Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 416

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review

Ontario Highway 416 edit

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.

Toolbox

Ontario Highway 416 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Took this to peer review where it sat for the better part of the month... at least here it will get some constructive feedback. I don't believe this is ready for that promotion yet, but it is a great candidate for a future FA and so I'd like to get some input on what could make it a better article.
Nominated by: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Dough4872 04:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with this article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. In the infobox, change the dashes to "in"
  2. The sentence "Highway 416 "South" was the twinning of 57 km (35 mi) of Highway 16 New, a two-lane expressway that was constructed throughout the 1970s and finished in 1983, and a new interchange with Highway 401 to serve Toronto-bound traffic and vice versa." sounds awkward.
  3. In the sentence "The freeway is surrounded by thick forests and encounters almost no signs of human habitation for the following 10 km (6.2 mi).", I don't think "and encounters almost no signs of human habitation" is really needed.
  4. "it escapes the forest and enters farmland.", try to use a better word than "escapes".
  5. The sentence "The route travels to the east of the community, access to which is provided by an exit at County Road 21, crosses a swamp and is crossed by the Prescott Highway again" sounds awkward.
  6. The sentence "It crosses the old Bytown and Prescott Railway,[5] then curves to the northwest, providing an exit to River Road before crossing the Rideau River and entering the Ottawa region." needs to be reworded.
  7. "provides an interchange", use another word instead of "provides".
  8. The sentence "The route provides an interchange with Dilworth Road, then 2 km (1.2 mi) later with Roger Stevens Drive, the latter providing access to North Gower." sounds awkward.
  9. "An interchange is encountered shortly thereafter", try rewording.
  10. "The Stony Swamp lies west of the route,[7] while farmland lies to the east", don't think a comma is needed here.
  11. The sentence "To overcome the issue of abutting properties established along the Highway 16 corridor, the DHO began purchasing a new right-of-way between Highway 401 and Century Road by late 1967, and constructed a two lane bypass of the original alignment, avoiding all the built up areas that the original Highway 16 encountered." is very choppy and long. Maybe split it.
  12. Citation needed for "The new highway ended at Dilworth Road (Regional Road 13)."
  13. The paragraph "With the completion of Highway 16 New, the MTO needed only to construct interchanges and the southbound lanes in order to create a full freeway corridor. The upgrade to Highway 416 took place between 1989 and 1999 and was carried out through two separate projects: Highway 416 North was a 21 km (13 mi) freeway on a new alignment through Ottawa and an interchange at Highway 417, and Highway 416 South was the twinning of 57 km (35 mi) of Highway 16 New and an interchange at Highway 401." needs a citation. Dough4872 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of making these changes? --Rschen7754 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had the opportunity yet with all the KML stuff the last week. I'll post here once I've made them (hopefully within the next week). I'm sure there's a lot more issues besides just these as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ping again. --Rschen7754 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed issues 1 through 11. I will have a citation for number 12 shortly. Number 13 is merely a summary of the proceeding paragraph (which examines that twinning in detail), but I can source it if you really feel it's needed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, 12 and 13 have refs now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Fredddie
Infobox
  1. The locations of the major intersections in the infobox don't match up with the exit list. ✓
  2. Maybe include Highway 16 in the infobox? ✓
Lede
  1. "The 76.4 km (47.5 mi) freeway" should be "The 76.4-km-long (47.5 mi) freeway".
  2. "via 60 km (37 mi) of Highway 401" I don't think the length itself is important here. You could just say "via Highway 401". ✓
  3. "Highway 16 (known as the Prescott Highway, now Prince of Wales Drive)" is confusing. It reads like Highway 16 is now Prince of Wales Drive when you mean the old routing is Prince of Wales Drive. ✓
RD
  1. Again with 76.4-km-long.
  2. Is the Highway 417 name more important than the TCH? If the TCH is more important, I'd say "connecting Highway 401 with the Trans-Canada Highway (Highway 417)." ✓
  3. "all situated near the route." Maybe "all are situated near the route."? ✓
  4. Run-on alert! ✓
    • Replace "The freeway begins at an interchange with Highway 401, branching to the north near the community of Johnstown, and this interchange only provides access to and from the west, but immediately north of it a second interchange with the remaining section of Highway 16 provides access from Johnstown and both directions of Highway 401."
