# Talk:Long Sault Parkway

This review is transcluded from Talk:Long Sault Parkway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Shall review for the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive  MWright96 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Lead
Don't think the term Canadian should be linked; how about linking Canadian province to the relevant article?
The wikilink for St. Lawrence Seaway doesn't need to be directed to Saint Lawrence Seaway


### Route description
Wikilink St. Lawrence Parks Commission
"The later contains a nature trail as well as a boat launch.[3][1][8]" - I think the refs would be better off in numerical order
In the third and fourth paragraphs, some mentions of "named for" can be changed for variety
How's that? Threw in a couple "honouring" and "named after" and even managed to slip in a "in remembrance of"
"as well as the Lock 21 and Camp Carp campsites.[4][1][8]" - the numbering of the refs might be better off placed in numerical order
"The Long Sault Parkway is considered one of the most scenic drives in Ontario." - considered by whom?
The people and magazines listed through the remainder of that paragraph. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
How about add the reviewers names of The Globe and Mail and Ultimate Ontario since they are mentioned in their articles?
I'm not seeing a reviewer byline, so I'm not sure what to do for this one. However, if you are seeing something I'm not, feel free to add it in. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


### History
Moses-Saunders Power Dam doesn't need to be linked here
"At 8 am, 30 tons" - the convert template is missing on the text in bold
TNT equivalent doesn't really have a conversion that I know of. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Department of Mines might benefit from being wikilinked


### Major intersections
"The entire route is located in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry." - needs verifying with a reliable source


### References
Reference 22 is missing the author
Putting the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query each of the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@MWright96: I've replied to a few of the points, consider the rest completed as recommended. Thank you for the review! - Floydian τ ¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@MWright96: guessing this slipped down your watchlist. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Floydian: My apologies for the late reply but am now promoting this article to GA status MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Before we shut down, could you give me some insight regarding reviewers for that Globe and Mail article? - Floydian τ ¢ 10:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)