Jump to content

Talk:Queen Elizabeth Way/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. TCN7JM 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Name and signage – The final sentence of the first paragraph reads confusingly. Are Highway 420 and Falls Avenue the same road?
  2. From which year are the inflation figures calculated?
  3. Speaking of the inflation figures, I'm not sure a comma is the correct punctuation mark after them. The first sentence of that paragraph appears to be a run-on.
  4. Route description – "The QEW is a 139-kilometre (86 mi) route that travels from the Peace Bridge, connecting Fort Erie with Buffalo, New York, to Toronto, the economic hub of the province." – Two things on this sentence...
    1. It seems a bit odd (and inconsistent) to write out "kilometre" in full just that one time, and also stick a hyphen in it.
    2. Reading the sentence a couple times over, I realize what it's supposed to mean, but that word "connecting" should probably be swapped out. At first glance I wasn't entirely sure if it was referring to the Peace Bridge or the QEW itself.
  5. A customs booth provides access to different highways? How?
  6. Linking interchange may or may not be an overlink violation, since you linked it in the lead and it is a fairly common term. I'll leave this at your discretion.
  7. "Numerous creeks flow through these forests, often flooding them." – This seems kind of irrelevant unless these floods often close the highway, in which case that should be stated and sourced.

I will resume this review at a later time. You can address these comments in the mean time. TCN7JM 22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Fixed
  2. Whichever year is mentioned as the completion date prior to the monetary figures. I've clarified this however
  3. Fixed
  4. Reworded and abbreviated this instance of km and unabbreviated the first instance in the lede.
  5. Reworded
  6. Unlinked both instances. I think it is in any case, there is information at the controlled-access highway article.
  7. The forest is often flooded through the year, and this is simply a description of the surroundings in this case.
-- Floydian τ ¢ 23:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP here! Sorry to butt in... there seems to be an error with the caption for the photo of the monument under History > The Middle Road. It says "In 1974, the monument was removed. It was later reinstalled in X." Presumably 'X' is a placeholder and should be replaced by a date and/or location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for noticing, and you may butt in as much as you like :) Yes that was a placeholder that I forgot to go back and fix. I've taken car of it now. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll resume my review now. TCN7JM 04:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "...interchanges at 50 Road, Fruitland Road and Centennial Parkway (formerly Highway 20). The latter is.." – Former/latter should only be used to compare a pair of items, and there are three in that list.
  2. "After crossing Etobicoke Creek, which forms the boundary between Mississagua / Peel Region and Toronto." – This is a fragment.
  3. History – " Middle Road, a dirt lane named because of its position between the two, was not considered since Lake Shore and Dundas were both overcrowded and in need of serious repairs." – I'm confused by this statement. What exactly was it not considered for?

Okay, it's getting late here, so I'll have to...uh...postpone this again. Sorry, but I kinda fell asleep earlier and lost all my free time. TCN7JM 05:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problemo, take your time.
  1. Fixed
  2. Not sure what happened there, but I've added the piece of text that I thought was there already...
  3. Well, it was a dirt lane, so there were more pressing needs along the established roads.
-- Floydian τ ¢ 06:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't necessarily need to; its more of the "lede" image. I'd rather the images spread throughout the article in a nice neat fashion, preferably in the proper sections where possible, but occasionally not where doing so makes a mess of the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I am still interested in finishing this review, either tonight or tomorrow. TCN7JM 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, time to do that.

  1. I think that instead of using semicolon'd subheaders in the Conversion to freeway section, you should use Level 4 headers so section edits can be done more easily.
  2. Why is "salvaging" italicized?
  3. Who or what is "the W.E. Fitzgerald"? If it's the name of a person, why is a definite article used before it?
  4. "$152795031 adjusted for inflation" – Possible to just round this off to a couple decimal places?
  5. "traffic had already been flowing over the 2,200-metre-long (7,200 ft) bridge" – I think traffic flows on a bridge, not over it.
  6. There's a paragraph in the 1960s and 1970s section that's entirely unsourced.
  7. "Planning for the removal of the Stoney Creek traffic circle was completed by 1970, and construction began in 1974." – I feel like "construction" isn't the best word that could be used here, since it's describing something being removed.
  8. Recent work – "Parclo A4" isn't a common term. It should be linked to partial cloverleaf interchange.
  9. Same with "diamond" to diamond interchange.
  10. Also, that first paragraph is unsourced.
  11. I get a bug like this three times at different spots in the exit list. What causes this, and can it be fixed?

Alright, I'm finally done for now! This is on hold. TCN7JM 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Done and agreed
  2. Should have been quotes
  3. It was a ship... but I'm not sure how to refer to it as such... if it had an article it would be easy enough.
  4. Yep, done
  5. Haha, true enough. Fixed
  6. Fixed
  7. Changed to reconstruction, since it was both removal of the old one and building of the new one
  8. Added
  9. Diamond interchange is already linked, but I added the word "interchange" to this instance to make it clearer.
  10. Ah yes, this was the one paragraph I still had to source... forgot about it. All fixed
  11. That appears to be the error caused by a browser like Chrome incorrectly rendering split cells, which is very unfortunate. I'm guessing it also appears at the Burlington/Oakville boundary and the Oakville/Mississaga boundary. All fixed, as ugly as it looks.
Thanks for the review and for cutting the ribbon to connect Michigan with the rest of the US at the GA level! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks better now. Passing the article. TCN7JM 20:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_Way/GA1&oldid=1140125314"