Talk:Ontario Highway 72/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Floydian τ ¢
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: .
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Done
|
Done
|
Check for WP:WTW: None
Check for WP:EMBED: Done
- The table is standard in such articles. Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416
Done
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
Not all sources are accessible. Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416. Random check on accessible sources - Source 2,3,4,5,6
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (PD) (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license) (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: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, the issues are:
Fix short paragraph in the Route description.
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 ♥ 03:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Merged the paragraphs together, they both develop a similar concept so why not? Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)