Talk:Ontario Highway 33

Ontario Highway 33 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 4, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Canada: Ontario 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.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Canada Roads: Ontario 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 articles

Mid

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

Topics:
/
	Ontario

This article may or may not contain a map. Please check, then add "needs-map=" to this template accordingly.

This article has a KML file.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 33/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 10:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

1a. The article prose is generally fine, except for few minor details:--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead, the infobox and the RJL specify three different lengths of the route. Moreover the main body text specifies none.
The article text describes the Prince Edward County Road 1 junction roundabout, while the RJL specifies the junction to be a traffic circle. Since the roundabout article specifies differences between the two this may be a source of confusion.
There was a single instance of a disambiguation link in the article (Queen Elizabeth) - in the lead, and already fixed.
Since there already is a solid reference to the traffic volumes (AADTs), why not mention those in the article - a single sentence would probably do.

1b. The article is generally MoS compliant in terms of layout, infobox, rjl and so on; my only concern is bolded name Glenora Ferry in the lead. The MOS:BOLDTITLE permits bolding of alternate names of the article subject, but this appears to be unrelated.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Missing citations - The first paragraph of the "History" section requires at least one additional citation. Granted, a part of the claims therein can be supported by The Leader–Post reference, but some of it is not covered. This particularly pertains to the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph, and consequently the last sentence of the same paragraph. The most problematic seems to be the Bath Road issue and I feel that if a source for the Bath Road is applied together with the one mentioned above, the paragraph would be covered. There is also a mention of the Bath Road in the "Route description" equally unsourced. Finally, I see the "Route description" section is sourced entirely from an atlas (offline), and I believe the map reference to be sufficient there, except maybe in resepct of the Glenora Ferry. On the other hand, a repeated reference could be used there - the one used to reference the ferry service table perhaps.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6b. Does the roundabout image depict the Prince Edward County Road 1 junction? Even though the article says the Prince Edward County Road 1 junction roundabout was the first modern one to be built on a provincial highway, it does not specifically say if there any other on the route. Perhaps changing the image caption to something like Ontario Highway 33 and Prince Edward County Road 1 junction in mid-construction might be a more informative caption in this case.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall there are no major issues with this article, apart from few missing citations, and some of them may be covered by repeated references to the existing cites. The sources used so far appear reliable and solid, with no apparent copyvios. The OR doesn't seem to be a problem, assuming the missing citations are added as necessary. The 2b/2c were not rated as I expect the 2a (missing references) issue to be fixed first. I'll place the nomination on hold for now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1a. All fixed. Looking over the two articles, I really can't see what the difference between the two is. I had assumed both terms would link to the same article, but I will change traffic circle to roundabout since that is the more common term in Ontario.

1b. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it should also bold terms when that term redirects to the article. The Glenora Ferry is solely a point to point connection on this highway so I'm not sure it's worthy of an independent article (at least with the limited information I've found)

2. Actually the map has the ferry schedule and path in it. Doesn't mention the lack of fares however, so the Ministry website is sourced for that. I've added that note and source into the prose (and cleaned it up since it was still in raw format). I added a couple more refs for the Bath Road part as well.

6b. Fixed

Thanks for the review. Hopefully the changes I've made resolve all the issues. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All outstanding issues are addressed now, so I'm passing the nomination. Nice article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Bay Road

I see Collins Bay Road is listed here as "County Road 2" and as the subject of a "former Kingston Connecting Link agreement"

60.9 Collins Bay Road Beginning of former Kingston Connecting Link agreement

The cited source is MTO's AADT numbers which currently list "FRONTENAC RD 2-COLLINS BAY-END OF NA". Only one problem... there is no such place as "County Road 2, Collins Bay". The designation *used* to exist in the pre-1998 Township of Kingston (another now non-existent entity, blame Mike Harris) but the county road designation was removed from all Collins Bay Road signage to avoid conflict with Ontario Highway 2, downloaded to the newly-amalgamated city in 1998 as "Kingston 2". Annexation to the City of Kingston also raises the issue that, while Kingston Township had representation at the county level and therefore had county roads when it was an independent entity, the city does not have any representation in Frontenac County (as a severed municipality) and anything annexed to the city now inherits this status.

I've removed the "county road" designator on Collins Bay Road. It's long dead. Nonetheless, "former Kingston Connecting Link agreement" is not clearly worded as this does not indicate whether the 'agreement' was with the former City of Kingston (which didn't reach that far west pre-1998) or the former Township of Kingston (which does include Collins Bay, but which is no longer extant now). Odds are, if this was downloaded on or before Jan 1, 1998 the connecting link between old city limits (Cataraqui Creek) westward to Collins Bay was in the Township, while the connecting link from the city limits eastward to Ontario Highway 2 was in the city. The City of Kingston never had a connecting link agreement for Collins Bay as it was well outside city limits at that time.

The cited source does not reference any connecting link agreement with either the Township of Kingston or the City of Kingston, just the beginning and end of the downloaded section(s). This is to be expected as that page is about (what's left of) the current road and is not in any form a historical source. (Even the 1988-2008 AADT comparison data on that page discards any traffic numbers for any highway segments which were downloaded in 1997-98.) 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]