    • With "The freeway begins at an interchange with Highway 401, branching to the north near the community of Johnstown. This interchange only provides access to and from the west, but immediately north of it, a second interchange with the remaining section of Highway 16 provides access from Johnstown and to both directions of Highway 401."
  5. 68-metre-wide, forested median
  6. Following 10 km → Next 10 km? ✓
  7. The Prescott Highway should be surrounded by commas or parentheses here, but not dashes ✓
  8. The part that talks about the Prescott Highway crossing for the second and third times should be reworded such that it doesn't read like the Prescott Highway is the real subject of the sentences.
  9. Instead of saying "former Highway 43", you should say what its current name is and then add the caveat that it's old Hwy 43. ✓
  10. Instead of "a public park", you should call it by its name and then remove the redundancy at the end of the sentence. ✓
  11. "Farmland" is used too many times.
  12. You use the verb jogs twice in quick succession; one should change. ✓
  13. 59-metre-long span
Design features
  1. Who mentioned Hwy 416 would be tolled?
  2. There is an odd jump between evaluating inefficiencies and listing what they came up with.
  3. Where are some of the pre-tensioned concrete bridges located?
History
  1. "Geologically subdued" just strikes me as an odd way to say "flatter". ✓
  2. Maybe I missed it, but when Hwy 16 New was finished, was Hwy 16 moved onto the new alignment or was it designated 416 from the beginning? ✓
Change of plans
  1. "This contract was complete in 1993, after which budgetary restraints prevented the awarding of further contracts." Was completed? The sentence has a slightly different meaning with "completed" than it does with "complete", so I'm asking. ✓
  2. We may want to consult the MoS, but I don't think "C$7 million" is correct. ✓
Twinning
  1. It was a large crash, yes, but is it worth mentioning in the article? ✓

That should do it for me. Keep in mind that some of my comments are conversation starters and not must-fixes. Overall, nice work. –Fredddie™ 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to see if the concerns will be addressed soon. --Rschen7754 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As with most of my to do list, this may have to await my exams. I haven't had a lot of time to edit this past week and it may continue to be that way for the next few weeks. However, I've read through all of these and I'll be getting back here as soon as I can. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, just checking to make sure you didn't forget. I'm in the same boat too. --Rschen7754 22:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alrighty, I'm starting to go through these. I mentioned the Trans-Canada Highway in the lead first, but I think otherwise it should be referred to as Highway 417 (it'd be like saying it serves as an important trade corridor to the Interstate system as opposed to I-81 specifically).
"all situated near the route." Maybe "all are situated near the route."?
  • That would read very oddly... but "all of which are adjacent to the route." (adjacent to or situated near) works.
  • For number 9, the current name is hardly used by locals: "Leeds and Grenville County Road 43". I try to avoid naming them as such (except in the RJL) since they're so awkward and long in prose.
  • The whole design features section is in need of some expansion beyond a list. I'll try to get to this in the next week, but thank you for the ideas on how to actually go about that.
  • Geologically subdued means flatter, less rocky, less obstacle-filled... less hindering. Highway 15 goes through the Canadian Shield, so it would have been much more expensive and difficult to build. Definitely a technical term, but a lot less wordy than alternatives methinks.
  • Most official sources I've found refer to it as Highway 16 New (sometimes 16N)... But I've seen plenty of instances of it being referred to as Highway 416 from the 1970s. However, that number didn't officially appear on maps/signs until the mid to late 1990s.
  • Completed is probably correct
  • C$xxx is the correct method, unless it's changed since the Don Valley Parkway made FA.
  • Given that massive pileups are fairly rare on major freeways, I believe they're pretty noteworthy, but YMMV. The only other instances that I've mentioned are the Carnage Alley pileup on ON401 and the flash snowsquall last year on ON402.

