![]() | Ontario Highway 8 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Ontario Highway 8 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Keresluna ( talk · contribs) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I will start this review now, however, it may take me a few days to actually start to review this article.
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. | See some grammar errors. Fail for now, change when nominator fixes. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Seems good. |
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. | Seems good. |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issues. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Otherwise seems good. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems good otherwise. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 16:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Floydian: Sorry for being late, was busy last week. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 15:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm happy to take this over - looks like a lot of progress has already been made.
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
16:32, 12 August 2022 (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. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
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). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
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. |
|
![]() |
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. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
File:Conestoga and Freeport interchange.png, which is duplicative of the 1970 image, or maybe File:Highway 8 widening.png. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This article is in great state and passes GA without any changes needed from the nominator. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Ontario Highway 8 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | Ontario Highway 8 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Keresluna ( talk · contribs) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I will start this review now, however, it may take me a few days to actually start to review this article.
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. | See some grammar errors. Fail for now, change when nominator fixes. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Seems good. |
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. | Seems good. |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issues. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Otherwise seems good. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems good otherwise. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 16:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Floydian: Sorry for being late, was busy last week. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 15:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm happy to take this over - looks like a lot of progress has already been made.
—Ganesha811 (
talk)
16:32, 12 August 2022 (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. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
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. |
|
![]() |
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). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
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. |
|
![]() |
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. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
File:Conestoga and Freeport interchange.png, which is duplicative of the 1970 image, or maybe File:Highway 8 widening.png. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This article is in great state and passes GA without any changes needed from the nominator. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)