Talk:Ontario Highway 51/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Floydian ^τ _¢

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
• b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

WP:LEAD:

Done Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done The material is not contentious and does not require inline citations. Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done Definition and notability should be in the first sentence (WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?". Include exact points in place of "two separate provincially maintained highways". Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications: None Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None Check for Links to sister projects: None Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): Check for Links: Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):

Check for WP:WTW: None

Check for WP:EMBED:  Done

• The table is standard in such articles. Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416

WP:RS:

Done Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious) Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING): Who is the author?: Department of Highways Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Peter Heiler Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416 Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 4 What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING): Reliable. Used in other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416 Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 4 Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations: Check for Likely to be challenged: Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Not all sources are accessible. Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416. Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 4 Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 4 Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416.)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS): Check for copyright status: Check for non-free content (WP:NFC): Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR): 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE): Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE): Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):

As per the above checklist, the issues are:

• Include exact points in place of "two separate provincially maintained highways" in the first sentence of the lead.

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm delighted to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That may be tought to do in this instance. Like it says, there were two separate highways with the number, both of which have their endpoint mentioned. Do you think I should mention the more recent incarnation in the lede sentence and then mention the older route after? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A tough question for me to answer too. I think we should mention the latest answer to "What?" in the first sentence. Then the rest should follow as it is. At present, we need to read till the end to get a jist of it's "definition". But you have the most comprehensive knowledge of the article scope. So feel free to tweak the lede as you like, as long as it's clear and to the point. Update me when you're done. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Took a complete rewrite of the lede, but should be good to go. Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfect.--Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)