Talk:Ontario Highway 46

Proposed move to Ontario Highway 46

In this edit Floydian sugested moving this page to Ontario Highway 46 overewriting the existign redirect at that page. As an admin patrolling Category:CSD, I decliend the request. I did this because the move does not look entirely uncontroversial to me. The article says that "Ontario Highway 46" was the road's name "between 1937 and 1997", or actually for only part of that time, as it seems to have been "King's Highway 46" for part of that time. However it also says that the name has been "Kawartha Lakes Road 46" since 2001. I should think that the current name would be favored as the aricel title. However if discussion favors "Ontario Highway 46" or indeed if there is a consensus for any othe name, I will be glad to do the move, or you can use requested moves. DES ^(talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I moved the article to this title a few years back, but was unfamiliar with notability as it pertains to roads at that time. I doubt anybody will be responding here as I'm more or less the sole content editor on this article who is still active. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 46/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 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.

1. 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 wood lot wikilink should probably be removed. I have a feeling no one is going to be making an article about that anytime soon. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

2. 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:

   There is a citation error in the eighth reference. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:37, 13 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Floydian: This article is a short-and-sweet affair, and is ship-shape overall. Address the items above to pass the review. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

   Fixes implemented. Review passed. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 18:14, 14 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.