Talk:Ontario Highway 53/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:08, 16 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) 12:20, 10 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) 12:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floydian:, only one thing to do here to reach GA, please see if you can find links for the maps that are not 404s, and then we should be all set. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archive links added. Government decided to fix what wasn't broke, and broke things. Thanks for the review! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This article meets the GA standard! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:07, 16 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.	Pass, no issues after a few minor tweaks by me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	The links to all of the maps seem to be dead, the domain may no longer exist. Swap for alternates if they exist, or remove hyperlinks. Issue addressed via archive links, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Roadways articles shy towards OR (or at least, interpretation) more than many of our others, but we have established precedent/guidelines here and this article meets them, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig (given sources) but hold for manual spot check. Pass, no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, was concerned about overdetail, but this appears to be at an appropriate level of summarization.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues here.
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. A map of the route would be nice to have but is not required, and I understand that it might be tough to find one that can be added to Wikipedia that highlights Ontario 53.
	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.

@Ganesha811: you said that this article doesn't have th typical roadways OR but that doesn't appear accurate. Text like " the road travelled southeast through farmland as Oxford County Road 55 and crosses Highway 403" appears to be OR and is still in th article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your perspective, but I would say that statements like that are in accordance with the recently-affirmed changes to our OR policy regarding maps and charts. I know you participated extensively in that discussion, while I did not, so let me know if there is some interpretation I am reading incorrectly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of thing that is not included in that, the map doesn't feature a layer for land use which would show farmland. If we had a map that showed land use and for example farming was purple, recreational was blue, conservation was red, etc that would be an acceptable use case under the recently affirmed language. Describing something which the map does not show is still OR. This sort of thing would have been allowed by Proposal 2b ("Satellite layers (i.e. on Google Maps) can be used to reference statements about elements such as ground cover that can easily be verified.") but "There is consensus against both proposal 2a and 2b" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification! You are right and I will be more careful with this for future reviews. For now, I'm removing the relevant sentences in the articles. Without them, it should still be fine against the GA criteria. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a minute to look at it. Agreed that without those bits its good to go GA wise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]