Talk:Ontario Highway 48/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 11:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I see there are a few similar articles pending at GAN; hopefully some of what comes up here can smoothen all of your nominations, I should be able to do a few of them over the next few days if they're pretty similar.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

We have a red link to "urban-rural fringe", and a blue link to "rural-urban fringe"; make sure the term is used uniformly in the latter phrasing.

Fixed. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"macadmized". Should this be "macadamized"?

Fixed. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have bold text in the middle of the article, avoid this.

Removed. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a line then formed by today's Stouffville Road / Main Street Stouffville". If this is saying what I assume it to be, try "a line then formed between today's Stouffville Road and Main Street Stouffville".

Changed. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cloverleaf" seems quite unintuitive; I've certainly never encountered one. Can we wikilink it to something?

Clarified. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few repeated links throughout; User:Ucucha/duplinks is a handy tool for finding these.

Removed redundant links. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"where the name Markham Road resumes for two km. until Major Mackenzie Drive". This seems an exception to the usual use of unit conversions here, but do check that there aren't any more I've overlooked.

Added conversion. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
This all seems fine, everything is supported adequately. I'll have to AGF on the majority of the sources but nothing is controversial or likely to be challenged.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Scope is fine, gives a suitably wide overview.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No pro- or anti- highway bias.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is stable, gnome edits over the past few months but nothing major or contentious.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

The licensing for File:48 and 401 cloverleaf.png may need to be looked at; if I'm reading it correctly it should be PD in the US now too, having been crown copyright before 1965, but I could be wrong on this.

Based on the date of the image, it should be PD in the U.S., but I might want to check with someone else as I'm not an expert in Canadian copyright law. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend using alt text for any images used in the article.

Added alt text. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Floydian: Shouldn't be a huge amount of work for this one, I'll keep it on hold until it's rectified. GRAPPLE ^X 11:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X: Looking at Floydian's contribs, it appears he is on a WikiBreak. Thanks, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should have looked at that. I'll keep an eye on this a little longer in case they return, and if not I'll ping the parent wikiproject in case someone else wants to jump on in. GRAPPLE ^X 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to drop Floydian an email, but he's been nonresponsive to other emails lately. If there's no further response, asking at WT:HWY might be a good idea. --Rs chen 7754 20:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made some fixes to the article. Dough4872 04:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These changes look sufficient to me, I'm happy to pass this. I would still advise looking into the image rights but I don't believe it's vital at this time. Thanks for rescuing this one, Dough4872. GRAPPLE ^X 09:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]