From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 89/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn ( talk · contribs) 03:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator: Floydian  τ ¢

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn  03:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC) reply


1: Well-written

 Done
  1. Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done
  2. Check for Citations ( WP:LEADCITE):  Done
    • The material is not contentious and does not require inline citations.
  3. Check for Introductory text:  Done
    • Check for Provide an accessible overview ( MOS:INTRO):  Done
    • Check for Relative emphasis:  Done
    • Check for Opening paragraph ( MOS:BEGIN):  Done
      • Check for First sentence ( WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done
        • Definition and notability should be in the first sentence ( WP:BETTER). As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?".
        • King's Highway 89, commonly referred to as Highway 89, is an east–west provincially maintained highway in the southwestern portion of the Canadian province of Ontario.
        • Include exact points.
      • Check for Format of the first sentence ( MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done
      • Check for Proper names and titles:  Done
      • Check for Abbreviations and synonyms ( MOS:BOLDSYN): None
      • Check for Foreign language ( MOS:FORLANG): None
      • Check for Pronunciation: None
      • Check for Contextual links ( MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done
  4. Check for Alternative names ( MOS:LEADALT):  Done
    • Check for Non-English titles:
    • Check for Usage in first sentence:
    • Check for Separate section usage:
  5. Check for Length ( WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done
  6. Check for Clutter ( WP:LEADCLUTTER): None
 Done
  1. Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done
    • Check for Headings and sections:  Done
    • Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done
    • Check for Paragraphs ( MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done
  2. Check for Standard appendices and footers ( MOS:APPENDIX):  Done
    • Check for Order of sections ( WP:ORDER):  Done
    • Check for Works or publications: None
    • Check for See also section ( MOS:SEEALSO): None
    • Check for Notes and references ( WP:FNNR):  Done
    • Check for Further reading ( WP:FURTHER): None
    • Check for External links ( WP:LAYOUTEL): None
    • Check for Links to sister projects: None
    • Check for Navigation templates:  Done
  3. Check for Formatting:  Done
    • Check for Images ( WP:LAYIM):
    • Check for Links:
    • Check for Horizontal rule ( WP:LINE):

Check for WP:WTW: None

Check for WP:EMBED:  Done


2: Verifiable with no original research

 Done
  1. Check for the material ( WP:RSVETTING): (not contentious)
    • Is it contentious?: No
    • Does the ref indeed support the material?:
  2. Check for the author ( WP:RSVETTING):
    • Who is the author?:
      • Department of Highways
      • Ministry of Transportation of Ontario
      • Peter Heiler
      • Brehl, Robert
    • Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
    • What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
    • What else has the author published?:
    • Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
  3. Check for the publication ( WP:RSVETTING):
  4. Check for Self-published sources ( WP:SPS):
 Done

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done

  1. Check for Direct quotations:
  2. Check for Likely to be challenged:
  3. Check for Contentious material about living persons ( WP:BLP):
 Done
  1. Check for primary sources ( WP:PRIMARY):  Done
  2. Check for synthesis ( WP:SYN):  Done
  3. Check for original images ( WP:OI):  Done


3: Broad in its coverage

 Done

Not all sources are accessible. Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416. Random check on accessible sources - Source 1,2,3,8

  1. Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
    1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
    2. Check for Out of scope:
  2. Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
    1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
    2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
      • Random check on accessible sources - Source 1,2,3,8
    3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
    4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
    5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic ( WP:OFFTOPIC):
b. Focused:
 Done
  1. Check for Readability issues ( WP:LENGTH):
  2. Check for Article size ( WP:TOO LONG!):


4: Neutral

 Done

4. Fair representation without bias:  Done

  1. Check for POV ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  2. Check for naming ( WP:POVNAMING):  Done
  3. Check for structure ( WP:STRUCTURE):  Done
  4. Check for Due and undue weight ( WP:DUE):  Done
  5. Check for Balancing aspects ( WP:BALASPS):  Done
  6. Check for Giving "equal validity" ( WP:VALID):  Done
  7. Check for Balance ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  8. Check for Impartial tone ( WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done
  9. Check for Describing aesthetic opinions ( WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done
  10. Check for Words to watch ( WP:YESPOV):  Done
  11. Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements ( WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done
  12. Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience ( WP:PSCI): None
  13. Check for Religion ( WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416.)

Images:
 Done

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

  1. Check for copyright tags ( WP:TAGS):
  2. Check for copyright status:
  3. Check for non-free content ( WP:NFC):
  4. Check for valid fair use rationales ( WP:FUR):

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

  1. Check for image relevance ( WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):
  2. Check for Images for the lead ( WP:LEADIMAGE):
  3. Check for suitable captions ( WP:CAPTION):


As per the above checklist, the issues are:

  • Include exact points in the first sentence of the lead.

This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm delighted to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! -- Seabuckthorn  02:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Points added, as well as a little to make that opening paragraph longer than two sentences. Cheers, Floydian  τ ¢ 23:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC) reply

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn  01:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) reply