Talk:Ontario Highway 8

Ontario Highway 8 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Ontario Highway 8 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
August 13, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
November 18, 2022	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 12, 2022	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

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 has a KML file.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 8/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keresluna (talk · contribs) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will start this review now, however, it may take me a few days to actually start to review this article.

@Floydian: Notifying that the review has started. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See some grammar errors. Fail for now, change when nominator fixes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Seems good.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Seems good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~Are google maps reliable sources?~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see the sentence However in 2008, Highway 8 was rerouted along the 3.3-kilometre (2.1 mi) freeway segment, while King Street East and Shantz Hill Road were re-designated as Regional Road 8. unreferenced. Change when fixed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead section

'Prior to 1970s, it continued...' change to 'Before the 1970s, it continued...'
'... transferred from province to the ...' add the between 'from' and 'province'.
Suggesting changing thereafter to after that.
Remove such as in the third paragraph.
Add comma after Hamilton and Dundas Stone Road.
Remove comma after passed in the third paragraph.

Otherwise seems good. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route description

Add a comma between Mitchell and and in the first paragraph.
Add a comma between Clinton and where in the second paragraph.
Suggestion: Replace 'Between Clinton and Stratford, Highway 8 is completely straight for approximately 50 kilometres (31 mi).' with 'Highway 8 is completely straight for approximately 50 kilometers between Clinton and Stratford (31 mi).'
Add a comma between (where it intersects Highway 23) and and in the second paragraph.
Add 'and' between Avon river and then in third paragraph.
Perhaps divide into subsections.

Not sure if you're waiting on me and going section by section, but I've been following along and making fixes. Some of the commas you've suggested for the Route description are Oxford commas, which I prefer to avoid in lists. As for splitting it into sections, I contemplated it at one point, but felt it would make for overly short subsections. It's about a paragraph away from it, but not quite there. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Feel free to reject my suggestions. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replace centre of the city with city's centre in the fourth paragraph.
Between midpoint and it add comma in the fourth paragraph.

Done, and also dealt with 2b above. Regarding 2a, Google Maps is reliable for the purpose it is used for here (to provide a convenient digital reference to locations, because it shows the actual physical surroundings, and for local street names that do not appear at the scale of regional mapbooks). There's only one use of it that isn't in tandem with a physical mapbook. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Instead of At its midpoint, it crosses over the Grand River,... change to It crosses the Grand River at its midpoint,...
Remove comma between six lanes and and later.
Suggestion: In the fifth paragraph, replace where it exits with which exits.

Seems good otherwise. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the third suggestion, that would change what exits urban Cambridge from Highway 8 to Branchton Road. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessors (1780–1918)

Add 'which' between Goderich, and begun in first paragraph.
On the image description on Queenston Road Cape Horn.jpg, replace prior to with before.
Remove the hyphen on criss-crossed on second paragraph.
Remove known as on second paragraph.
Remove comma between Iroquois Trail and and.
Replace continued with continues in second paragraph.
Remove on between continued and towards on second paragraph.
Add comma between figures and including in second paragraph.

All done except switching continued with continues, as the old native trail is lost now (the highway roughly follows it, but not always exactly in the same place) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The trail was further improved to allow for the passage of wagons by 1932. Who improved it?(Fourth paragraph)

Designation and paving (1918–1949)

Replace the majority with most in the first paragraph.
Replace ... 60% of the construction and maintenance costs for these roads, while the counties... with ... 60% of these roads' construction and maintenance costs, while the counties... in the first paragraph.
Replace 'permit' with 'allow' in the first paragraph.
Replace The initial system, between Windsor and Quebec, was bookended by branches to Niagara and Ottawa. with Between Windsor and Quebec, the initial system was bookended by branches to Niagara and Ottawa. in the first paragraph.
Remove comma between 'States' and 'and' in the first paragraph.
Add comma between 'Initially' and 'Highway' in the third paragraph.
Replace all as well as with and in the third paragraph. Adjust if needed.
Replace were with was between which and spent in third paragraph.
Remove comma between Hamburg and as.

@Floydian: Sorry for being late, was busy last week. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just let me know when you are finished and I'll make the necessary fixes. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keresluna: Is this the end of the review? --Rs chen 7754 22:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen7754, clearly not, since there are three more significant subsections under History plus a couple of sections beyond that. Keresluna is busy with responding to a review of their own nomination, and editing on occasional days only at the moment. It's probably going to take a while before this review is finished. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no rush, I prefer the thorough review to a fly by "looks good" any day of the week! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floydian: I am very sorry, please look at my User page. I will try to finish this review this week, but if I don't, I probably won't finish it. Sorry again. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bypasses and the Conestoga Parkway (1949–1970)

Remove comma between 'years' and 'until' in the first paragraph.
Remove the and of which is before and after the word bypassing in the first paragraph.
Add a comma between '1949' and 'the' in the first paragraph.
Remove comma between 'street' and 'before' in the first paragraph.
Replace 'in an effort to' to 'to' in the first paragraph.
Replace 'The original route – following Huron Street, Waterloo Street, and Snyder's Street West – met the new bypass at Gingerich Road east of Baden.' with 'Following Huron Street, Waterloo Street, and Snyder's Street West, the original route met the new bypass at Gingerich Road east of Baden.' in the first paragraph.
- @Keresluna: All fixed except the last one, because that makes it seem as though those streets were the route the new bypass followed. At this point I'll assume you won't be able to continue, so I'm going to request that another editor finish the review. Thank you for the extensive copyedit help thus far though, all the best in your wiki-retirement! Sorry to see you go. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 8/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm happy to take this over - looks like a lot of progress has already been made. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Impressively, no prose issues found - I think the prior GA review took care of them! Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass - I never love Google Maps personally but consensus at WP:RSN has established it's ok for things like this. All other sources of acceptable or high quality.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, none found. Some of the sourcing is a little close to OR (eg Google Maps) to my taste but well-established precedent for this on road transport articles.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else notable found in local newspapers. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	More detail than I find interesting about a road, but that's just me - for the general reader, it's at a good level of detail and not excessive. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues - pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues or edit wars. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues - all copyrighted and PD images look in order and are properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Perhaps 1-2 too many images to my taste, but not enough to keep it from passing this criteria. Captions are good. If any are to be removed, I would suggest File:Conestoga and Freeport interchange.png, which is duplicative of the 1970 image, or maybe File:Highway 8 widening.png.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article is in great state and passes GA without any changes needed from the nominator. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2022 (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.