Talk:London, Ontario/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

After a quick couple of read-throughs this article appears to be at or about the right standard for GA. I will therefore start an in-depth review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC) As this is a long article, the review is likely to take a few days.

At this point in the review, I'm only highlighting "problems", everything else will be covered in the Overall summary section.

Note: London Free Press reorganized their website, and in the process made pretty much all of their articles unavailable. I've been unable to access them online, and thus have replaced all links to London Free Press with other sources, and removed material for which I could find no other reliable source. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• History -
  • Founding -

• Ref 7 is a 320 page book, the relevant page or page numbers should be quoted in the citation.
•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC). Ref 8 is a 52 page pdf file, the relevant page or page numbers should be quoted in the citation.

• • Development -

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC). Ref 19 does not provide any verification of what is claimed.
• The current Ref 19 does provide verification of over 1,000 homes damaged, but not the costs of the damage.

• • Annexation to present -

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 25 is a broken link.
• The claim the "The City of London is currently the tenth-largest city in Canada, tenth-largest census metropolitan area in Canada, and the sixth-largest city in Ontario." is unreferenced.

• Geography -

•  Done Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC). Ref 28 cits wikipedia; and is therefore not a valid citation.

• Economy -

• Ref 41 is a broken link.

.....continuing. Pyrotec (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Culture & Sports -

• These appear to be compliant

• Law and government -
  • Civic initiatives -

• Ref 69 is a broken link.

• • Historic buildings -

• This is a very short section with two sentences; the second sentence is unreferenced.
• In the first sentence, ref 70 is cited to verify the statement "London is home to over 100 heritage properties, registered at all levels of government". However, the figure 100 does not appear (approximately 3,900 buildings are mentioned); and four Priority levels Priority 1, 2, 3 and 9 are defined, but I'm uncertain how this relates to "registered at all levels of government"

• Transportation -
  • Road transportation, "London Ring Road" controversy and Future plans -

• Ref 75 is a 93 page pdf report: it is called up eleven times. The relevant page number or page numbers should be quoted in the citation.
• Ref 79 is a broken link.

• Education & Sister cities -

• These appear to be compliant.

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to provide both an introduction to the article and a summary of the main points. The lead, as it currently stands, is rather short and it is not all that effective as summary of the main points of the article. It could do with some expansion, possibly doubling in size. Pyrotec (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

• Sorry for the delay in concluding this review. The requested changes appear to have been made or in some case no longer need to be made due to copyediting changes so promptly that I missed them. I will now conclude the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   well-referenced.

   B. Focused:

   well-referenced.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   well-illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   well-illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article and thanks for carrying the corrective actions very quickly. I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)