Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 404

Ontario Highway 404

Promoted. --Rs chen 7754 13:42, 27 April 2015 (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.

Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 404/archive1

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I figure with the new extension to this highway opening in the next few weeks, now is a good time for Highway 404 to be scrutinized. Unfortunately this is one of the few highways where I can't find a precise date for the opening of the first section, but nevertheless it is complete and comprehensive.

Nominated by: Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred: 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

I will review this article. Dough 48 72 04:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Do you need to indicate the road names along with the route numbers in the infobox? Most highway articles only mention the route number.
"Northbound, the freeway is six lanes wide from Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue, where one diverges onto an off-ramp, re-emerging north of Finch", should indicate one lane diverges.
"The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and interchanges with 16th Avenue.", interchange should not be used as a verb, maybe change to "reaches an interchange" or something similar.
The sentences "North of Bethesda Road, the freeway crosses through a green space area. Two small lakes are present to either side." should be combined.
" Design work started in 1973,[9] the first contract was awarded in early 1976,[10] and construction began in March 1976 with the awarding of a C$6.9 million contract. " you mention two contracts were awarded. What was the contract awarded in early 1976 for? You mention what the one awarded in March was for. Dough 48 72 00:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it makes more sense given the sources out there and the common public recognition of the roads. For example, despite being downloaded to the Region of York in 1997, the route now designated as Regional Road 7 is still labelled and better known as "Highway 7". The same vernacular applies in the common chat: "Take the 404 to Green Lane", never "Take the 404 to York 19". Given that Highway 401 is currently the only provincial route connected to Highway 404, I think it's best left here.
Done
Fixed
Done
Fixed... same contract, didn't realize it in the jigsaw-like process it was to research this particular article.

-- Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough 48 72 00:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(withdrawn)

Review by Rschen7754

I plan to review this article too. --Rs chen 7754 05:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if the current proposal at WT:HWY/ACR passes, this will only require 2 supports to pass - thus, I will withdraw this review on the condition that the proposal passes. --Rs chen 7754 00:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Rs chen 7754 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Dough4872

Image review

File:Ontario 404.svg - PD-Canada-Crown
File:Ontario 404 map.svg - cc-by-sa-3.0, needs GIS sources.
File:404 North.JPG - cc-by-2.5, has OTRS permission.
File:Highway 404 at Stouffville.png - cc-by-sa-3.0
File:Woodbine facing south.png - Non-free fair use with rationale, is the rationale enough to justify its use when a free image from the time period may be able to be found?
File:404HOV lane.png - cc-by-sa-3.0
File:Highway 404 Extension.png - cc-by-sa-3.0
File:Ontario Highway 404 approaching the future Doane Road interchange, during highway construction in June 2014.jpg - cc-by-sa-3.0, GFDL. Dough 48 72 05:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the NFUR image, there are no other images that I've been able to locate of the two lane Woodbine prior to construction of Highway 404. They may be out there, but locating one is not likely. Unfortunately, this image will also not fall into public domain next year as it is a municipal image not covered by Crown Copyright. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evad37

Resolved issues

Infobox

Map caption missing
DVP shield missing

Both fixed - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Don Valley Parkway (DVP) – acronym shouldn't be part of the link

Fixed - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

suggesting that the length of the Don Valley Parkway was considered in distance calculations – sounds like WP:OR, would need a better source than a map

Added a source. The 404 was built as a provincial extension of the DVP. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETR – is this an abbreviation for something?

It is, but its also a correct form of the actual name... "407 ETR" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

Studies and environmental into – missing word?
began almost immediately – this is the first sentence of a new section, so some reference date should be given

Both done. Also noticed a blank citation template here that I filled in. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delays, the project was delayed – avoid repetition of delay

Fixed - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future

Long term proposals – By whom? MTO?

Politicians and line-on-a-map dreamers... Not gonna happen anytime soon but it's been brought up apparently. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

environmental groups – Which groups?

Various, but the source I include is from the Pembina Institute - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exit list

The double image on the left leaves a wide gutter of empty space to the left of the table

Adjusted the images... let me know if that fixes it. I've got an average 15-17" screen so I know wider monitors get image/table stacking issues no matter what.

