Talk:Sussex Drive/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ottawa Regional Road 93 doesn't seem to exist.
"a major street" on what basis is it "major"?
I would have thought the lead might describe the "major junctions" (as listed in the infobox) as they are significant?
What is "The Driveway" in the infobox referring to?
This is pedantic, but you say in the infobox that it's maintained by "City of Ottawa" but that doesn't appear referenced or in the article.
How much of the opening two sentences is really cited by reference [2]? I see Sussex Drive listed but none of the other claims made in those sentences seem to be verifiable there.
"It proceeds" Last thing you mentioned was the high commission. Suggest you reiterate "Sussex Drive proceeds"...
"two lane road" two-lane road.
I thought we weren't supposed to "autocollapse" tables by default?
Table needs row and col scopes for accessibility.
Notes (free text) aren't usefully sortable.
Nor are images.
Address col seems to sort four ways. I wouldn't leave blank cells in there either, perhaps N/A or something if address is not appropriate.
Year established sorts three ways for me too.
"now the Senate of Canada Building" overlinked.
"now Élisabeth Bruyère Hospital" likewise.
"tre-Dame Cathedral,[27" should that have a "Basilica" on the end of it?
"sprung up " not encyclopedic tone.
"land in Lower Town, as" overlinked.
"October 2, 1945 and" comma after year.
"Sussex Street would be renamed Sussex Drive" why not "was" rather than 'would be'?
"for the Rideau Centre commenced" overlinked.
"The Embassy of France and the High Commission of South Africa were both established prior to World War II,[11][77] while Japan and Saudi Arabia both " all overlinked.
"latter would not open" why not "did not"?
"0.062" is an absurdly precise conversion of 0.1km.
Also absurd is 1.9km and 2.0km both then converting to 1.2mi! Decimal places need to be tailored here for such a short road and to avoid these kinds of things.
Lots of spaced hyphens in in the refs, all should be en-dashes.
Interestingly in the navbox Sussex is listed as "Collectors/Secondary arteries", I don't know what either of those really mean but also neither of those terms are used in the article.

That's all I have for a quick pass. On hold, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review TRM; this is the kind of review I hope for out of GANs. Blasted backlog drives attracting fly-by promotions. Anyways, I've switched your points to a numerical list just so it's easier to respond to specific items. Any items I didn't respond to can be considered "fixed as noted".

3. I'm finding it kind of difficult to put words to this explanation, but basically it's not that significant... but it has an article. Almost like "Associated acts" for artist infoboxes; you'd almost never find them mentioned in the lead.

6. It was only meant to cite the "many of which are designated National Historical Sites" part. I tend/try to make the first sentence or two of each section a tertiary summary of the remainder of the section, and it seems visually unappealing to pile the 7 references together here. Regardless I pushed the ref to the end of that sentence along with the google map reference that validates everything except "Among one of the most famous roads in Canada". That last bit has bothered me because it's impossible to find a reference for, but it's a given for myself as a Canadian... almost how Downing Street

9. I wasn't aware of this... Frig first China's tortoise-speed death of Internet Explorer and now dumbed down mobile sites and Google searches practically render the interactivity of the internet pointless. Anyways, would this not possibly fall under "simply repeats information covered in the main text" and/or "is purely supplementary"? Uncollapsed, it nearly double the vertical length of the article. Frankly, if it is being stripped from low-bandwidth users: good, why waste their limited bandwidth?

See WP:COLLAPSE. Also, I'm not convinced by the data argument, surely the whole page loads whether it's "displayed" or not? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the Google search lite strips collapsed tables... allegedly. It also claims that the mobile view does that, but when I view the article on mobile, it simply uncollapses the table. That style page also falsely states that browsers that do not support css or javascript won't display collapsed tables. I'm not concerned about a few kilobytes or all 2 users of Lynx, but I am concerned with excessive scrolling and having that ~40% of the vertical space taken up by information covered already in the prose. This is one case I'd like to implement WP:IAR, because the accessibility concerns of the table being displayed seem outdated and catering to the absolute lowest rung (browsers that are 25 years out of date and some crappy side tool made by Google) as opposed to the presentation of the article to over 50% of our audience (desktop). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10–14. I've added a bunch of accessibility coding and sortkeys. They appear to sort properly now, let me know if you still get odd results.

17. Nope. It was only a cathedral in 1867, becaming a basilica in 1879.

25–26. I'm kind of limited by both the table and templates used for junction lists. I get exactly what you mean here though. The template runs off Module:Jctint/core, which has no parameter for significant digits that I can find. @Fredddie: is there any way to set the number of significant digits in the distance conversion for {{jctint}}?

28. I don't either, hah. I've never actually paid much attention to navboxes for city streets. Went ahead and changed this one however.

Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird that 0.1km converted like that. Precision is supposed to be gleaned from the input via Module:Math. Interestingly, {{convert}} has the same behavior.

1 km (0.62 mi)

2 km (1.2 mi)

0.1 km (0.062 mi)

0.2 km (0.12 mi)

10 km (6.2 mi)

20 km (12 mi)

I don't have a quick fix for this. –Fredddie ™ 20:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference is you can force {{convert}} to use as many or as few decimal places as you like. It appears this template does not provide that function. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to trace it back, the conversion itself is performed on lines 170 and 185 of Module:Road data/util which should accept a value for "prec" from line 140, or the value passed for _precision should have 1 subtracted from it if the value of km/mi is less than 1 perhaps. Beyond that it's hieroglyphs to me. Yada yada yada, I've added a zero to every row and hard-coded the row for McKay Street to show 0.06. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian thanks, looking good, just the collapse issue, response above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm content this passes (exceeds) the requirements for GA. Forgive me pursuing a slightly higher bar (e.g. MOS:ACCESS compliance) but thank you for tolerating it and investigating. I'm happy with the outcome and will be passing this now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, in any way, or ever will that be a problem to me! I much prefer a thorough review that prepares an article for future peer reviewing (A/FA) than waiting four months for someone to skip-de-loo along with "yup, its good. Pass!" Accessibility has always been one of my big concerns and I often take the time to run pages, templates and imagery through various colour-blind filters to ensure everyone can enjoy the knowledge! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]