Talk:Ontario Highway 55/GA1

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

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


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

No dab or external link issues.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The writing is fine. I have a comment below, but it doesn't impact the status of the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Nothing of note here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The references and referencing look good. I would suggest that the map for fn4 have the publisher flipped to Last, First, unless it's a company named after a person. FN 13 should have a full citation given with the information from the paper (reporter, paper name, date, etc).
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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 caption for the photo might be considered a complete sentence needing a period... I'll let you judge that one though.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Really minor comments that don't impact listing the article. I give it the green +.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Really minor comments that don't impact listing the article. I give it the green +.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment, but the first short paragraph ("A former Highway 55 designation connected Highway 6 and the QEW with Highway 53, passing through the Mountain district of Hamilton; this route was decommissioned in 1961. The more recent designation was applied in 1970, following the establishment Niagara Region.") in the History section seems to be unnecessary.


 * Rather than creating separate articles I tend to explain past uses of a number. Keeps things organized for our readers. Fixed up that ref as well! Thanks for the review :) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * the article is looking really good, nice job.Beefcake6412 (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)