Talk:Ontario Highway 23/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 20:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The Highway 89 mention looks strange. Can you say the northern terminus is Highway 9 / Highway 89? Done

I really like the idea of how provides more info in the current setup, as it clearly informs the reader that it ends at Highway 9 and if they continue driving straight, it just turns into Highway 89. However, if you have any thoughts on how to better represent it... - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer my suggestion because it indicates concisely that Highway 23 ends at a junction with Highway 9 and Highway 89. I do not think the fact that the road continues straight as Highway 89 is necessary in the infobox; you can mention in the Route description the exact interaction between Highways 23 and 89. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I think this is more of an ACR issue, I've held my nose and made the change. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfectly clear to me and I don't see what the problem is. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 23 does not enter St. Mary's, so that town should be removed from the infobox. Done

Good catch... not sure how that ended up in there! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Perth County link in the infobox is red, but I am pretty sure there is an article for it. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

Typo, been fixed already. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

This would look better as one paragraph instead of two short paragraphs. Done

Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably mention and wikilink any towns included in the infobox. Done

Done through the request directly below this one. Also added Monkton and Palmerston to the infobox since the highway passes along the outskirts of the latter and thus provides access for anyone coming from the south or west. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add the names of towns for the highway's original northern and southern termini in the history summary. Done

As above, integrating links to the other towns int he infobox - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead mentions the highway originally ended at Highway 9 in Harriston. It originally ended in Teviotdale, right? V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the length, is it possible to output the word "miles" as that instead of the abbreviation? Done

Had to look up how (|abbr=off), but done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

The first sentence is awkward, particularly "east of Elginfield travelling north through." I suggest you split it into two sentences. Also, can you mention that Elginfield is an unincorporated village/hamlet within Lucan Biddulph? Done

Yeah, I suppose it straddles the boundary so both should be mentioned. Not sure why it redirects to Middlesex Centre, but that's not my domain. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention the highway intersects County Road 11 at Whalen Corners where it veers northeast? There are several other County Roads not mentioned, yet they are included in the Major intersections table. Done

I've been given crap for being overly detailed... although in fair context, that was for Highway 401. However, I feel these county roads aren't significant enough to warrant mention unless they were former highways. However, I have added the county road designations (which are all identical to the highway designation) to the former highways mentioned in the RD - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not mentioning County Road 11 is fine, but the sentence now has the phrase "the highway curves northeast as it and exits Middlesex County." V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "divides the communities," you should say the highway passes through them. Done

Fixed, but don't tell Dough... too many passes and he passes out ;) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should mention the highway fully enters Perth County beyond Kirkton.

Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One minor thing: instead of the comma between Woodham and Kirkton, there should be "and" because it is a list of two items. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

Fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mention several former highways, yet there is no reference to them being formerly highways. Can you instead say County Road X? Done

I've added the current (though locally, generally ignored) county designations, which are identical, and added a ref for the former routes. These intersections are the only significant ones along a generally farmed out route. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Highway 23 curves gently towards the southeast; it resumes its northeasterly course" You should mention the intersections with County Road 55; the northern intersection is a orthogonal intersection, not just resuming its course. Done

A detail not shown on my road map. Good catch! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"where it crosses the boundary into Grey County and the Town of Minto" Two things, (1) town should not be capitalized, and (2) Minto is in Wellington County, not Grey County. Done

It's shown specifically as "Town of Minto" rather than "Minto" on my map. There are many cases of "Municipality of X" or "City of X" that are actual names. However, point 2 is correct. That wavy border is sneaky, especially on a map where municipal and regional borders differ only by a slight thickness variation. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with Town of Minto is, do people generally include "Town" when speaking or writing about it? As in, "I am going to Minto" versus "I am going to the Town of Minto." However, this is GAN, so I am not going to require action on this. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"eight kilometres (5.0 mi) north of the intersection" Capitalize "eight." Done

No info in the convert documentation on how to do this, so I converted the convert template into raw text (also removing the superfluous digit in 5.0 mi and converting it to full spelling of miles). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mention street names elsewhere, so I suggest you mention Highway 23 is Arthur Street in Harriston. Done

