Talk:Ontario Highway 41/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. Horse's Eye Back can eat a foot. May as well fail the article, I will not change something for the anal wishes of someone completely oblivious to the basic concept of farmland and forests on satellite imagery. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain? Horse's Eye Back was just pointing out the RfA, in which there was clear consensus and pretty broad participation. Personally, I would agree that farmland and the like are clearly interpretable on commercial satellite imagery, but it's not up to me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floydian, just wanted to confirm your views here before I close the reviews - if I don't hear anything, I'll go ahead and close them on the 25th. I hope you reconsider and edit the articles to bring them in line with policy - if that is taken care of, I'm confident all 3 can reach GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty set. Hopefully when dozens of prolific content creators disappear en masse, the community will toss out the dead weight of useless bureaucrats (not the user right, the people that dictate policy discussions while contributing absolutely nothing at all to the project). I thank you for the reviews, but I'm completely done with Wikipedia until I don't have a hostile environment to contend with. [Insert mic drop] - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will close the reviews, and open/close your other extant nominations. If you ever return to editing, feel free to ping me and I will reopen them all and review them. Wikipedia will miss you in the meantime! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	As before, many of the Ontario Road Maps are 404ing and cannot be found at the given URLs - please replace or add archives as available.
	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).	What information is cite #9, "7 Wonders" being used for, exactly? Are we confident that it's a reliable source?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pending Hi Floydian, not sure if you saw my post-review discussion with Horse's Eye Back on the previous review page, but per the recently closed RfA (see 2b) we're going to have to be careful about OR. Specifically, in this article, descriptions like "rugged forested region", "partially agricultural", "swamp-laden, heavily-forested region", "Farmland appears for the first time", etc. Please remove any descriptions like this that are sourced to interpretation from a satellite image, or map that does not explicitly have land cover categories, etc. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, nothing else of importance found.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Overall well-illustrated. The animated map should not have "now" in the caption, year of creation would be better
	7. Overall assessment.

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.