Talk:Ontario Highway 59/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominator:  Floydian  τ ¢

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:.
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

✅


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) * The material is not contentious and does not require inline citations.
 * 4) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 5) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 6) ** Major Point 1: Route description
 * 7) *** Route description in the lead "It connected ... en route." is very short and not an accurate summary of the body.
 * 8) ** Major Point 2: History (summarised well in the lead)
 * 9) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 10) ** Major Point 1: Route description ( mismatch in due weight between the lead and the body )
 * 11) ** Major Point 2: History (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 12) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 13) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 14) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 15) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 16) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 17) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 18) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 19) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 20) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 21) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 22) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 23) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 24) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 25) * The lead is too short in comparison to the content in the body and should be expanded.
 * 26) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: None
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: None
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):
 * 16) * Check for Links:
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):

Check for WP:WTW:''' None

Check for WP:EMBED:''' ✅
 * The table is standard in such articles. Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416

✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious)
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) ** Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
 * 7) ** Ministry of Transportation and Communications
 * 8) ** Peter Heiler
 * 9) ** Ontario Department of Highways
 * 10) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 11) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 12) ** very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416
 * 13) ** Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5
 * 14) * What else has the author published?:
 * 15) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 16) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):
 * 17) * Reliable. Used in other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416
 * 18) * Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5
 * 19) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅

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


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) * Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5
 * 8) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 9) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 10) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 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 ''' ✅ (Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416.)

✅

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


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):
 * 2) Check for copyright status:
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):

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


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):

As per the above checklist, the issues identified with the lead are :
 * Route description in the lead "It connected ... en route." is very short and is not an accurate summary of the content in the body.
 * There is a mismatch in due weight given to the Route description in the lead and the body.
 * The lead is too short in comparison to the content in the body and should be expanded.

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   ♥  22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added a bunch of info to the RD portion of the lede, and removed duplicate links as necessary. There isn't much to add to the lede regarding the history, but I stuck in a small blurb noting that the length tripled as a result of the changes in 1961. Let me know if you can see anything else that might be worth squeezing in. Once again, thanks for the reviews :) Cheers,  Floydian  τ ¢  05:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. It's looking really good now. Passing the article to GA status. Congratulations! -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  10:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)