Talk:Ontario Highway 117

Ontario Highway 117 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: July 30, 2021. (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 has a KML file.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 117/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 21:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the comma after "in Dorset".
Add WP:ALT text to the image in #History.
"not province-wide movement" → "not a province-wide movement"
"The entire route was located in the District Municipality of Muskoka." – add a source
Ping when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: fixes made, thanks for the review. I'd ask that you kindly take a more in-depth look at Highway 103, as that was an article I was hoping to get some feedback on. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fixes. I couldn't find any issues with Ontario Highway 103 though. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·