Looks fine now - Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 404 continues south as the Don Valley Parkway – per MOS:RJL, "Route marker graphics should always appear at the beginning of the line"
Steeles Avenue / Regional Road 8 (Woodbine Avenue) – as above

I think that's always just been Dough rules, and it severely limits the wording choice and readability because of one minor sentence in MOS:FLAGICON. I've tried asking about the meaning of that clause on the talk page of MOS:FLAGICON and gotten no response at all. The first instance I've fixed, but this instance I can't without making it confusing that the shield doesn't apply to Steeles Avenue. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about: Regional Road 8 (Woodbine Avenue) / Steeles Avenue ? And the beginning of the line rule was added in October 2007 [1], after discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 4, so it hasn't "always just been Dough rules". - Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly Highway 7 – as above, plus "Use of marker images should be limited to the Destinations column(s) only" is also noted in MOS:RJL

The second half I'm not changing; the difference in designation and thus marker is the entire foundation for our use of highway markers whatsoever in articles. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find another way or wording it so the route marker isn't in the middle of the text? Maybe: Formerly Highway 7 ; or Highway 7 until (date) ; or similar? - Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That second form works. Done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville ... Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora ... Whitchurch-Stouffville – Newmarket – if each of these are boundaries, that should be specified as was done for Markham – Richmond Hill boundary

Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitchurch–Stouffville ... Whitchurch-Stouffville – endash or hyphen should be used consistently

Whitchurch–Stouffville is a municipality, so it uses a hyphen. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 27 doesn't line up with a location, it is shown as being both within Markham and on the Markham – Richmond Hill boundary

South of Exit 27 is entirely Markham, while north of it is the boundary line between Markham and Richmond Hill. Highway 404 forms the boundary line between several municipalities, which makes things confusing for an exit list table. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this make the junction, taken as a whole, at the boundary? – Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exit 41 is shown as being at both "Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville" and "Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora". If it is actually at the tripoint, that should be specified directly.

How would you suggest I go about that? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

location1–location2–Location3 tripoint – with tripoint wikilinked on first use. (See Kwinana Freeway#Interchanges for examples, there are several tripoints and quadripoints.) - Evad37 [talk] 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it all fixed up... not sure what I could due for the boundary of Toronto and York/Markham though. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps have "Toronto–York boundary" in the Division column, and "Toronto–Markham boundary" in the location column - Evad37 [talk] 09:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

, due to Buttonville Airport – ref?

Added - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible interchange location for proposed freeway – ref?

Added. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the distances for Regional Road 77 and Bradford Bypass?

They are both future interchanges... guess I forgot to leave those two orange. The distance to these interchanges are not provided in documentation and can't be asserted to 1/10th of a kilometre. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting in the last row that it is the northern terminus

Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Is the note there actually a reference? I would have put it in a preceding == Notes == section

Makes sense to me. Done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several "|chapter= ignored" errors

This is a problem with citation templates since the conversion to Lua. I have to do an AWB run through all Ontario highways to change section= to at=... because apparently that akes more sense to the wise overlords of Wikipedia technical. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough references to have columns in the reflist

Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Evad37 [talk] 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added some responses. Still have more to do to finish off but internets are limited. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This will need a source review to pass ACR, and Evad's concerns to be addressed. --Rs chen 7754 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've suspended this since there have not been any edits to this review in 30 days, except for the procedural comment above. --Rs chen 7754 19:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have more regular internet access, I've been able to get this going again. I've addressed all of @Evad37:'s concerns above, pending his approval. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there :) - Evad37 [talk] 09:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Evad37 [talk] 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This will need a source review to pass ACR - Evad37 [talk] 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Evad37

Source review

@Floydian: I will do a source review for this article, but first can you fix the errors? Refs 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21 show "|chapter= ignored", and ref 20 has "Missing or empty |title= " - Evad37 [talk] 04:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1, 18, 23, 24, 28: Title should be in title case to be consistent with other refs
Refs 5, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30 have dead links
Ref 2: Map scale (or "Scale not given") should be specified
Ref 6: hyphen (-) should be an endash (–)
Ref 7: Department of Highways is ambiguous, location should be specified. Similarly Ministry of Transportation and Communications in later refs
Ref 7: The citation currently implies that "Annual Report" is a section within "Summary Report of Department Operations". Is this correct, or should it be the other way around?
Ref 18: reduce all caps in quote to normal case, per MOS:ALLCAPS
Ref 20 doesn't have any details in it
Ref 25: "Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" should be the author and "Government of Ontario" for consistency with other refs.
Ref 27: Isn't the committee the author and the regional municipality the publisher – would make this ref consistent with eg ref 36
Ref 29: More details should be given, perhaps with {{Cite sign}} – see also the examples there
Ref 36: Appendix A is a section within the report, not part of the title

- Evad37 [talk] 03:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ref 7, this is an error from the Lua conversion that removed the ability to use chapter or section. At doesn't work, and department is causing the current set up. I'm really not sure how to fix this but its aggravating that they deprecated a well-used parameter. Regarding ref 29, I've added that citation template, though the doc doesn't give much more than general CS1 info. Besides this, everything is fixed and dead links updated. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With ref 7, maybe put the section title in |title=, and the report title in |work= - Evad37 [talk] 05:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I'm not sure which style guideline wikipedia follows for footnotes in all honesty, kind of a hodgepodge. Makes it confusing at times. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review completed - Evad37 [talk] 10:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.