I still have to cleanup the "farmland"s and get into the Design features, but otherwise I've made several changes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's the review coming? --Rschen7754 06:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have been waiting for a follow up from Floydian's comment that he still had some clean some stuff up. But I'm guessing that since I have a talkback on my talk page, I'm not going to get one. :) –Fredddie™ 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The farmlands I'll take out in the next edit to the article, the design features I've yet to do... All the other stuff you brought up I've made an adjustment and/or responded to. If you guys feel its taking too long or you don't want idle reviews left up, I have no problem with closing this for now until I've made the Design Features section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I see no reason to rush. –Fredddie™ 19:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you plan to work on it within the next 1-2 months, it's not a problem; just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten. --Rschen7754 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked off the points with which I am satisfied. –Fredddie™ 00:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to heed off the upcoming question, I should be able to knock off the rest this weekend. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all the non-Design Features points should be taken care of now. Still working away though... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know we've all been busy, but checking to see how things are going... --Rschen7754 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just filled in and ref'd the design features section. That should address or bring up new concerns for Freddie, and otherwise other reviewers are what is needed at this point (finally!) - Floydian τ ¢ 04:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support noting disclaimers above. --Rschen7754 06:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation nitpicks: Citation 26 has Ottawa marked in it. Either a) we should use locations in all of them (something I do normally) or b) remove Ottawa from Citation 26 for consistency. The use of "Ministry of Transportation, Ontario" and "Government of Ontario" is a bit unbalanced. Citations 9-11 all use the MTO as a publisher, while Citations 1, 2, 5, 7 and so on use MTO as author and GoO for publisher. I prefer the former to be honest, but I'll leave it up to you. Also, is there no links to the Environmental Review Tribunal (or agency) in Citation 8? Not sure I get what it is. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 11:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the location since I'm not sure of them in most cases and I don't want to introduce more inconsistency. As for the the MTO/GoO author-publisher issue, these are different publication situations: On one hand are press releases from the Government of Ontario which are authored by the MTO; on the other are releases from the MTO. In either case I don't know the author in any specific form, but this at least gives some of those citations both an author and a publisher. As for the last issue, the Environmental Review Tribunal is the website hosting the document at this point in time. The board could be replaced as the publisher though... - Floydian τ ¢ 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am up for using the board as publisher for the ERT. Mitch32(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 10:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these comments part of a fourth review? I was considering reviewing this article, but I do not want to step on anyone's toes.  VC  16:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mitchazenia told me that he was not intending to support. --Rschen7754 16:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks well constructed and worthy of A-Class status. I swapped the Veterans Memorial Highway photo with a much clearer version. I would like to see less red links but that is not really a requirement. Haljackey (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Viridiscalculus
Infobox
  • Is it customary to include destination cities in the Major junctions rather than the city in which the junction is located?
    Normally it's the city the junction is located in, or an adjacent destination when the junction is located just outside the boundary of the place it is meant to serve. The Highway 16 junction is an example of this - it's immediately outside Johnstown and the route leads directly to Johnstown and the border crossing. As for Highway 401 (which is next to the Highway 16 junction), the alternative would be "near Prescott", a relatively minor community today. The sign at the southern end of Highway 416 reads "{401} West/Ouest Kingston".
