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.
Nominator's comments: I figure with the new extension to this highway opening in the next few weeks, now is a good time for Highway 404 to be scrutinized. Unfortunately this is one of the few highways where I can't find a precise date for the opening of the first section, but nevertheless it is complete and comprehensive.
Do you need to indicate the road names along with the route numbers in the infobox? Most highway articles only mention the route number.
"Northbound, the freeway is six lanes wide from Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue, where one diverges onto an off-ramp, re-emerging north of Finch", should indicate one lane diverges.
"The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and interchanges with 16th Avenue.", interchange should not be used as a verb, maybe change to "reaches an interchange" or something similar.
The sentences "North of Bethesda Road, the freeway crosses through a green space area. Two small lakes are present to either side." should be combined.
" Design work started in 1973,[9] the first contract was awarded in early 1976,[10] and construction began in March 1976 with the awarding of a C$6.9 million contract. " you mention two contracts were awarded. What was the contract awarded in early 1976 for? You mention what the one awarded in March was for. Dough487200:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
In this case, it makes more sense given the sources out there and the common public recognition of the roads. For example, despite being downloaded to the Region of York in 1997, the route now designated as Regional Road 7 is still labelled and better known as "Highway 7". The same vernacular applies in the common chat: "Take the 404 to Green Lane", never "Take the 404 to York 19". Given that Highway 401 is currently the only provincial route connected to Highway 404, I think it's best left here.
Done
Fixed
Done
Fixed... same contract, didn't realize it in the jigsaw-like process it was to research this particular article.
Note that if the current proposal at
WT:HWY/ACR passes, this will only require 2 supports to pass - thus, I will withdraw this review on the condition that the proposal passes. --Rschen775400:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
File:Woodbine facing south.png - Non-free fair use with rationale, is the rationale enough to justify its use when a free image from the time period may be able to be found?
Regarding the NFUR image, there are no other images that I've been able to locate of the two lane Woodbine prior to construction of Highway 404. They may be out there, but locating one is not likely. Unfortunately, this image will also not fall into public domain next year as it is a municipal image not covered by Crown Copyright. - Floydianτ¢03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
suggesting that the length of the Don Valley Parkway was considered in distance calculations – sounds like
WP:OR, would need a better source than a map
The double image on the left leaves a wide gutter of empty space to the left of the table
Adjusted the images... let me know if that fixes it. I've got an average 15-17" screen so I know wider monitors get image/table stacking issues no matter what.
I think that's always just been Dough rules, and it severely limits the wording choice and readability because of one minor sentence in
MOS:FLAGICON. I've tried asking about the meaning of that clause on the talk page of MOS:FLAGICON and gotten no response at all. The first instance I've fixed, but this instance I can't without making it confusing that the shield doesn't apply to Steeles Avenue. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Formerly Highway 7 – as above, plus "Use of marker images should be limited to the Destinations column(s) only" is also noted in
MOS:RJL
The second half I'm not changing; the difference in designation and thus marker is the entire foundation for our use of highway markers whatsoever in articles. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville ... Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora ... Whitchurch-Stouffville – Newmarket – if each of these are boundaries, that should be specified as was done for Markham – Richmond Hill boundary
Exit 27 doesn't line up with a location, it is shown as being both within Markham and on the Markham – Richmond Hill boundary
South of Exit 27 is entirely Markham, while north of it is the boundary line between Markham and Richmond Hill. Highway 404 forms the boundary line between several municipalities, which makes things confusing for an exit list table. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Exit 41 is shown as being at both "Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville" and "Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora". If it is actually at the
tripoint, that should be specified directly.
Perhaps have "Toronto–York boundary" in the Division column, and "Toronto–Markham boundary" in the location column - Evad37[
talk09:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)reply
What happened to the distances for Regional Road 77 and Bradford Bypass?
