Talk:Ontario Highway 91/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Seabuckthorn in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Nominator: Floydian τ ¢

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn  03:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply


1: Well-written

  Done
  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:     Done
  2. Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):     Done
    • The material is not contentious and does not require inline citations.
  3. Check for Introductory text:     Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):     Done
    • Check for Relative emphasis:     Done
    • Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):     Done
      • Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):     Done
        • "King's Highway 91, commonly referred to as Highway 91, was a provincially maintained highway in the Canadian province of Ontario. The short route connected Highway 24 south of Collingwood to Highway 26 in Stayner, a distance of 7.9 km (4.9 mi)."
      • 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
  4. Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):     Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:  
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:  
    • Check for Separate section usage:  
  5. Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):     Done
  6. Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):   None
  Done
  1. 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
      • Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea.
  2. 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
  3. 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


2: Verifiable with no original research

WP:RS:  
  Done
  1. Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):   (not contentious)
    • Is it contentious?:   No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:  
  2. Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  
    • Who is the author?:  
      • Department of Highways
      • Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
      • Peter Heiler
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:  
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:  
    • What else has the author published?:  
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:  
  3. Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  
  4. Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):  
  Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:     Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:  
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:  
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  
WP:NOR:  
  Done
  1. Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):     Done
  2. Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):     Done
  3. Check for original images (WP:OI):     Done


3: Broad in its coverage

  Done

Not all sources are accessible. Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416. Random check on accessible sources - Source 2,4,5

  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:  
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:  
    2. Check for Out of scope:  
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:  
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:  
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:  
      • Random check on accessible sources - Source 2,4,5
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:  
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:  
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):  
b. Focused:  
  Done
  1. Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):  
  2. Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):  


4: Neutral

  Done

4. Fair representation without bias:     Done

  1. Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):     Done
  2. Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):     Done
  3. Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):     Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):     Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):     Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):     Done
  7. Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):     Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):     Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):     Done
  10. Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):     Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):     Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):   None
  13. Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):   None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc:   Yes

6: Images   Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)

Images:  
  Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:     Done

  1. Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):     Done
    • Image (Highway 91 leaving Stayner.png): This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This version permits free use, including commercial use.
  1. Check for copyright status:     Done
    • Image (Highway 91 leaving Stayner.png): Free.
  2. Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):   None
  3. Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):   NA

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:     Done

  1. Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):     Done
    • Image (Highway 91 leaving Stayner.png): Relevant.
  2. Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):     Done
    • Appropriate & Representative
  3. Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):     Done
    • Caption: "Former Highway 91 facing west from Stayner" succinct and informative


As per the above checklist, the issues are:

  • Fix short paragraph.


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  04:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've puffed the text where I can. This is one of those routes that was boring and short, so it's hard to find much to add. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn  01:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply