Talk:Ontario Highway 169/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. See discussion at Talk:Ontario Highway 41/GA1 with nominator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Is any online source available for Cites #2 and 3 (Toronto-Sudbury Highways to be Renumbered) and (Highway Transfers List)? Or are they entirely offline? As before, please add archives as available to the Ontario Road maps.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Hi Floydian, not sure if you saw my post-review discussion with Horse's Eye Back on the previous review page, but per the recently closed RfA (see 2b) we're going to have to be careful about OR. Specifically, in this article, descriptions like "passing through meadows and forests", "rougher, rockier, and dotted with lakes and swamps", "serving recreational cottages", etc. Please remove any descriptions like this that are sourced to interpretation from a satellite image, or map that does not explicitly have land cover categories, etc. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, nothing found by Earwig or by manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, nothing else of importance found.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.