    The closest community to the southern terminus is Johnstown, which is closer than Prescott. I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say the southern terminus of Highway 416 is "near Johnstown." I prefer that to saying "toward Kingston, Toronto" because Kingston is 100 km away. Also, I do not like the "to Canada-U.S. border" attached to Highway 16 because the border crossing that is a big deal is not there, but at I-81.  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest that sounds kind of counter-intuitive. The Highway 401 exit provides no access to Johnstown and the signs for it at the southern end of the highways say 401 Kingston. The Highway 16 exit provides access to the relatively minor community of Johnstown as well as to the minor border crossing, which I think still warrants mention here (and based on what you mentioned below in the RD section, you feel it is important to this highway in some manner). Both exits are just outside Johnstown though. Would a compromise of removing Toronto and possibly the border crossing be satisfactory? - Floydian τ ¢ 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The minor border crossing at Johnstown is important, but I do not think it is important enough to include in the infobox. Trucks traveling between Ottawa and Syracuse are not going to use that border crossing without a good reason. For the "to Kingston" issue, you have "in Ottawa" for the northern terminus. I think you should be consistent in your use of cities, and go by the standard of "where is this interchange located?" versus "where does this road lead?"  VC  12:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally that works fine, but with the two major intersections at the bottom both in the minor community of Johnstown, its sort of redundant (particularily so since the 401 exit provides no access to Johnstown)... However, the signs at the 417 ends basically say "417 east to Ottawa", since you're in the suburbs of Ottawa Region at that point... Nepean I believe it's called. So would a compromise of consistency work; changing "in Ottawa" to "to Ottawa"? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That compromise works for me if you take out Kanata.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
Lead
  • "The freeway bypasses several communities..." This is technically correct, but it could be interpreted as the freeway does not provide access to the communities.
  • Switched bypass to served, and mentioned the bypassing in the summary of the history under the bit on the new alignment built in the 60s and 70s.   Done
  • I would make clear at the start of the second paragraph that Highway 416 was built as a bypass of the original highway along the corridor, Highway 16.
  • I think this should be more clear alongside the change mentioned above this.   Done
  • I would move the commemoration information prior to the opening of the last link to make the events chronological.
  • Done   Done
Route description
  • Much of the first paragraph is redundant with the first paragraph of the Lead. I would carve up the paragraph, consolidating details like some of the towns and the Stony Swamp with the other paragraphs of the RD and moving general themes and more important details to the Lead. The progressive (as in sequential, not Pink Floyd ;-) part of the RD is only four paragraphs, so I do not think you need an RD mini-lead.
  • Done   Done
  • I think it is important to mention the international border crossing that is accessible via Highway 16. The Exit list mentions it, so the RD should as well.
  • Agreed and done   Done
  • "are separated by an unconventional 68-metre (223 ft)-wide forested median" The word "unconventional" is subjective and not backed up by the source so it should be removed.
  • Done   Done
  • I would include interchange types when you mention each exit. For example, "provided by a partial cloverleaf interchange with County Road 21" instead of "provided by an exit at County Road 21."
  • I don't have any source for the interchange types. I find the naming of them to be much more subjective than declaring a median more than three times the standard 20 metres. To be honest, both are bad without a source, but the interchange types seems almost borderline fancruft to me.
  • The aerial source is sufficient for the interchange types. They are not controversial statements, and they are not anything approaching cruft. Was not Ontario the birthplace of the parclo? That being said, everything except at the endpoints is nothing special, so you do not need to include the specific interchange types. However, interchanges include both exits and entrances, so you should use the term "interchange" instead of "exit."  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rumour has it... though I've never been able to find any source on that nor even a date for the first one opening in Ontario. I've changed the instances of exit to interchange where applicable. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  • Is the stream the highway crosses just north of County Road 21 notable?
  • Will check (I'm writing these responses from the comfy confines of my internet-free cottage on Saturday and am very likely forget to check when I get home Sunday evening. Just point this out to me if I do).
  • That stream is the South Nation River. It has a Wikipedia article, so I think it should be mentioned and wikilinked.  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an exit with former Highway 43" First, the current designation of the road, County Road 43, should be used. Second, if you are going to state the route was formerly Highway 43, you need to provide a reference for that.
  • Done and done.
  • First issue is solved. For the second, you still need a reference to support that County Road 43 was formerly Highway 43.  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops... That was another cottage thingy. Fixed. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  • "It passes over the old Bytown and Prescott Railway" The term "passes over" is incorrect because there is no overpass. The railroad has been pulled up, so you should say something like "the line of the former [B&P RW]."
  • Good eye on ye. Fixed.   Done
  • There is no explicit reference to Highway 416 in the middle three paragraphs of the RD. I suggest replacing some of the "It"s with Highway 416, and include Highway 416 in the first sentence of each paragraph.
