Talk:Ontario Highway 44/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Callanecc in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Callanecc (talk · contribs) 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Could the sentence "Highway 44 was assumed by the province in 1938" be clarified by defining what was assumed (control, maintenance, etc or if it was named or constructed). Same thing in the History section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- Could you please check the year of publication for Ref #4. I see what you're trying to do but I'd suggest just going with 1990. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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:
- Since the source is offline I'm AGF here.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Again since there are offline sources I'm AGF.
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Floydian: Overall this is really good, though short, it adequately covers the topic. There are a couple things I've raised above. I've placed this review on hold until they're addressed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review Callanecc! I've addressed the firs issue by expanding that it was created by assuming existing unimproved roads in both the lede and history. The second issue simply required switching the slash to a dash... a task I should undertake for all Ontario road articles with AWB at some indeterminate point in the future. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 05:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Ontario Highway 44 is now a good article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review Callanecc! I've addressed the firs issue by expanding that it was created by assuming existing unimproved roads in both the lede and history. The second issue simply required switching the slash to a dash... a task I should undertake for all Ontario road articles with AWB at some indeterminate point in the future. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 05:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Floydian: Overall this is really good, though short, it adequately covers the topic. There are a couple things I've raised above. I've placed this review on hold until they're addressed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
