Talk:Ontario Highway 140/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Welland is a disambiguation link that should be fixed.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I made a few copyedits to improve the prose. Otherwise, it looked good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Footnotes 5 and 9 need the PDF format indicated. The extensive quoting in the references is a bit distracting. Two options are to transfer the quotes to the talk page or to use HTML comments to hide them. Drop fn 7 completely. The part of the sentence it is supporting is unneeded detail, and that's a SPS.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Too many extraneous details about the other roads in the area. Several times, these extra details interrupt the flow by shifting the focus from Highway 140 to another highway for a sentence. If they can't be integrated into the one sentence, the details are too much and should be eliminated. Part of the problem is that the extraneous details also force you to repeat highway names too much. The reader is bouncing back and forth between Highway X and Highway Y, and the only way to keep them straight is to refer to them by name every time.
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):
Looks good there.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just a few fixes and suggestions above. I audited the article for non-breaking spaces and dashes, and I updated the junction list to comply with MOS:RJL. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've rewritten the first few sentences of the RD in hopes of making it more clear, as well as removing details elsewhere that were overburdening the text. I hid a few of the quotes but left two that I believe are important (especially since many of the sources are offline/dead tree). Thanks for the review! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]