  • Done   Done
  • "It crosses the Rideau River and enters the Ottawa region. At the southeast corner of the River Road interchange is the Veterans Commemorative Park, dedicated in 2000 by the Royal Canadian Legion." Swap these two sentences to restore the northward progression.
  • Done   Done
  • "The median also narrows to a modest width for the remainder of the distance into Ottawa." The word "modest" is subjective and not backed by the source so it should be removed or replaced with a sourced, objective measure.   Done
  • "then 2 km (1.2 mi) later" I would remove this because it is an unnecessary detail and because the distance is wrong.
  • Done   Done
  • "the freeway is crossed by the Prescott Highway" "an interchange with the latter provides access to the Prescott Highway" Is the highway called that at the crossing or where it intersects Bankfield Road? If not, the sentences should be reworded.
  • Err... It passes beneath the highway, and can be accessed via the Bankfield interchange IIRC (I'm writing these responses from the comfy confines of my internet-free cottage on Saturday and am very likely forget to check when I get home Sunday evening. Just point this out to me if I do).
  • Actually, it looks like the old road crosses over Highway 416, so "is crossed by" is not an issue. My issue is your use of the term Prescott Highway when it appears the road is named Prince of Wales Drive in the region of Ottawa. You should check whether the name of the road you are referring to is accurate at the point in the RD progression you use it. Also, in the phrase "an interchange with the latter," the term "latter" seems to refer to Bankfield Road. However, the interchange is with one road that changes names at the interchange. If you are referring to how following Bankfield Road (instead of Brophy Drive) leads to Prescott Highway/Prince of Wales Drive, then say that.  VC  00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Prescott Highway is just the historic name for the road that was the original Highway 16. The portion within Ottawa was renamed Prince of Wales Drive sometime in the recent past, but its still the historic Prescott Highway that the article makes numerous references to throughout. I'll see what I can do to make this blurb more succinct. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brophy Drive / Bankfield Road issue has not yet been addressed.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then abruptly jogs to the west" Abrupt sounds like a dangerous curve. I would replace abrupt with S-curve and try to keep the mention of the westward jog.
  • Done, although I've always been bothered by using "S-curve" in an encyclopedic way.   Done
  • "The route curves to the east" I would mention an eastward jog via an S-curve here.
  • As above   Done
  • "alongside the Stony Swamp, which acts" It is not clear whether "which" refers to the swamp or the bridge.
  • Fixed   Done
  • The Richmond Road wikilink is broken.
  • Fixed   Done
  • The Design features section seems a bit out of place. I suggest carving it up and moving bits and pieces elsewhere. The first and fourth paragraphs, which are general, can be moved to the History. The second and third paragraphs, which talk about specific locations, can be merged into the appropriate spots in the RD.
  • Have to disagree here. Compared to other freeways in Ontario, Highway 416 has its share of unique features that were integral in the funding and construction of the highway. Even the MTO highlights this with numerous conferences and webpages. I believe it would be a disservice to the reader/article to fragment this section.
  • I am going to address the Design features section, treating the comments here and in the History together, at the bottom of the review once all the other points are taken care of.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will move onto the History a little later.  VC  01:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Replies made inline to each comment. -- Floydian τ ¢ 03:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a housekeeping request. Can you respond to each point immediately after each point? It is much more helpful to see the point and counterpoint (or "done") together than to have to piece them together from two different lists. Please do this for the comments below, but I would really appreciate it if you also went back and did it for the comments above as well.  VC  03:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problemo. I've had editors complain about the lack of chronology when it's done the opposite way, so I never know who wants what :)
History
  • Because most of Highway 416 is an upgrade or bypass of Highway 16, I think we need more context from Highway 16 for the History to be comprehensive.
