Talk:Ontario Highway 401/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

Review by Imzadi 1979 → based on this revision on 01:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose shovels too much extraneous detail into the article, making the overall quality level of the text poor. On the MOS side of things, there are MOS breeches in the text related to layout, heading names inconsistent abbreviation usages, and the exit list. The MOS errors remain uncorrected from the FAC, and are detailed there.
The MOS errors should all be fixed. I've made a good headway into carving out details, let me know if any catch your eye. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref 42 is a blog, and not a reliable source. Refs 18, 22 and 47 have formatting errors. Ref 27 needs correction because the URL contains "[" and "]" characters, breaking the link. Refs 25, 26 and 32–34 are all the same source, can they be combined into one reused footnote?
All the refs should be consistent and in good order now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This article suffers from overdetail-itis. The prose can be trimmed down substantially from the current revision without loss of understanding related to the essentials of the topic. The current text is in excess of 6,000 words, but for all of the detail there's still missing information. The Windsor–Essex Parkway subsection is missing information on the controversy related to the DRIC that could result in a change in the parkway's routing.
As far as I've come to understand, the current routing is more or less final and construction contracts are being dished out at the moment. Construction on the first few overpasses at the eastern end began this spring (trying to get someone to get pictures). I have summarized the fact that there was controversy, I'm not sure what other details I can add. Summarization will more than likely be of the Route description. The details in the history are essentially limited to a summary of early highways, dates each section started, and stuff that's happened recently. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to start following the Detroit or Windsor media. Matty Maroun, owner of the Ambassador Bridge is suing Canada in US Federal Court under terms of NAFTA to block construction of both the planned freeway extension and the new bridge. There is a thread on the AARoads Forum that has many, many links to news articles that document the "Detroit Bridge Wars" between Maroun, MDOT and Canadian authorities. At the same time, the whole article needs to go on a diet to focus on the key details and remove the extraneous details. Seriously, details like the one-off mention of the premier elected in 1934 are not needed in the article. You're missing some information that should be in there, but full of bloat that needs to be removed, so the article fails on being focused. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of Mr. Burns' intentions (and his complete lack of a case), but his lawsuit has not halted construction. All it has done is made a lot of people hate him and caused a big media stir-up. Besides, for an article suffering from too-many-details, this is surely one of the details better left to the Matty Moroun article, or the DRIC article. As it currently stands, the MTO is tendering contracts, which means the design is final. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No evidence of bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No evidence of edit warring.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
File:Highway 401 at Highbury Avenue, London, Ontario.jpg needs OTRS confirmation. File:401 construction phases.svg does not state the source for the base map. Additionally, the image refers back to the article for a source. Ideally, it should state which sources from the article support the image as the article can be changed by anyone at any time, and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. File:401-DVP interchange.png still fails WP:NFCC as stated at the FAC. The photo in question is not directly discussed in the article text, and removing it does not harm the encyclopedic quality of the text in the article. File:Carnage Alley.png similarly fails the criteria. The photo is not used in the article for the same reason as the "Purpose of use" on the image description page.
I disagree on both cases with regard to the non-free photos, especially the carnage alley one. This was not only the biggest on the highway, but the largest and most costly road accident in Canadian history. Both photos add significantly to the readers understanding. The DVP shot is the only one showing the widening of the highway and how such great changes could occur without closing a single lane of the highway. The exact same image passed for fair-use on Don Valley Parkway, I do not see why these cannot as well. I'll take this to the fair use noticeboard and see what is said. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reply: your usage of the photos as stated in the Fair-Use Rationale and the usage in the article do not match, meaning the inclusion of the image fails WP:NFCC. To use the DVP photo, you must discuss it, not just the concept of reconstruction in the article. Non-free content contains a higher burden to include it than just "this is the only photo I can find of construction from that time frame, and oh shuckie darn, it's still under copyright so I'll write a FUR and it will coast by." Comply with the policies or remove the image, it's that simple. That means discussing the content of the photo in the article, and for the purposes of this review, it doesn't matter what another article does or doesn't do.
Any image of that reconstruction (1963-1972) will be copyright. It sucks, but it's life. The copyright on that particular photo won't expire until mid-decade. The point is that it's in the middle of the section which discusses the widening of Highway 401 from 4 to 12 lanes without closing any of those 4 lanes. There is no mention of the widening specifically at the DVP, but would a loooong photo showing the entire reconstruction end to end be more likely to pass? I think not. Its a small resolution photo showing a significant facet of the history of this highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add one more point about image usage that fails on both this and the DVP article. If an article is related to a section, it must appear under the section heading. You've place the photo for the "Highway of Heroes" section above the heading to the section. Yeah, I know it makes the heading appear next to a left-aligned image, but that's actually an MOS breech that fails WP:LAYOUT and accessibility guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... Isn't it an MOS breach to NOT put a left aligned image above a level three header instead of below? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I cannot in good conscience pass this article. The level of copy-editing required to focus this article properly precludes a hold. The time frame to get the needed OTRS ticket processed for the image that requires one could also drag this out beyond a reasonable review period. Many of these issues were brought up at the FAC, and in greater detail, and yet were not corrected before nomination at GAN. At this time, I must fail this article. Please correct the issues before renomination.

I've made some changes. I know the nomination is closed, but I'd like to make sure the issues are dealt with before renominating it. Still waiting on the OTRS ticket, and happy to discuss the images at the NFC board. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]