Wikipedia:Peer review/Ontario Highway 6/archive1

Highway 6 (Ontario) edit

Over the past few weeks, I have been working on this article, expanding it to its current state. Please review this article with the "Good Article" criteria, and based on the improvements that this article have made during the course of this several weeks.

Follow this link to compare the two versions (July 7 VS June 9) of Highway 6:

[1]

Any comments, please reply here below, or notify me via User talk:Smcafirst/Requests. Thanks a lot!

Smcafirst | Chat at 13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong, as Highway 6 goes much closer to Hamilton, Ontario. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map is based on the MapArt Road Atlas for Southern Ontario, and with its new alignment (Highway 6 By-Pass), it does not go close to Hamilton anymore, instead, it travels by the southern boundary of the Hamilton/John C. Munro International Airport, and through Ancaster, eventually meeting up with Highway 403.
Please do give more comments.
Smcafirst | Chat at 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's still closer to Hamilton than your map indicates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is not a reliable source; you'll need to use maps, newspaper articles, highway department records, or other reliable sources for the history. The history may also be able to be expanded: is there any pre-provincial highway history, like turnpike roads (if those existed in Ontario)? Was there actually an "official opening" in 1920? In the case of most numbered highways, the numbers were simply applied to an existing road. Is there a reason the article is at "Highway 6 (Ontario)" but the bolded text reads "Ontario provincial highway 6" and the infobox reads "Ontario Highway 6"? The prose could also use a little work, with one-line paragraphs, sentence fragments ("High travel speeds in the five-lane section, and typical flow varies between 100 km/h (65 mph) and 120 km/h (75 mph)."), awkward wording ("In Guelph, the road travels full length on Hanlon Parkway, a 4-lane, divided highway."), and statements that cannot be referenced to maps and thus need independent references ("There is an election promise to upgrade this 13 km to a 400-series Highway and rename it Highway 410."). The neologism "multiplex" should be avoided, in favor of whatever the MTO uses (if they do use something), or "overlap" or "concurrency" if they don't. --NE2 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed your wording that "Eventually, it arrives in Espanola (Baldwin)". Baldwin is a separate municipality north of Espanola; they aren't the same thing, and Espanola is not the highway's terminus. The map should also be corrected in one of two ways: either add a very short stub of red line north of Espanola leading to a new dot labelled as "McKerrow", or just relabel the Espanola dot as McKerrow. If you do the former, then move the Espanola dot down a bit; as you have it right now, the dot is straddling the line that actually defines the northern town limits of Espanola. Bearcat 02:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I created the map, and I decided McKerrow wasn't big enough for a dot. The dot for Espanola is big enough that it covers the terminus on the map. As for NE2's comments, I think Cameron's website is a reliable source, he has put a lot of research into creating that website. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Espanola isn't the terminus, so as it stands the map is objectively wrong. Wikipedia has to be accurate — we can't just do "eh, that's close enough". Bearcat 21:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi automated peer review edit

some folks appreciate these, some don't, here it is: use it or don't.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 17 kilometres, use 17 kilometres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 17 kilometres.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query edit

The article covers answers to the questions where, when and what very well. The answer to how is started to be answered in the history section, but probably would not suffice for any civic engineering design concept or construction queries. However, I am mainly wondering why, why does this road exist in the first place and why is there the highest AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) in 2002 ? Is it tourism, folks going to and fro from work, is there a huge economic venture there, is the ferry going somewhere cool to work, or visit. Where do all these vehicles come from and where do they go and why are there so many cars there or are they semis? How big are these cities, are they all interconnected at this place, or is there country side betwixt them, is just the enormous size of the cities what produces the volume of traffic, are they commuters?

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate' and '?verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable. For a subject which had controversy in the media, it has been very well written.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

If I was to rate it IMHO, then a few more references should be cited to verify the placenames along the route as facts, and just a double check to ensure all new info has a citation. There is a query about broad in coverage just in regards to the query about why this route is so gosh darn popular. What is going on in this neck of the woods for all these peoples. Kind Regards, and good work! SriMesh | talk 03:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]