Talk:Manitoba Provincial Road 280

Manitoba Provincial Road 280 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 4, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada Roads: Manitoba Low‑importance

This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. 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.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport articles

Low

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

Topics:
/
	Manitoba

This article has a KML file.

Canada: Manitoba Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.

GA review

I'd like someone else to review this because I am not exactly sure of the factuality of the Canadian road system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxplayer630 (talk • contribs)

I've failed the article. Issues include:

Lead is too short - doesn't really summarise article fully.
A mass of redlinks, not a pretty sight.
Refs need {{cite web}} usage.
Generally not thorough - I'm sure there's plenty more info in all the areas, which could/should be discussed.

Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review #2

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~Junction list table looks like it has one too many rows. There is a redlinked image in the infobox. Is the highway signed by the government at all?~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~The road looks more east-west oriented than north-south. Is that true? Also, I'm assuming this is entirely a gravel route for its 181 km length. The history section needs something prior to 2002.~~
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Just a few little things. Interesting article! —Rob (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few things you've mentioned have been my quest for over a year. History prior to 2001 (you misread the york landing thing) and getting shields in the article will be impossible due to crown copyright. Thanks, I didn't notice some stuff. ^Mitch32^contribs 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Even then - what route to Giliam existed before Route 280? Or was Giliam one of those cities you flew into or sailed into, with no real road access? —Rob (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gillam's closest airport is in Thompson, 291 kilometres away, and I'm not sure there was any possible way to get to Gillam before 280, whenever it was commissioned.^Mitch32^contribs 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I don't know if it would exist or not, or if it can be found. There are some {{convert}} templates needed where distances are measured in miles, too. Somehow I missed that. —Rob (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks to Seddon69, that has been fixed.^Mitch32^contribs 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right... I guess the only outstanding issues are whether or not it's totally a gravel road for its entire length, and what the mode of transportation was prior to the road's commissioning. Even if that particular bit of information doesn't exist, a bit of searched revealed some early history and at least one railroad, so at least that's something. :-) —Rob (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my last comment, apparently there is an airport to the southeast (just oustide) of Gillam. I'll make sure to addd that soon. :) ^Mitch32^contribs 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added, and yes, the article is gravel its whole length until Road 290, where it becomes paved, according to the Manitoba map.^Mitch32^contribs 20:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'd like a little more content in the history section, but it might be difficult to find, so I've passed the article. —Rob (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't how this qualified as a factually correct article, since calling anything in Manitoba a "glacier" is nonsense. There isn't even permafrost at the latitude of this road. The use of the term "mountain" is laughable, but at least somewhat more tenable than the glacier comment. Whatever Yahoo maps showed in 2008 was likely just annual snow. 50.71.133.252 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]