Talk:Ontario Highway 59/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Floydian ^τ _¢

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Done Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done The material is not contentious and does not require inline citations. Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Route description Route description in the lead "It connected ... en route." is very short and not an accurate summary of the body. Major Point 2: History (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Route description (mismatch in due weight between the lead and the body) Major Point 2: History (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done The lead is too short in comparison to the content in the body and should be expanded. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications: None Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None Check for Links to sister projects: None Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): Check for Links: Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):

Check for WP:WTW: None

Check for WP:EMBED:  Done

• The table is standard in such articles. Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416

WP:RS:

Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious) Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING): Who is the author?: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications Peter Heiler Ontario Department of Highways Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416 Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5 What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING): Reliable. Used in other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416 Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5 Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations: Check for Likely to be challenged: Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Not all sources are accessible. Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416. Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5 Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5 Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416.)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS): Check for copyright status: Check for non-free content (WP:NFC): Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR): 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE): Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE): Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):

As per the above checklist, the issues identified with the lead are:

• Route description in the lead "It connected ... en route." is very short and is not an accurate summary of the content in the body.
• There is a mismatch in due weight given to the Route description in the lead and the body.
• The lead is too short in comparison to the content in the body and should be expanded.

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm delighted to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've added a bunch of info to the RD portion of the lede, and removed duplicate links as necessary. There isn't much to add to the lede regarding the history, but I stuck in a small blurb noting that the length tripled as a result of the changes in 1961. Let me know if you can see anything else that might be worth squeezing in. Once again, thanks for the reviews :) Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. It's looking really good now. Passing the article to GA status. Congratulations! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)