Talk:Ontario Highway 76

Ontario Highway 76 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: May 25, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Canada Roads: Ontario Low‑importance

This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics:
/
	Ontario

This article needs a map.

This article needs a KML file. If it already has one, add |needs-kml=no to the Canada Roads banner.

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Passed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 76/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy to review this article as well! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Wikilink Elgin County in the lead and at its second appearance in "Route description"~~ ~~Overall, things should be wikilinked the first time they appear after the lead, so I suggest you go through "Route description" and add some links~~ Prose is good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Add Template:Use Canadian English and Template:Use mdy dates tags at the top, and also Template:Canspell in the talk page.~~ Complies with MOS guidelines
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All citations in "References" are properly formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Use C of the Google Maps source needs to be replaced due to Maps having come under some scrutiny recently (see this FAC and this RFC). Uses A and B are fine since they're double-cited by another reliable source, but we need a different one for use C. Most sources are to print maps or reports, all good here
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited, no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses route description, history, and major intersections- all good here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only image is of the highway's sign, and is properly PD tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image of the sign is appropriate
	7. Overall assessment.

Floydian, also a great article, just a few things above and then it'll be good to go! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the lengthy delay. I've added in a published map reference for the third use of Google Maps. Like with Highway 37, I'm going to hold off on duplicating links due to how brief of a topic this route is. Thanks for the review! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic