Talk:Ontario Highway 69/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 21:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to review this article.VR _talk 21:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian just some early thoughts:

Is the highway ever called "Ontario Highway 69"? If so, perhaps that name should be bolded in the title.
Should there be a section on notable incidents on the highway?
What was the economic impact of the highway on communities it serves?
Should there be a section on treatment of this highway in culture (literature, film, art etc)?

Nevertheless, I notice that most GAs on American interstates don't contain this sort of information (eg New Jersey Route 440). It just seems odd to me to have an article so dry.VR _talk 04:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Officially it is King's Highway 69, but most people just refer to it as "Highway 69". The title is simply a disambiguation of the common name. There aren't any notable or significant incidents that have come to my attention... just run-of-the-mill accidents. As for the economic impact, surely massive given that it is the only road through an area isolated until it was built, but there aren't any studies or commentary into the impacts of highways generally (at least not individual highways), so there is nothing to comment on. Same goes for culture... there's a local company that makes t-shirts and like most roads with the number 69 or 420, frequent sign thefts.

But, as you noted, none of this generally appears in these types of articles, save for iconic roads like Route 66. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now for the review.

1. Well-written.

The article is well written. No spelling or grammatical issues. However, some sentences seemed a bit long for my taste. I think for FA status this article would benefit from making sentences a bit shorter, hence more readable. Nevertheless, I can follow the prose. It follows MOS guidelines, no WTA that I can see. Only stumbling block here is that the lead makes no mention about the politics of four-laning (NDP, PCs, Libs) which does gain significant coverage in the article. I would like to see that covered in the lead, even if its summarized as one sentence. I think its important, because the article is very technical and dry, and covering the political aspects in the lead will make it more interesting to the reader.

2. Verifiable with no original research.

Every sentence in the article body has a citation. I AGF that the sources are cited correctly. The sources are appropriate for this article, and I don't see any reliability issues. The use of google maps as a source was interesting (I don't think I've seen that used before on wikipedia), but it was appropriate here. This article is mainly based on WP:SECONDARY sources, so the occasional used of a WP:PRIMARY source is fine. Citation style is appropriate. No original research, no excessive quotations. No BLP issues.

3. Broad in its coverage.

As mentioned above, I would have liked this article to contain the economical and cultural dimensions of the highway. However, Floydian asserted that reliable sources don't have much to say about this. I couldn't find much from a 5 minute google search.

4. Neutral

No NPOV issues. Most of this article is so technical, you wouldn't expect there to be any NPOV issues. The political stuff is covered objectively.

5. Stable

Yes. I don't see any recent disputes in the article history or talk page.

6. Illustrated

All images are relevant and have captions. I don't see any copyright issues with any of them.

I think this article is ready for GA, except that one issue with the lead that I mentioned. As soon as its addressed (either fixed, or explained why it shouldn't be in the lead), I can pass the article. Good job on the article, Floydian! VR _talk 03:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to the lede on how all three major political parties have committed to finish it (even though there is currently no commitment to finish it). Fixed a few borked references while I was at it. Thanks for the review! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent:, figure this slipped through the cracks on your watchlist. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I've been ignoring my watchlist (long story, but it has grown too big and I don't have much time these days). I was hoping for more political history in the lead, but that's entirely my subjective opinion. I'm passing the GA, good job again.VR _talk 05:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]