Talk:Ontario Highway 64

Ontario Highway 64 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 22, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Canada Roads: Ontario Mid‑importance

This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 64/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EuroCarGT (talk · contribs) 22:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this Ontario highway-related article for good article article quality grading. I have this page on my watchlist. --///EuroCarGT 22:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check[edit]

No dead links: Y
No links to disambiguation page(s): Y

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Length of the article seems short and start class

All highway articles get three major sections: A description of the route, a retelling of the history, and a list of major intersections. This article may be short in length, but it comprehensively covers its subject with all the information that is available about it. Have a look at some of the other two-digit Ontario highway GAs for comparisons. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I'm cool with that. As an experience editor like you I ensure you understand Good Articles and all, so I'll gt on this review tonight. --///EuroCarGT 20:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox is properly cited with reliable sources
Lead is good, may need some re-writing as some parts were hard to understand such as: as it arcs between Highway 69 and Highway 17, and provides a shortcut between the latter and Highway 11 northwest of North Bay - After North Bay, theirs no period.
Route description is good, gallery of 2 photos are good
History section is good
Major intersections is great and descriptive with the distances listed
References are good, all are in citing templates and no bare URLs
External links are useful + KML is useful

Their maybe rewording need in the route description and history section, it is good at it's current point but improvements could be used. --///EuroCarGT 02:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've puffed up the RD a little and made the fix to the lede, but I can't do much with the history. Let me know how it looks now. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm in the process of filling up the checklist and setting the result. The changes are great, especially with the new updated source. ///EuroCarGT 01:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]