  • What do you think would be good to throw in here? Right now the article starts with the coverage of the Super 2 bypass of the original Highway 16 alignment built in the 60s and 70s. The original alignment doesn't have too much to do with the freeway. However I can see adding a little bit about Highway 16 being the original route from Toronto to Ottawa. - Floydian τ ¢
  • Most freeways are not placed along totally new corridors; rather, they supersede existing highways, which themselves superseded lesser roads. How far back does the Highway 16 corridor go? Was it a First Nations trail? When was Highway 16 put in its first modern form as part of the route from Toronto to Ottawa? Basically, I am looking for a paragraph describing the history of the corridor.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, after trying to do this a few different ways (including a blurb before the Highway 16 New section), I think I've settled on a good way to accomplish this in a succinct way. Good to go. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it except for this sentence: "The important corridor between the Trans-provincial Highway (Highway 2) and Ottawa was known as the Prescott Highway until it was numbered in 1925." The sentence implies the Prescott Highway name was replaced instead of supplemented with a number designation.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of related, I just noticed the county road number designation of Prescott Highway is not mentioned in the Route description. Please mention the designations for L&G and, if relevant, Ottawa.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted. How's it look now? Ottawa numbers it roads, but that seems to have stopped ever since the Region of Ottawa-Carleton became City of Ottawa c. 2001. It's just Prince of Wales Drive now it seems (Of course, I say this having never been to Ottawa). - Floydian τ ¢ 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  • Instances where "two lane" and other lane description adjectives are being used need a hyphen.
  • Done.  Done
  • In Super two, the S is not capitalized.
  • Fixed  Done
  • The last few sentences of the Change of plans section is redundant with the first paragraph of the Design features section. I suggest merging the contents under Change of plans.
  • I summarized it a little better. Again I still feel this is a topic best covered separately from the history, as the changes are apparent in the design of the route and not just the savings on paper. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned above, I am going to address Design features in a unified fashion later.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think twinning necessarily involves the construction of interchanges, just adding a second carriageway, so the second clause of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Twinning and completion should be revised to not imply it does.
  • Done.  Done
  • "Highway 43" Was the road part of Highway 43 in 1996? If not, you could clarify "former Hwy 43" or "what was then Hwy 43" or "what is now X"? Also, the redirect from the link does not seem useful to the user.
  • Clarified in both cases. When construction began it was Highway 43... by the time it opened the route was a county road. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  • "two flyover ramps" Clarify that these are the flyover ramps between 401 and 416.
  • Done.  Done
  • The construction companies should not be linked because it is unlikely they will ever have articles.
  • Done.  Done
  • I count opening dates for three sections of the highway, but there were five contracts. If multiple contracts opened the same day, can you explain that?
  • There are four dates (June 12, 1997; June 26, 1998; August 24, 1998; and September 23, 1999). I'm not sure if the final date includes the section between Oxford Station Road and Shanby Road. I have combed long and hard to find something on the opening of that section, to no avail. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  • The third paragraph of Twinning and completion looks odd by itself. I would combine it with the next paragraph.
  • Done.   Done
  • Why was Palladini reluctant to name the highway for veterans?
  • I made some changes. The legislative hansard source doesn't quote his reasoning (if he gave any at all), but the paper source makes the connection to the other Veterans Memorial Highway in London and the general watering down of the honours given to veterans. I agree myself... they've lost their significance at this point. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  • What is significant about the mass vehicle pileup? Did it cause changes in procedures or anything permanent? It looks odd in its own paragraph like that.
  • There doesn't seem to be anything that happened as a result of this. It was just a major incident. Pileups only happen once every five years or so in Ontario so they are generally big news stories. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will let it stand, but it may cause trouble at FAC.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the pileup, have there been any changes to the highway since 1999?
  • Not that I'm aware of... certainly nothing noteworthy because the highway appears to be the same today as when it was built. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
Junction list
  • Is the Highway 401 west exit marked as or officially Exit 0? If not, the Exit entry should be blank or dashed.
  • Looks like the gore sign for Highway 16 is the last one (Exit 1). I think the 406 and 410 are the only freeways with an Exit 0 sign. Fixed.  Done
  • The second data row does not include Highway 401 toward Cornwall or Montreal or whatever the control cities are.
