Talk:Ontario Highway 402/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pzoxicuvybtnrm (talk · contribs) 04:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Is it normal that everything be linked multiple times across sections? Also, a general comment (over my confusion as an American, maybe not for you) is that several of the town names are the same as U.S. states. If you feel that it is not necessary to clarify, it need not be done. In the route description, what do you mean by having an advantage over Ambassador Bridge?

   In addition, can you clarify earlier in the article what the London Line is? Is it part of CNR? — PCB 04:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

   Will do. It's just a road; the old highway before this one was built. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

   In between the lead and the rest of the article, yes. Otherwise, no. --Rschen7754 06:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The last three news article links are dead.

   Oi. You'd think these news stories were like 10 kB at most, and not a huge deal to preserve... But a year later they're blanked like clockwork. And of course half the news agencies has some complicated site setup that makes it so even the Internet Archive only grabs the visual look of the page but not the content of the article. Found 1 archive link, replaced two with another paper that still carries the story. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead should probably be expanded a little. Mention of important intersections as well as a slightly more elaborate description of its construction and planning should probably be included.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   The images depict the road well.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, the article looks very well-done, except for a few minor issues listed above. I will put the article on hold until the issues are addressed.

• Thank you for the review! I'm making some of the changes now but I thought I'd answer some comments now. WP:CANSTYLE generally recommends against rementioning the province in place names once an article has established which province its in. I ensure that I specify when it's a place outside of Ontario. I've made some of the fixes already but will finish off the last changes in several hours (and post here after) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Alright, links should be all fixed up and I clarified the "advantage" with better words. As for London Line, it actually explains what it is with the first mention: "Now parallel and north of London Line, the former route of Highway 7,"... however, I've added a blurb to explain the significance of that. The lead has been expanded as well. Highway 401 is really the only significant interchange, and the vast majority of traffic travels the entire route. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  After a minor change, the article is ready to pass. — PCB 23:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)