Talk:Ontario Highway 59

Ontario Highway 59 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: January 9, 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 Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics: /  Ontario This article may or may not contain a map. Please check, then add "needs-map=" to this template accordingly. This article has a KML file.

To improve this article, here are some guidelines for the B class criteria for road articles. SriMesh | talk 03:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 59/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 05:15, 6 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 ♥ 05:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1: Well-written

• a. Prose is "
  clear and concise", without copyvios
  , or spelling and grammar errors: .
• b.
  lists
  :

WP:LEAD :

Done Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations ( WP:LEADCITE ):  Done The material is not contentious and does not require inline citations. Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview ( MOS:INTRO ):  Done Major Point 1: Route description Route description in the lead "It connected ... en route." is very short and not an accurate summary of the body. Major Point 2: History (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Route description (mismatch in due weight between the lead and the body) Major Point 2: History (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph ( MOS:BEGIN ):  Done Check for First sentence ( WP:LEADSENTENCE ):  Done 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 Check for Alternative names ( MOS:LEADALT ):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length ( WP:LEADLENGTH ):  Done The lead is too short in comparison to the content in the body and should be expanded. Check for Clutter ( WP:LEADCLUTTER ): None

WP:LAYOUT :

Done Check for Body sections: MOS:BODY .  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs ( MOS:PARAGRAPHS ):  Done 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 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

• 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

WP:RS :

Done Check for the material ( WP:RSVETTING ): (not contentious) Is it contentious?: No Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author ( WP:RSVETTING ): Who is the author?: Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications Peter Heiler Ontario Department of Highways Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: very good Checked other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416 Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5 What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication ( WP:RSVETTING ): Reliable. Used in other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416 Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5 Check for Self-published sources ( WP:SPS ):

WP:MINREF :
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF :  Done Check for Direct quotations: Check for Likely to be challenged: Check for Contentious material about living persons ( WP:BLP ):

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR :
Done Check for primary sources ( WP:PRIMARY ):  Done Check for synthesis ( WP:SYN ):  Done Check for original images ( WP:OI ):  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 & Source 5 Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Random check on accessible sources - Source 2 & Source 5 Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic ( WP:OFFTOPIC ):

b. Focused :
Done Check for Readability issues ( WP:LENGTH ): Check for Article size ( WP:TOO LONG! ):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV :

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV ( WP:YESPOV ):  Done Check for naming ( WP:POVNAMING ):  Done Check for structure ( WP:STRUCTURE ):  Done Check for Due and undue weight ( WP:DUE ):  Done Check for Balancing aspects ( WP:BALASPS ):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" ( WP:VALID ):  Done Check for Balance ( WP:YESPOV ):  Done Check for Impartial tone ( WP:IMPARTIAL ):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions ( WP:SUBJECTIVE ):  Done Check for Words to watch ( WP:YESPOV ):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements ( WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience ( WP:PSCI ): None 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 copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content : Check for copyright tags ( WP:TAGS ): Check for copyright status: Check for non-free content ( WP:NFC ): Check for valid fair use rationales ( WP:FUR ): 6: Images are provided if possible and are suitable captions : Check for image relevance ( WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE ): Check for Images for the lead ( WP:LEADIMAGE ): Check for suitable captions ( WP:CAPTION ):

As per the above checklist, the issues identified with the lead are:

• Route description in the lead "It connected ... en route." is very short and is not an accurate summary of the content in the body.
• There is a mismatch in due weight given to the Route description in the lead and the body.
• The lead is too short in comparison to the content in the body and should be expanded.

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 ♥ 22:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a bunch of info to the RD portion of the lede, and removed duplicate links as necessary. There isn't much to add to the lede regarding the history, but I stuck in a small blurb noting that the length tripled as a result of the changes in 1961. Let me know if you can see anything else that might be worth squeezing in. Once again, thanks for the reviews :) Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's looking really good now. Passing the article to GA status. Congratulations! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 10:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Ontario Highway 59 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://g.co/maps/prcpf

  Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—