  • Fixed... I think. Let me know if this setup works for you.  Done
  • Rideau River spans two Notes rows. This implies the bridge over the river is 2 km long, or the user might be confused for some other reason. I suggest either removing the river information—preferred, because the river and bridge do not look like a big deal—or create a dedicated row for the bridge/river.
  • Fixed.  Done
  • The Queensway redirects to Highway 417, so The Queensway should not be wikilinked.
  • Fixed.
  • There is still one instance of The Queensway linked. This is a major junction, so you should add control cities. I checked Google Streetview and several destinations are included on the signs.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missed that one! Both done. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  • The links to the county or regional roads do not redirect to the proper places in the lists, but that seems to be a template issue, so I will not hold it against you.
  • I can fix it relatively easy... should it redirect to the section of the article with the table of roads?
  • Each link should redirect to a particular spot in the table of roads. For instance, L&G County Road 20 should redirect to the row in the table for that county road.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a larger issue that I think I would have to address with a AWB run through every article. The list articles do not have anchors in the individual rows at the moment and that is quite a large amount of work. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fine. Hopefully no one complains at FAC.  VC  12:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)   Done[reply]
References
  • Ref 7: Link directly to the map. The webpage looks like a self-published source.
  • Fixed   Done
  • Ref 18: Using the current satellite imagery to support your assertion that the super two ended at that spot could be construed as WP:OR. I would try to find another way to support that.
  • Added a second ref from the early 90s that shows the two alignments merging at that point   Done
External links
  • The Google Maps reference is also the same as Ref 6.
  • Removed   Done
Images
  • The phrase "lest we forget" is not mentioned at all in this article. I think the sign should be described in the caption of the image that shows the sign. You can also mention the sign in the background is the French language version. (I was viewing the video of the person driving Highway 416 and I was surprised to see two blue signs in a row until I remembered the bilingualism.). The caption as you have it now, talking about the other memorial highways, can be modified and linked with Palladini's reluctance to name another memorial highway in the Twinning and completion section of the history.
  • Done... let me know if this works.   Done
  • The other images and their captions seem fine, but it would be good if someone else did a formal image review before this goes to FAC.
Wikilinking
  • I have not put together anything empirical, but the wikilinking in the prose seems to be inconsistent in its frequency. My preference is to only wikilink each topic once; however, you can do whatever you want, as long as you are consistent, such as wikilinking each term once in the article, once per major section, once per subsection, etc.
  • Generally I avoid multiple linking unless its an obscure topic that is mentioned in the lead and then not again until the bottom of the history.
  • Then I will use that standard when I do my final sweep. In the meantime, I recommend you go through and check the wikilinking scheme and wikilink things that should be wikilinked but are not, like the Rideau River.  VC  00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have some more comments later. I plan to do a final sweep for grammar and other micro-level stuff once all the content stuff is addressed.  VC  03:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few replies, but I'm still going. Just wanted to save this since my computer has had a bad history. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I've responded to everything. A few need your response, but we're getting close! - Floydian τ ¢ 06:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that infobox issue is all that's left. I've tried a compromise to avoid listing the 401 interchange as being in a place that it doesn't provide access to. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all remaining comments. There are two or three things left to resolve that are not Design features. I will start a Design features discussion a bit later.  VC  16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to those and made fixes. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Design features

I thought about this some more and here are my thoughts on what to do with this section:

  • I think the first paragraph belongs in the History. The paragraph is not well linked with the following three paragraphs and does not do a good job introducing them. The paragraph talks about cost-saving measures, but at least two and possibly all three of features described seem to be more expensive upgrades rather than cutting costs. Specifically, this paragraph can be inserted at the end of the second paragraph of the Change in plans section, with an additional statement that the review led to the construction of some of Highway 416's unique features.
  • Done.
  • The other three paragraphs can remain where they are in the Design features subsection. Because the paragraphs are short, you may want to make them bullet points preceded by an introductory sentence or two about design features.
