Talk:Ontario Highway 61/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The "D" in "Route Description should not be capitalized. Further comments below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Somewhere along the way, Ref 7 lost its companion entry. That means it's quite incomplete now.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The images are all good. Can you send File:Pigeon River Truss.png over to the Graphics Lab for text removal though?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose

In the lead is the sentence: Minnesota State Highway 61 travels south-west to Duluth, where it meets Interstate 35." You don't need to repeat the "Minnesota" a second time. In fact, you probably should indicate the abbreviation after the first mention because the name is abbreviated in the infobox. Either way, it's redundant. (It's also a bit incorrect as the proper name for it should be Trunk Highway 61, but certain members of WP:MNSH revert to that name/abbreviation on sight as a knee-jerk reaction.) "State Highway 61 travels south-west to Duluth, where it meets Interstate 35." is fine there though.
In the lead, you describe the highway in a north to south fashion, but switch to a south to north sequence in the body of the article. Consistency, consistency.
"Passing its former routing at Highway 593, the route curves east to avoid a mountains." Two things here: "routing... route" and "a mountains."
In the history: "The "The Outlaw" bridge...." Two problems: the double "the" and the use of both quotation marks and italics. I would lose the "the" outside of the quotes and drop the italics, because italics is meant for emphasis, not quotation under the MOS.
In the See also section, you've properly italicized the movie title, which is good. You could pipe the link to drop the disambiguation term, and add a short note after the link. The other option would be to pipe the link a little differently Something like:
- Highway 61, a 1991 film by Canadian director Bruce McDonald.
- Highway 61 (movie)

MOS concern

The MN 61 marker appears in the end of the line in the junction list. I know that you prefer to place it there to "balance" the line out visually. The problem is that you've just connected the marker semantically to the word "Minnesota" and not to "State Highway 61", where it belongs. There's a reason that the markers are all supposed to precede their description text per MOS:RJL, which is to comply with the spirit of MOS:ICON, and avoid semantical issues like this.

Over all, the article is in good shape, deserving of promotion to GA status, with some minor changes as outlined above. Imzadi 1979 → 04:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made all the fixes. Though I disagree aboutthe ast point, this is't the place to try nd change things. However, would it make a difference if instead of "State Highway 61 in Minnesota {shield}", I made it "Minnesota State Highway 61 {shield}"? = ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really on the last point. All other markers precede their accompanying text (with the sole exception of the "forward" option in the browers in the infobox). That's been pretty much a standard convention. Flags precede country names, and highway marker graphics precede the highway names in the US, the rest of Canada and the UK, and that's how it's been for years now. Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since all changes necessary have been made, the article is passing. Imzadi 1979 → 07:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm hoping I can make a case with the junction list, but as I said, that's for another venue and another day. Thanks for the review! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]