Talk:Ontario Highway 8/GA2

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (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) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm happy to take this over - looks like a lot of progress has already been made. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (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.	Impressively, no prose issues found - I think the prior GA review took care of them! Pass.
	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).	Pass - I never love Google Maps personally but consensus at WP:RSN has established it's ok for things like this. All other sources of acceptable or high quality.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, none found. Some of the sourcing is a little close to OR (eg Google Maps) to my taste but well-established precedent for this on road transport articles.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else notable found in local newspapers. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	More detail than I find interesting about a road, but that's just me - for the general reader, it's at a good level of detail and not excessive. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues - pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues or edit wars. Pass.
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.	No issues - all copyrighted and PD images look in order and are properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Perhaps 1-2 too many images to my taste, but not enough to keep it from passing this criteria. Captions are good. If any are to be removed, I would suggest File:Conestoga and Freeport interchange.png, which is duplicative of the 1970 image, or maybe File:Highway 8 widening.png.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article is in great state and passes GA without any changes needed from the nominator. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.