Talk:Ontario Highway 169

Ontario Highway 169 was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 23, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Canada 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.

Canada Roads: Ontario Low‑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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics:
/
	Ontario

This article has a KML file.

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:05, 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 169/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:12, 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) 16:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. See discussion at Talk:Ontario Highway 41/GA1 with nominator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:05, 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.	Is any online source available for Cites #2 and 3 (Toronto-Sudbury Highways to be Renumbered) and (Highway Transfers List)? Or are they entirely offline? As before, please add archives as available to the Ontario Road maps.
	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.	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 "passing through meadows and forests", "rougher, rockier, and dotted with lakes and swamps", "serving recreational cottages", 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) 02:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass, nothing found by Earwig or by 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).	Pass, no issues.
	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.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions