Talk:Alberta Highway 63

Alberta Highway 63 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 15, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Canada: Alberta Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Canada Roads: Alberta High‑importance

This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics:
/
	Alberta

This article has a KML file.

No mention of when it was first built?

Has it existed forever?Landroo (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Jurassic era, yes. -- Acefitt 06:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alberta Highway 63/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting a review of this article

I'm starting a review of this article. Just to get my request in early, is there someone here would be involved on behalf of the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: I'll be making the improvements required. -- Acefitt 19:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! North8000 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Passes this criteria. Excellent job of giving both an interesting overview and the details. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Passes this criteria. North8000 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Passes this criteria North8000 (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passes this criteria North8000 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passes this criteria North8000 (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Image status: One is public domain, all others have suitable licenses. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes this criteria. A second expanded map (of just the highway) would be a much-needed addition. The current map is fine to show its location, but the road which is the subject of the entire article is just a 1" long line on the map with just 4 dots on it. Many significant things discussed in the article are not shown on the current map. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. The maps take a lot of time which I don't currently have. I made a decision to use the provincial overview style map for some major highways (like this one, Alberta Highway 43, Alberta Highway 36, etc. because they have provincial significance. but a zoomed in style for Alberta Highway 4/Alberta Highway 28 because they're shorter. Either way, the existing map is already more detailed than Interstate 15 in Arizona, Interstate 70 in West Virginia, and other FA's, so it's not a priority. -- Acefitt 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

I was wondering whether you think that it's worth including that it has become famous on Highway Thru Hell. North8000 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI (no need to change unless you prefer to) I don't think that "twin" as used here is a word in US English. North8000 (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of the Highway Thru Hell connection, I'll have a look. As for "twin", it's a universally known and widely used term in Canada, and this is Canadian English. The first instance of it in the lead is wikilinked, and also footnoted for further explanation. Because it's more of a "local" term, I do contemplate getting rid of it in these Alberta highway articles, but it is very convenient and succinct to have a short single word equivalent to "upgrade to a divided expressway/highway". -- Acefitt 07:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "twin" is a good word because (as I understand it from the article) it is more specific about the approach to widening, i.e. by building a second road. We probably need to add it to US English. Is the term also used for widening in general, including widening by other methods?North8000 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what other method there is to making a road into a divided highway. I guess if the second carriageway had a wildly different alignment then maybe you wouldn't call it twin... but when a two-lane road is converted to one-way and a second two-lane road is constructed to carry the opposite direction, it's twinning. -- Acefitt 18:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the US I'd guess only about 10% of expansions are by twinning. More common is complete replacement of the road, or gradual expansions without twinning. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the bridge in the fifth paragraph in the "construction" section is very confusing. I read it twice and still couldn't figure it out. I already passed the criteria relevant to this but suggest clarification. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. -- Acefitt 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. -- Acefitt 19:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

(This is "repeated" here fo when the review is no longer transcluded)

Congratulations, this passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]

Traffic and Collisions

Others will check one of the many social media accounts devoted to the highway to find out when the super-wide loads are moving through so they can schedule their trips around them.

The Globe and Mail talked to many who have a stake in road rescue – towing companies, safety advocates, first responders – and all cited the shift-worker lifestyle as a major factor in the high rate of collisions on Highway 63. At the camps north of Fort McMurray, the Monday-to-Friday, 9-to-5 work week is replaced with a range of other rotations: 14 days on and seven off, seven on and seven off, six on and one off. Workdays are often 10 or 12 hours long. Most work camps are dry, so the end of a rotation has come to be associated with letting loose. Between 2008 and 2012, 5.6 per cent of drivers in fatal collisions had consumed alcohol, and 28.9 per cent were traveling at an unsafe speed.[1] FobTown (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FobTown: The problem is that what you wrote is not directly correlated by an anecdotal statement in the article. It needs to be written in a way that is not OR, and I will do so. -- Acefitt 21:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How its it not correlated? If you have a suggestion that would be greatly appreciated. leading to social media warnings of super-wide loads so that motorists could schedule their trips around them. The move away from the Monday-to-Friday, 9-to-5 work week to shift-work (14 days on and seven off, seven on and seven off, of 10-12 hour workdays), plus workers not being flown in/out to work camp during shift-changes, and such shift workers are the motorists who tend to drive faster then the speed limit and/or consuming alcohol. (revised) FobTown (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FobTown: It is anecdotal evidence from random people and therefore useless. I'm not changing it anymore because I don't care, but if AB Transportation has numbers to prove that the stupidity is the result of shift work, which they won't, then you could phrase it the way you did before. -- Acefitt

I figured out that if its good enough for the Globe and Mail, then it should suffice for Wikipedia. Of course it is acknowledged that AB Transportation is widening the highway even if numbers alone isn't justification, the anecdotal evidence of those wide loads is likely a factor, as well as what road rescue tends to deal with. Sort of similar to freeway improvements on the "Carnage alley" on Ontario Highway 401. FobTown (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is the lack of correlation between people working shifts and increased alcohol/speed-related collisions, aside from anecdotes. There is no actual evidence of that. The only evidence we have is Alberta stating that 63's collisions are actually BELOW average. The wide load stuff or whatever is irrelevant. -- Acefitt 23:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FobTown, a sincere thanks for your efforts. But aside from the questions already noted, this is an encyclopedia which has different goals and standards for inclusion than, for example. a public service bulletin board. Those include material being able to comply with wp:V Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's just not something you can include. So the statistic is apparently "5.6 per cent of drivers in fatal collisions had consumed alcohol, and 28.9 per cent were traveling at an unsafe speed." So you now need 2 things for that to mean anything - you need the percentages for fatal collisions on other Alberta highways, and if 63 ranks higher in those 2 metrics you need some proof that shift work is the result of those spikes. The first stat is probably available. There is no possible way that the second stat would be available or exist. There's also the fact that 100% of the traffic is not oil sands workers, let alone shift workers, nor could 100% of fatal collisions be attributed to a certain demographic. Correlating the 2 is a step beyond WP:OR, it's pretty much just a bad assumption. -- Acefitt 10:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]