Talk:Ontario Highway 76/GA1

GA Review

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: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this article as well! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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.	Wikilink Elgin County in the lead and at its second appearance in "Route description" Overall, things should be wikilinked the first time they appear after the lead, so I suggest you go through "Route description" and add some links Prose is good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Add Template:Use Canadian English and Template:Use mdy dates tags at the top, and also Template:Canspell in the talk page. Complies with MOS guidelines
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.	All citations in "References" are properly formatted.
	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).	Use C of the Google Maps source needs to be replaced due to Maps having come under some scrutiny recently (see this FAC and this RFC). Uses A and B are fine since they're double-cited by another reliable source, but we need a different one for use C. Most sources are to print maps or reports, all good here
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited, no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses route description, history, and major intersections- all good here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
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.	Only image is of the highway's sign, and is properly PD tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image of the sign is appropriate
	7. Overall assessment.

Floydian, also a great article, just a few things above and then it'll be good to go! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the lengthy delay. I've added in a published map reference for the third use of Google Maps. Like with Highway 37, I'm going to hold off on duplicating links due to how brief of a topic this route is. Thanks for the review! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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.