Talk:Ontario Highway 19

Ontario Highway 19 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 6, 2014. (Reviewed version).

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Canada: Ontario Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. Canada Roads: Ontario Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics: /  Ontario This article needs a map. This article has a KML file.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 19/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wrestlinglover (talk · contribs) 02:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, my name is Will and I will be reviewing this article.

Lead and box

• "Highway 19 is 18.8 km (11.7 mi) long, which is similar to its original length in 1930, starting at Highway 3 in the south and ending at Highway 2 in the north." - This statement is kind of up out there. The length currently is explained but not its original length. It may be similar but doesn't explain how similar for people unfamiliar.--WillC 02:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, I didn't know Canada had county governments. Interesting.
• The box looks good.

Route description

• "where it encounter County Road 46 (Salford Road)." - Add an s to encounter.

History

• "Baldwin Act and the Act to Authorize Formation of Joint Stock Companies" - Do none of these have articles of their own to be linked to?
• "Plank and Gravel Road" - Is there a reason this is in italics? It is not in the lead. I may be missing something here.
• A bit difficult to understand at times but I think that is because of all of the names and not the writing style.

Major intersections

• Good

References

• Assuming good faith on these.

External links

• Looks good.

Criteria

• Article looks good for its size and I've checked up on the author and he/she seems to know enough about the subject matter. However, I have one question: Is there anything else that can be added to this article? I don't know what, but for its size I feel there may be something left out. I'm gonna assume good faith that everything is done, but I still must ask. Otherwise, fix the above issues and I think it is good enough to pass.--WillC 02:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thank you for the review, and I'm very glad you like my box haha! :P

I've fixed the issues you've brought up. Unfortunately there is no article or likelihood of an article for the named act of legislature from 1849; there simply isn't enough info out there about it. I can understand your difficulty with the history: without a bit of familiarity with the layout of the area (or by studying the Google Maps link if you're out of the area), it can be almost impossible to visualize what is being explained.

That said, I believe the article covers every verifiable facet of the subject. There have been no controversies, significant pileups, or blackzones (stretches which often see deadly accidents). Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fine with me. I'm passing it.--WillC 01:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]