Talk:Ontario Highway 412

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 412/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (public) (talk · contribs) 12:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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 (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   One minor quibble, but "four lane" should be "four-lane" in the RD.

   Done... though my understanding was that you only hyphenate active adjectives (not sure if that is the correct term, but what I'm inferring is the comparison between "a four lane highway" vs. "a four-laned highway"). It would be very useful for future endeavours to know the technicality behind this... though I'm sure that, like the entire English language, there are dozens of exceptions to any supposed "rule". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Can we get some footnotes for the RD section though? I assume a map shouldn't be too hard to find.

   Since the partial construction on gmaps is too obscure to not be WP:OR, I've used the official maps instead. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A new map highlighting just this highway would be nice, but it wouldn't hold up promotion at this time.

   Already made it... but the program I once used to convert Flash swf's to svg's (Flash Exploit swf2svg) has vanished from the internet :( As soon as I locate it, there will be a detailed map. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, things are in good shape. I'm going to hold this nominate just until June 20 actually comes to pass. If the road opens, then the statement in the lead will be accurate. If it does not, we'll need to update the article to reflect that fact. Once it does open, a better source should be used, as technically the one in use for the date can only back that the road was scheduled to open on that date, not that it actually did. (And it can't, since june 20th hasn't come to pass yet.) Imzadi 1979 → 12:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

   The source I added isn't very official, but the MTO and 407E websites have all been updated with this date. I'll find out first-hand on Monday since its along (and soon to become part of) my daily commute; press releases will surely follow later in the day. Regardless, I fully support your wait; technically the whole article is a crystal ball for the next 36 hours or so! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving outside of the GA criteria a moment, but the color key is absent from the bottom of the RJL. That should be added. Also, footnote 3 should have the all caps portion of the title altered to conform to the MOS. Foonote 5 should be switched to a CS1 template to match the other CS1-based citations in use. Imzadi 1979 → 12:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, done and done. All fixes made. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Ref updated; highway opened as planned in the wee hours of Monday. Still a few unopened ramps, but no refs for that (nor notability in the long run IMO) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: --Rschen7754 18:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)