Talk:Ontario Highway 144/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Only area of possible confusion I saw: "home to the scenic A. Y. Jackson Lookout, overlooking the waterfall depicted in his 1953 painting..." - replacing "his" with "Jackson's" would make this a bit more readable.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- The first paragraph in Route description has no inline reference, and it's unclear where the information in it is from.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Overall: this article is pretty good. The citation should be pretty easy to add- once it's added, I'll pass the article. If no action's taken in seven days, I'll fail the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've added two refs that verify the information in the paragraph in question, and made the change to "Jackson's" as you recommended. Thanks for the review! - Floydian τ ¢ 03:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Floydian: thanks, passing. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)