They are both future interchanges... guess I forgot to leave those two orange. The distance to these interchanges are not provided in documentation and can't be asserted to 1/10th of a kilometre. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
It might be worth noting in the last row that it is the northern terminus
This is a problem with citation templates since the conversion to Lua. I have to do an AWB run through all Ontario highways to change section= to at=... because apparently that akes more sense to the wise overlords of Wikipedia technical. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
There are enough references to have columns in the reflist
Now that I have more regular internet access, I've been able to get this going again. I've addressed all of @
Evad37:'s concerns above, pending his approval. - Floydianτ¢22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Floydian: I will do a source review for this article, but first can you fix the errors? Refs 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21 show "|chapter= ignored", and ref 20 has "Missing or empty |title= " - Evad37[
talk04:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Refs 1, 18, 23, 24, 28: Title should be in title case to be consistent with other refs
Refs 5, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30 have dead links
Ref 2: Map scale (or "Scale not given") should be specified
Ref 6: hyphen (-) should be an endash (–)
Ref 7: Department of Highways is ambiguous, location should be specified. Similarly Ministry of Transportation and Communications in later refs
Ref 7: The citation currently implies that "Annual Report" is a section within "Summary Report of Department Operations". Is this correct, or should it be the other way around?
Ref 18: reduce all caps in quote to normal case, per
MOS:ALLCAPS
Ref 20 doesn't have any details in it
Ref 25: "Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" should be the author and "Government of Ontario" for consistency with other refs.
Ref 27: Isn't the committee the author and the regional municipality the publisher – would make this ref consistent with eg ref 36
Ref 29: More details should be given, perhaps with {{Cite sign}} – see also the examples there
Ref 36: Appendix A is a section within the report, not part of the title
Regarding ref 7, this is an error from the Lua conversion that removed the ability to use chapter or section. At doesn't work, and department is causing the current set up. I'm really not sure how to fix this but its aggravating that they deprecated a well-used parameter. Regarding ref 29, I've added that citation template, though the doc doesn't give much more than general CS1 info. Besides this, everything is fixed and dead links updated. - Floydianτ¢02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Works for me. I'm not sure which style guideline wikipedia follows for footnotes in all honesty, kind of a hodgepodge. Makes it confusing at times. - Floydianτ¢08:37, 27 April 2015 (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.
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.
Nominator's comments: I figure with the new extension to this highway opening in the next few weeks, now is a good time for Highway 404 to be scrutinized. Unfortunately this is one of the few highways where I can't find a precise date for the opening of the first section, but nevertheless it is complete and comprehensive.
Do you need to indicate the road names along with the route numbers in the infobox? Most highway articles only mention the route number.
"Northbound, the freeway is six lanes wide from Sheppard Avenue to Finch Avenue, where one diverges onto an off-ramp, re-emerging north of Finch", should indicate one lane diverges.
"The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and interchanges with 16th Avenue.", interchange should not be used as a verb, maybe change to "reaches an interchange" or something similar.
The sentences "North of Bethesda Road, the freeway crosses through a green space area. Two small lakes are present to either side." should be combined.
" Design work started in 1973,[9] the first contract was awarded in early 1976,[10] and construction began in March 1976 with the awarding of a C$6.9 million contract. " you mention two contracts were awarded. What was the contract awarded in early 1976 for? You mention what the one awarded in March was for. Dough487200:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)reply
In this case, it makes more sense given the sources out there and the common public recognition of the roads. For example, despite being downloaded to the Region of York in 1997, the route now designated as Regional Road 7 is still labelled and better known as "Highway 7". The same vernacular applies in the common chat: "Take the 404 to Green Lane", never "Take the 404 to York 19". Given that Highway 401 is currently the only provincial route connected to Highway 404, I think it's best left here.
Done
Fixed
Done
Fixed... same contract, didn't realize it in the jigsaw-like process it was to research this particular article.
Note that if the current proposal at
WT:HWY/ACR passes, this will only require 2 supports to pass - thus, I will withdraw this review on the condition that the proposal passes. --Rschen775400:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)reply
File:Woodbine facing south.png - Non-free fair use with rationale, is the rationale enough to justify its use when a free image from the time period may be able to be found?
