 | Ontario Highway 101 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 13, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: no cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Sticks to the well-sourced facts.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The sentence above the table is not necessary, and should be replaced with a title above the table (the reference in the sentence can be attached to the title). Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- The gallery at the bottom is not necessary and should be removed, as the article is already filled sufficiently with images. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Floydian: This article is ship-shape overall. Just apply the minor fixes I outlined above and this review will be complete. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Thanks for the review Jackdude101 (coincidence on the 101!). The note you mention above the junction table is standard for all highway articles, to the point that it is automatically generated by the templates we use for the table. I've commented out the gallery, as the images themselves may be swapped or added in future expansions... I agree that they add nothing to the article, and a link to commons is better served. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Floydian: Very well. Review passed. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.