Talk:Ontario Highway 53/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , only one thing to do here to reach GA, please see if you can find links for the maps that are not 404s, and then we should be all set. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Archive links added. Government decided to fix what wasn't broke, and broke things. Thanks for the review! - Floydian τ ¢ 14:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This article meets the GA standard! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

you said that this article doesn't have th typical roadways OR but that doesn't appear accurate. Text like " the road travelled southeast through farmland as Oxford County Road 55 and crosses Highway 403" appears to be OR and is still in th article. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your perspective, but I would say that statements like that are in accordance with the recently-affirmed changes to our OR policy regarding maps and charts. I know you participated extensively in that discussion, while I did not, so let me know if there is some interpretation I am reading incorrectly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing that is not included in that, the map doesn't feature a layer for land use which would show farmland. If we had a map that showed land use and for example farming was purple, recreational was blue, conservation was red, etc that would be an acceptable use case under the recently affirmed language. Describing something which the map does not show is still OR. This sort of thing would have been allowed by Proposal 2b ("Satellite layers (i.e. on Google Maps) can be used to reference statements about elements such as ground cover that can easily be verified.") but "There is consensus against both proposal 2a and 2b" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for the clarification! You are right and I will be more careful with this for future reviews. For now, I'm removing the relevant sentences in the articles. Without them, it should still be fine against the GA criteria. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a minute to look at it. Agreed that without those bits its good to go GA wise. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)