Talk:Ontario Highway 101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Canada / Ontario (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
 
WikiProject Canada Roads / Ontario (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
TopicsOntario blank.svg Ontario  
 
 
Note icon
This article may or may not contain a map. Please check, then add "needs-map=" to this template accordingly.
Note icon
This article has a KML file.
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]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 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. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. 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 sentence above the table is not necessary, and should be replaced with a title above the table (the reference in the sentence can be attached to the title). Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. 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:
    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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    The gallery at the bottom is not necessary and should be removed, as the article is already filled sufficiently with images. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    @Floydian: This article is ship-shape overall. Just apply the minor fixes I outlined above and this review will be complete. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review Jackdude101 (coincidence on the 101!). The note you mention above the junction table is standard for all highway articles, to the point that it is automatically generated by the templates we use for the table. I've commented out the gallery, as the images themselves may be swapped or added in future expansions... I agree that they add nothing to the article, and a link to commons is better served. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:52, 13 October 2017 (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.