Talk:Montana Highway 48/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 12:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This article needs a lot of work to be worthy of the Good Article label, so I am going to fail the review. There are too many errors, reference problems, and a load of smaller issues to expect the article to be improved in a short period of time. I want to draw particular attention to criterion 5, article stability. There are no blatant signs of article instability like edit warring. Rather, the major concern is that this article has existed less than 24 hours as of the time of this review. There have been no edits by anyone other than the author. All edits were made in userspace except for the move of the article from userspace to mainspace. If this article came out of the box in good shape, that would be one thing, but there are too many glaring errors. I have included a list of items, not necessarily exhaustive, that need to be fixed. Please take your time—seriously, let this article sit for at least a month so you have some editorial distance—and rewrite this article as one that follows the Good Article criteria or is close enough that it just needs a little push to make it over the hill to GA status. V C 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"state maintained" add hyphen
"connects MT 1 to Interstate 15" This is a glaring error, both here and everywhere else in the article. The eastern terminus is not I-15.
The Lead, and the remainder of the prose of the article, do not mention Anaconda at all. Anaconda and Deer Lodge County are a consolidated city-county. You do not need to mention the consolidation in the Lead (save it for the Route description), but you do need to mention the route is in Anaconda.

Route description

MT 48 parallels a creek shown on the Montana state map and an airport that has a Wikipedia article. You should mention those.
"The roadway passes several large farms" The highway passes along the edge of active or inactive mining lands, not farms. You should mention that and provide details to improve the interest level of the article.
"before bending eastward" The angle of the bend is small, so it is probably not worth mentioning.
"The highway continues past several houses, and proceeds through rural area." These are not worth mentioning. By the way, you need to include the indefinite article 'a' before "rural area."
"reaching its eastern terminus, an intersection with Interstate 15's frontage road" This is wrong, and I am not just referring to the number of the Interstate. Please consult reference 1 and look at an aerial map like google maps.
The settlement at the eastern end of the highway has a Wikipedia article. You should mention it.
There is no mention of the railroad crossing. The railroad is shown on the state map, so you should mention it here, too, and provide the owner of the railroad if possible.
I do not think the traffic count is important, but you can leave it in if you want. If you do, include a wikilink for annual average daily traffic.

History

"Montana State Highway 48" Abbreviate this using the convention you have been using.
Where did you get the exact date the highway was designated? I checked the sources and that date is nowhere to be found.
"A short stretch of MT 48 existed by the mid 1920's" One grammatical issue and one substantive issue. First, remove the apostrophe from 1920's. Second, where was this short stretch?
"and most other portions of the highway were created by 1949." Which other portions were created by 1949?
"By 1951, the entire length of the highway existed in its present location." Reference 1 includes the year 1978 for a short stretch of the highway. As you can see from the last several comments, a lot of the history is missing.

Major junctions

The section header should be Major intersections.
The line above the table needs to mention Anaconda.
The eastern terminus is wrong, but you knew about that already.

Infobox

The "east end" part should be corrected and a location added.
Remove the "existed" year; as I mentioned before, the source does not mention it.

References

There is nothing wrong with the references by themselves. The main issue is how they are used.

Images

No images outside of the route marker, so a moot point. V C 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]