Regarding the NFUR image, there are no other images that I've been able to locate of the two lane Woodbine prior to construction of Highway 404. They may be out there, but locating one is not likely. Unfortunately, this image will also not fall into public domain next year as it is a municipal image not covered by Crown Copyright. - Floydianτ¢03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
suggesting that the length of the Don Valley Parkway was considered in distance calculations – sounds like
WP:OR, would need a better source than a map
The double image on the left leaves a wide gutter of empty space to the left of the table
Adjusted the images... let me know if that fixes it. I've got an average 15-17" screen so I know wider monitors get image/table stacking issues no matter what.
I think that's always just been Dough rules, and it severely limits the wording choice and readability because of one minor sentence in
MOS:FLAGICON. I've tried asking about the meaning of that clause on the talk page of MOS:FLAGICON and gotten no response at all. The first instance I've fixed, but this instance I can't without making it confusing that the shield doesn't apply to Steeles Avenue. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Formerly Highway 7 – as above, plus "Use of marker images should be limited to the Destinations column(s) only" is also noted in
MOS:RJL
The second half I'm not changing; the difference in designation and thus marker is the entire foundation for our use of highway markers whatsoever in articles. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville ... Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora ... Whitchurch-Stouffville – Newmarket – if each of these are boundaries, that should be specified as was done for Markham – Richmond Hill boundary
Exit 27 doesn't line up with a location, it is shown as being both within Markham and on the Markham – Richmond Hill boundary
South of Exit 27 is entirely Markham, while north of it is the boundary line between Markham and Richmond Hill. Highway 404 forms the boundary line between several municipalities, which makes things confusing for an exit list table. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Exit 41 is shown as being at both "Richmond Hill – Whitchurch–Stouffville" and "Whitchurch–Stouffville – Aurora". If it is actually at the
tripoint, that should be specified directly.
Perhaps have "Toronto–York boundary" in the Division column, and "Toronto–Markham boundary" in the location column - Evad37[
talk09:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)reply
What happened to the distances for Regional Road 77 and Bradford Bypass?
They are both future interchanges... guess I forgot to leave those two orange. The distance to these interchanges are not provided in documentation and can't be asserted to 1/10th of a kilometre. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
It might be worth noting in the last row that it is the northern terminus
This is a problem with citation templates since the conversion to Lua. I have to do an AWB run through all Ontario highways to change section= to at=... because apparently that akes more sense to the wise overlords of Wikipedia technical. - Floydianτ¢19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
There are enough references to have columns in the reflist
Now that I have more regular internet access, I've been able to get this going again. I've addressed all of @
Evad37:'s concerns above, pending his approval. - Floydianτ¢22:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Floydian: I will do a source review for this article, but first can you fix the errors? Refs 9, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21 show "|chapter= ignored", and ref 20 has "Missing or empty |title= " - Evad37[
talk04:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Refs 1, 18, 23, 24, 28: Title should be in title case to be consistent with other refs
Refs 5, 6, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30 have dead links
Ref 2: Map scale (or "Scale not given") should be specified
Ref 6: hyphen (-) should be an endash (–)
Ref 7: Department of Highways is ambiguous, location should be specified. Similarly Ministry of Transportation and Communications in later refs
Ref 7: The citation currently implies that "Annual Report" is a section within "Summary Report of Department Operations". Is this correct, or should it be the other way around?
Ref 18: reduce all caps in quote to normal case, per
MOS:ALLCAPS
Ref 20 doesn't have any details in it
Ref 25: "Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" should be the author and "Government of Ontario" for consistency with other refs.
Ref 27: Isn't the committee the author and the regional municipality the publisher – would make this ref consistent with eg ref 36
Ref 29: More details should be given, perhaps with {{Cite sign}} – see also the examples there
Ref 36: Appendix A is a section within the report, not part of the title
Regarding ref 7, this is an error from the Lua conversion that removed the ability to use chapter or section. At doesn't work, and department is causing the current set up. I'm really not sure how to fix this but its aggravating that they deprecated a well-used parameter. Regarding ref 29, I've added that citation template, though the doc doesn't give much more than general CS1 info. Besides this, everything is fixed and dead links updated. - Floydianτ¢02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Works for me. I'm not sure which style guideline wikipedia follows for footnotes in all honesty, kind of a hodgepodge. Makes it confusing at times. - Floydianτ¢08:37, 27 April 2015 (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.