Talk:Ontario Highway 29

Ontario Highway 29 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 1, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Ontario Highway 29 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 June 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the former Ontario Highway 29 was split in half for nine years, from 1927 to 1936? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario Highway 29.

	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 Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics: /  Ontario This article has a KML file.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 29/GA1

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

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

   1. Infobox and lead

      References are not necessarily needed in the infobox

      I like how they quickly provide access to the source of dates and lengths, since all that is available online now (finally!) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Are all the villages necessary?

      They're pretty much all I can add in the lede to make that first paragraph fill out. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      "..., with the route north of there becoming Highway 15." I would revise to get rid of the -ing.

      Maybe mention that it's now mostly CR 29

      Both done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   2. RD

      52.29 km is an adjective here

      Fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Highway 29 is referred to in the past tense while the former route is in the present tense. You should pick a tense and stick to it; personally I'd go past tense.

      Done. Only thing I hate about this is that it makes it seem like I'm describing the surroundings and state of the road, as opposed to just the route of the former highway, as it was 25 years ago. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Are the traffic counts in 2018 relevant to a route that was downloaded in 1998?

      I mean it's still an existing road, I don't see why not. It would be nice to have in the context of some local argument for uploading the route back as a provincial highway, but I doubt there's anything remotely recent on that. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   3. History

      Were the two halves roughly equal in length? If not, I'd call them sections instead.

      44.6 vs 49.1 km, I'm also selective on using "half" vs "section"/"segment"/etc. when it isn't appropriate. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      "was assumed by the DHO on May 11, 1927." I edit road article and I had to think about what assumed means here. Maybe add 'responsibility', assumed responsibility?

      Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Informative article that just needs a little tweaking. –Fredddie™ 20:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, a quality review ;)

I've made changes and responded to all your points above. Thank you good sir! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing. –Fredddie™ 07:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]