Talk:Ontario Highway 46/GA1
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.
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: no cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Sticks to the well-sourced facts.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The wood lot wikilink should probably be removed. I have a feeling no one is going to be making an article about that anytime soon. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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:
- There is a citation error in the eighth reference. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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:
- @Floydian: This article is a short-and-sweet affair, and is ship-shape overall. Address the items above to pass the review. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Fixes implemented. Review passed. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Floydian: This article is a short-and-sweet affair, and is ship-shape overall. Address the items above to pass the review. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
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.