  • I'll leave them prose for now and we'll see how that goes through FAC. I usually like to reserve bullet points for individual statements. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of the third paragraph of the Route description proper should be integrated into the paragraph about the bridge at the Stony Swamp. Right now, the portland cement award is mentioned twice. If you are going to single out the bridge, you should concentrate the details in one spot in the article.
  • Done.
  • The leda clay paragraph is fine, but the acronym CNR should be expanded and Blast made lowercase.
  • Done.
  • The sloped cuts paragraph looks fine.

You may also want to add more design features or unique things about the highway (the Veterans Commemorative Park comes to mind) if you can get the information and can write two or three sentences on a topic.  VC  01:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the commemorative park would really qualify as a design feature. It's just a park with a cenotaph off to the side of an offramp. I've been searching for more, but so far nothing. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you find anything else, you can add it later. For now, I will declare this issue closed. Next I will do a final sweep.  VC  00:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final sweep
  • The search term King's Highway 416 does not redirect to this article, but it should because it is the first phrase in the article. You should also include the phrase Ontario Highway 416 bolded in the first sentence.
  • Fixed redirect issue. "Ontario" is not part of the official highway name and is merely the CRWP naming standard to disambiguate this Highway 416 from other Highway 416s. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "Despite this" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Lead does not seem like the proper transition phrase. Can you either remove it or replace it with a transition phrase that does not imply "these are villages along the route despite best efforts to do or not do something"?
  • It was more "Highway is mostly rural. Despite this, it severs several communities"... but how is "In addition..."? - Floydian τ ¢ 07:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer no transition, but "In addition" is fine.  VC  19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence of the RD, should "Leeds and Grenville" be prepended or appended with "United Counties" or something similar? It seems awkward not using a generic here.
  • Done.
  • I removed "The" from the wikilink because it was causing a redlink.  VC  19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the History, is there a reason "environmental assessment" is capitalized? It is not being used as a proper noun.
    • I actually commented on this too, and it wasn't changed. --Rschen7754 08:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed.
  • Does the History mention when Highway 416 North was completed? Maybe I am having a blond moment, but I see construction ground to a standstill due to budget issues after overpasses were built, there was a review, then the remainder of construction info in the article is about Highway 416 South.
  • I'm glad you caught that. I'm not sure if I added it at one point and it got deleted by some wonky edit... or if I never had it there in the first place. Regardless, the two opening dates for the northern section are now there. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a fan of the order of information toward the end of the Change in plans section after you inserted the missing information; it is needlessly non-chronological. I suggest you rearrange the information by ending the second paragraph after "construction activity on Highway 416 came to a standstill for two years" as it was before. I would move the three sentences with the completion dates and cost to the end of the third paragraph and merge the sentence that starts "it was in this period" with the third sentence of the third paragraph. This will make the information more chronological and the third paragraph will be meatier.  VC  19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did most of what you recommended, except the three sentences mentioning completion dates/cost have been moved to the very beginning of the "Twinning and completion" section. I think this makes a lot more sense in the overall structure of the article. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your way also works.  VC  21:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MTO should be spelled out the first time it is used, then acronym thereafter. The first instance of MTO is in the Design features section.
    • Stepped in to help and fixed it, except for exit list, which is template-dependent. --Rschen7754 09:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works for me.  VC  19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those issues should be it. I made some copy edits that you should look at and make sure I did not do anything adverse.  VC  02:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Floydian is having other issues IRL, so this may be delayed. I'm willing to step in and help if needed. --Rschen7754 09:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

I think this is simple enough for me to do:

  • File:Ontario 416.svg - PD as simple, seems fine
  • File:Ontario 416 map.svg - CC by SA 3.0 - please include GIS sources
  • File:416 into Ottawa.png - PD by nom
  • File:Highway 416- The Veterans Memorial Highway.jpg - CC by SA 2.0 - flickr
  • File:Hwy 416 Ottawa 2.JPG - CC by SA 3.0 by creator

Only GIS sources need to be added. No OTRS. --Rschen7754 09:08, 20 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Ontario_Highway_416&oldid=1138362972"