Added

You should mention Highway 89 and County Road 109 in the last sentence, and the street Highway 9 and County Road 109 use. You could explain County Road 109 as a portion of what was formerly Highway 9. If you mention Highway 89 in the infobox, you must mention it here. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Required a bit of rewording but I think I fit it all in succinctly. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the length mentions are necessary in the Route description. If you do use them, use numerals, even for lengths less than 10, unless the length is at the beginning of a sentence. Done

I think that the Eight mentioned two points above is the only case of it in the RD, but my eyes may be deceiving me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is "nine kilometres" in the first paragraph. Oddly, there are no 10 or greater instances. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

This would look better as one paragraph instead of two short paragraphs. No other quibbles. Done

Done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just noticed something: Department of Highways redirects to MTO, which is insane! You should add Ontario to disambiguate from any of the many, many Departments of Highways that exist or have existed. V C 01:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

The article is about Ontario Highway 23. What other Department of Highways would it be? Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He means that Department of Highways links to Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. The reason I took this link, pretty recently actually, is because there was no dab or existing redirect. I figure others included the state/province name in their title, where as the Department of Highways was simply that. No objection to changing it when a dab comes to light. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will let this go for your cleverness. But you should keep an eye on the link should it be changed to a dab page for various Departments of Highways. V C 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I thought you were objecting to the wording not the link. "Department of Highways" should be a disambiguation page. There is a looooong list. FYI - MTO was previously DHO for Department of Highways, Ontario. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major intersections

I do not see references to Connecting Link agreements in the source you used for the lengths.

They are listed as Start of NA or similar, and more consistently, the AADT for those sections won't appear. I do have a source sent to me that lists the connecting links as of 2011 or 2012, so I could add that I suppose. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that is what "Start of NA" meant. Basically, these are just maintenance boundaries. I do not think maintenance boundaries are important enough to include in the table. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These affect maintenance, funding/construction, permits, zoning, access and traffic coordination (putting up stop signs or lights). They're signed as well. I mention these on all other highways as well. They're important enough to be mentioned. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be mentioned, but I do not think this table is the place. The Route description or even History, if you have dates, would be a better place to explain it. V C 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that length source did not have the length numbers for the Highway 8 junctions in Mitchell. Done

Sometimes I use Google maps to supplement missing numbers and add extra significant junctions (since the MTO list isn't a list of what they figure are significant junctions, but rather sections of a highway for traffic counts). I just added the google maps ref as a second ref. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an acceptable solution. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I noticed: You mention "former Highway 86" in the Notes column, but not any of the other former highways. I suggest you remove it. The alternative is to mention all of the former highways in the Notes column, but you should have a reference citation for each one. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

References

I am not sure if you knew about it, but MTO has their road maps online (year seems to be 2012). I used maps 2 and 4 in the Southern Ontario section to check this article because I do not have access to the atlas you used.

I do know, but was always too impatient to add them since its the whole map split into those digital sections. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The google link is the same as the google reference, so you should remove the google external link. Done

Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other

There are no images to review, but it would be great if you could add a map or photo. Done

Added one, thanks to secondarywaltz for leading me to it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice photo. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest adding a KML. Done

I have a KML ready but I'm saving it for submission on June 1 as part of the HWYcup. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am preemptively challenging any points you may earn for it. :P –Fredddie ™ 00:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Busted. Just add it now, please. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will put this review on hold for a minimum of 7 days unless we resolve everything sooner. V C 20:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a first set of responses. The fixes to the RD and Lede will be a few hours out at least. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the issues that are resolved, responded to others, and mentioned a few new things I noticed. V C 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked off a few more resolved items, and responded to some responses. V C 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some stuff. All that's left is the KML, which I'm about to add, and the connecting link info that I still feel is better handled in the intersection table. A discussion regarding that type of statistical info may be in order if you feel strongly about it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked off the remaining completed issues. The only thing left is the Connecting Link issue. If you want to start a discussion about it, I will keep the review open until we see what comes out of the discussion. V C 04:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I started a discussion at WT:USRD. I still feel this type of content issue is beyond the scope of a GAN, but I'll see what others have to say. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seemed not go anywhere, so how about you add references about the Connecting Links (in addition to the length reference) and we will call it a day? V C 00:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]