C  N7 JM  21:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Though the highway has already technically passed the review, these issues really should be fixed. T C  N7 JM  22:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The second half of the lead is a bit choppy. What I mean by this is that every sentence begins with "In " and there's really no sense of chronology. You should let the sentences flow into each other a bit more by using transition words.
 * 2) * I've altered the sentences so that they flow a little better.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) * Shortened to just US 287.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) * It was a mistake, capitalized now.
 * 7) General highway improvement, such as construction projects (which is what it looks like happened in 1998), aren't notable enough to be included.
 * 8) * Although I thought the renovation of the entire route would have been notable enough, I've removed the sentence.
 * 9) Does the Montana Road Log exist online? If so, you should link to it in one of the citations.
 * 10) * Was already done. It was linked in the "Bibliography" part of the References section.
 * 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)