Talk:Sherwood Park Freeway

Sherwood Park Freeway 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: December 14, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Canada Roads: Alberta 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

Mid

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

Topics:
/
	Alberta

This article has a KML file.

Canada: Alberta 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Highway 100 → Sherwood Park Freeway — Wikipedia article naming conventions (WP:COMMONNAME) strongly suggest using the most common name. The name Highway 100 is virtually unknown, and there are no signs along the road marking it with that name. Indefatigable (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar discussion is currently underway at Talk:Maryland Route 200. — AjaxSmack 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, common name definitely should be used. Having an Alberta 100 marker is also incorrect, since it is marked with Sherwood Park Freeway signs. 117Avenue (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it is the most common name. Even if highway number signs were put up tomorrow, it would be difficult for Highway 100 to ever overcome Sherwood Park Freeway as the most common name based on its longstanding history. (Note that I believe Indefatigable was referring to the name Highway 100 when closing with "... that name", so you are both correct.) Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Route shield

@MuzikMachine: This one can definitely do without the route shield as it a) does not exist, and b) 99.9% of people are unaware of the highway 100 designation (even AB Trans calls it SPF and not hwy 100), but if they care to know it is stated in the alternate name parameter and very early in the lead. I have a feeling that it was called highway 14 for so long and AB Trans wanted to keep its heritage as SPF, that's why they never pushed for it to actually become known as hwy 100 nor did they sign it. The reason I didn't have a shield on Henday is because absolutely nobody refers to it as highway 216, so for aesthetics of the infobox I opted not to included it. That's just personal preference on my part though and by any objective measure it should be included. -- Acefitt 02:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acefitt: Fair enough Re: the Hwy 100 shield - it's unsigned and merely something that's contained within the documentation of Alberta Transportation. How do other Wikipedia articles handle unsigned highways? The only example I could think of was Queen Elizabeth Way, which is internally signed as Highway 451, but there are no Hwy 451 shield on the infobox. As for Stoney Trail and Anthony Henday Drive, both routes are clearly marked as Hwys 201 and 216 respectively, and I feel that the infobox should reflect official designation over common vernacular. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can follow pretty simple logic... if the sign physically exists somewhere on the route, we'll put it in the infobox. -- Acefitt 22:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the route shield should be excluded because it is not signed as such and there is the general unawareness of the numbered designation in the first place. The invoked alternate name parameter and the mention in the lead do the fact justice. I drove SPF a couple times this week and the only "100" sign I could find was the maximum speed limit sign. Imagine the potential confusion if the speed limit was 90 and the highway was signed with a 100 route shield! I don't want to go down the speculation route as to why it is not signed 100 (oh wait, maybe I kind of just did). I have access to engineers that worked on the recent NE AHD construction project, which included the recent SPF upgrades. Maybe I can track down the answer why it is unsigned and why "100" was selected in the first place. In the meantime, want to start a grassroots movement to lobby renumbering of SPF/100 and 630 to Highway 30? The number is not in use. ;) Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it'd be potentially confusing for it to be signed as 100. There's plenty of 2 digit numbers available though, I'd think if they actually wanted to sign it then they'd have picked something else. Seems like it was never intended to actually be signed and there's some specific reason they picked 100. -- Acefitt 22:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: I like your idea of renumbering Hwys 100 & 630; but what about renumbering it Hwy 14A? It would reflect the route both as it's historical designation (SPF) as well as it being an alternate route to Hwy 14. Cheers! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I started it, but I'll save further speculative debate on different highway renumbering scenarios for forums outside Wikipedia. Hwy43 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to, but meant to, comment on the AHD. The statement "absolutely nobody refers to it as highway 216" is not the case. The highway numbers applied to AHD and Stoney are well-known; widespread thanks to their usage on signage, maps, etc. Hwy43 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: I didn't say they weren't well-known. The point remains, I have lived in both Calgary and Edmonton and have never heard either of them referred to by their numbers. I didn't say that nobody knew what the numbers were. -- Acefitt 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is because they are numbered and that their numbers are widely known as a result, they are referred to by their numbers instead of their names by some. There is no chance that "absolutely nobody" refers to them by these numbers. I've heard it in the media, conversation, etc. Hwy43 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, unless it was previously referred to as Henday/Stoney by that same person or in that same media report. Guess I have to get out more. -- Acefitt 18:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they didn't want to bother signing a 4 km segment of a highway but for bookkeeping purposes had to allocate some number once Whitemud was done. Given how busy Wye Road is these days, maybe they could have resigned 630 from Henday to hwy 21 as hwy 100 then it could've been longer. -- Acefitt 03:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AT signs the junction of Hwy 899 along Hwy 562 north of Empress. Hwy 899 is the shortest highway in Alberta. We can speculate all we want. I've just inquired. Hopefully I get answers sometime next week to bring closure to the speculation. Hwy43 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sherwood Park Freeway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this one in a day or two. Canadian Paul 13:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Just a few comments:

I think that the caption on the image could be improved: e.g. what is the context of the map that the highway is highlighted on (the whole city? just a certain freeway system or region?)? From what year is the map?
Under "Route description", first paragraph: "Sherwood Park Freeway is a short suburban freeway..." "Short" is a subjective assessment; what is short to one individual may not be to another. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if that is a statement in a source, then it should be cited directly. Otherwise, just list the length and let the reader decide if it is short or not.
Same paragraph: "Now between the Morris Industrial area to the north and the Weir Industrial area to the south..." I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the word "now" in this sentence. Are you comparing it to something in the past? If so, that should be explicit.
Under "History", first paragraph: "It was four lanes wide and included all of the present day interchanges..." Per WP:DATED, is there a way to rephrase this sentence so that the statement ("present day interchanges") won't date?
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce material that is not present in the body of the article. Pretty much the entire first paragraph is not mentioned in the body and it should include more information from the "Route description" section as well. The final sentence of the second paragraph is also not mentioned in the body. Once all that material is included in the body, you should probably migrate the citations as well, since the lead should generally not contain citations (since it's not introducing new information).

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 23:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short is not subjective, it is the shortest numbered freeway in Alberta and that can be determined from the progress chart which is referenced. Aside from that, I'd mention that dating the map in the infobox is not something I see done on any highway article, nor the need to specify that the map is of Edmonton. I took the caption from featured articles here and here which do no such thing. -- Acefitt 00:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Changes made. -- Acefitt 20:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Short" is indeed subjective, but "the shortest numbered freeway in Alberta" is not, so if that could be cited, it would have been fine. As for dating the map, a) it was an example intended to indicate the way a caption could be made to be more informative to help clarify my comment, not something that absolutely, positively had to be done and b) Featured Articles are not "Perfect Articles" so using them as a benchmark without citing a policy or project guidelines is not particularly useful. Regardless, sufficient changes have been made to the article so that it now appears to meet the GA criteria, so I am going to go ahead and pass the article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 02:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Thanks, I didn't mean to cite those FA's as policy, but given that there is no policy I was merely using them to suggest why I captioned it as I did. -- Acefitt 03:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]