 | Ontario Highway 138 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. Review: October 14, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 138/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: no cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Sticks to the well-sourced facts.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Period should be removed in thumbnail caption. Also, there is a period missing in the last sentence in the History section. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Floydian: This article is a short-and-sweet affair, and is ship-shape overall. Address the small issues above before the review is passed. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Fixes have been implemented. Review passed. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Floydian: This article is a short-and-sweet affair, and is ship-shape overall. Address the small issues above before the review is passed. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.