Talk:Ontario Highway 11/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Asheiou (talk · contribs) 18:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

At a cursory glance, citations seem regular and to back up facts, there aren't any banners or noteworthy inline tags. The article contains a lot of detail about the topic to which it pertains and appears to provide a comprehensive overview.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose is concise, grammar and spelling are to a high standard besides a few superficial errors I have corrected, and the article is overall easy-to-read and understandable.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article does not cover fiction, the lead section is perhaps a bit long but absolutely passable, word choice is acceptable. Lists and layout are also appropriate.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   All 145 references are listed at the bottom of the page.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   The vast majority of sources listed are indisputably reliable. There are some links to Google Maps, which are perhaps not ideal by themselves, but are consistent in their information with other sources. There was one dead source I came across, but I have linked in an archive.

   c. (OR):

   No original research is cited. Of the citations I checked, all back up the article.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   After a manual check as well as using https://copyvios.toolforge.org, I cannot find any evidence of WP:COPYVIO or WP:PLAGIARISM.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The article covers the history, route, and future of the road in great detail, not straying from that topic.

   b. (focused):

   The article is concise while providing a lot of relevant detail. There are not any tangents that I can see.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Nothing here violates WP:NPOV. The article doesn't touch on controversial issues, and certainly doesn't pick a side in any.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I can't see any recent edit wars at all, seems to me like it's stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images are clearly tagged as either CC or public domain. WP:AGF on the origins of the images, of course.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All media adds to the article and uses informative, concise descriptions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.