![]() | Hanlon Expressway 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 8, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Hanlon Expressway appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 January 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The MTO also has been wanting to upgrade the Hanlon Parkway to freeway standards for a while, connecting the new Highway 7 freeway alignment all the way south to roughly Highway 403 in the Hamilton/ Ancaster Area.
Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 00:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Although both terms are used, Expressway seems to be much more prevalent. The recent news regarding the Laird interchange as well the original construction reports from 1971 both use Expressway. As such I'm moving the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Seabuckthorn (
talk ·
contribs)
05:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:
Floydian
τ
¢
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
![]()
|
![]()
|
Check for
WP:WTW:
Done Fixed
Check for
WP:EMBED:
Done
2: Verifiable with no original research
![]()
|
![]() Check for inline citations
WP:MINREF:
|
![]()
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a.
Major aspects:
![]() |
---|
![]() Not all sources are accessible. Random check on accessible sources (1-7, 11, 13 & 14). Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416.
|
b.
Focused:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
4: Neutral
![]() 4. Fair representation without bias:
|
5: Stable: No
edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)
Images:
![]() |
---|
![]() 6: Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
6: Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
|
As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm glad to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --
Seabuckthorn
♥
18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you once again for taking on all four of these GANs. Your reviews are very thorough and I appreciate that, expecially for an article such as this one that may be a future A or FA candidate. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the "orphaned" paragraph should be left as it is. It can't be deleted because it satisfies "The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge" and "All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered". I still regret the deletion of "speed limit" because it was not contentious and hence did not need an inline citation. But it struck me later.
OK. I'm passing the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Hanlon Expressway 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 8, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Hanlon Expressway appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 January 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The MTO also has been wanting to upgrade the Hanlon Parkway to freeway standards for a while, connecting the new Highway 7 freeway alignment all the way south to roughly Highway 403 in the Hamilton/ Ancaster Area.
Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 00:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Although both terms are used, Expressway seems to be much more prevalent. The recent news regarding the Laird interchange as well the original construction reports from 1971 both use Expressway. As such I'm moving the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Seabuckthorn (
talk ·
contribs)
05:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:
Floydian
τ
¢
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
![]()
|
![]()
|
Check for
WP:WTW:
Done Fixed
Check for
WP:EMBED:
Done
2: Verifiable with no original research
![]()
|
![]() Check for inline citations
WP:MINREF:
|
![]()
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a.
Major aspects:
![]() |
---|
![]() Not all sources are accessible. Random check on accessible sources (1-7, 11, 13 & 14). Cross-checked with other FAs - Ontario Highway 401 & Ontario Highway 416.
|
b.
Focused:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
4: Neutral
![]() 4. Fair representation without bias:
|
5: Stable: No
edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)
Images:
![]() |
---|
![]() 6: Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
6: Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
|
As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I'm glad to see your work here. I'm putting the article on hold. All the best! --
Seabuckthorn
♥
18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you once again for taking on all four of these GANs. Your reviews are very thorough and I appreciate that, expecially for an article such as this one that may be a future A or FA candidate. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the "orphaned" paragraph should be left as it is. It can't be deleted because it satisfies "The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge" and "All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered". I still regret the deletion of "speed limit" because it was not contentious and hence did not need an inline citation. But it struck me later.
OK. I'm passing the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)