Talk:Ontario Highway 37/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review this article, I see it's been sitting for almost eight months now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead, wikilink Ottawa In the first paragraph of "Route description", wikilink the following: Actinolite, Belleville, and village of Tweed, Highway 401, and Highway 7 since it's their first appearances after the lead, Toronto, Ottawa, and Hastings County. In "History", wikilink: Highway 2 the first time. In "External links", follow the links with a source (e.g. "Highway 37 - Length and Route from Google Maps")
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I suggest adding use Template:Use Canadian English and Template:Use mdy dates tags at the top, and also Template:Canspell in the talk page.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All citations are properly formatted in a "References" section. I'll note that most are not linked, but because they're from foldable maps, annual reports, etc., I think it's fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most sources are things like official reports and foldable maps. A comment on the Google Maps sources: Maps has come under some scrutiny recently (see this FAC and this RFC), but for this article, all references to maps is double-cited by another reliable source; so, I'll allow it. Source are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited, no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses everything necessary: "Route description", "History", and "Major intersections".
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are correctly PD/CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Two images of the highway from the road, one aerial view, and the sign are all appropriate and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

Floydian, I have just a few comments regarding the prose, but other than that, the article looks good! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• @MyCatIsAChonk:, all done except the second point in 1a. While I agree about repeating a link in the body, I feel that's more for articles where there is a lot of information before an article-worthy target repeats (like Ontario Highway 8). It feels a bit excessive on an article as short as this. Thank you for the review by the way, and sorry for the delay... haven't had the inspiration to edit lately due to the RfC you pointed out in the Highway 76 review. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Floydian: Fair enough regarding 1a- this article is good for GA. I definitely understand the concern over the RfC, it was quite surprising to me when I first saw it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.