Wikipedia:Peer review/Ontario Highway 401/archive2
Ontario Highway 401
- Previous peer review
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a thorough copy edit before heading to
WP:FAC
. My grammar is terrible, but the good intention is there :)
Thank you, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This seems comprehensive, and it's certainly an interesting highway. Unfortunately, PR is the wrong place to look for a copyeditor. For a complete grammar check and copyedit, you might have luck asking one of the copyeditors listed on the volunteers page at
WP:PRV
.
- The article may have a few too many images for a pleasing layout, although you may be able to move them around to better effect. Three things to avoid are text sandwiches between images on the left and images on the right; images that overlap sections instead of fitting entirely within a single section, and images that bump against or displace subheads or editing buttons. I see a text sandwich in the "Route description", a text sandwich and a head displacement in "Southwestern Ontario", and so on.
- The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find a small number of problems with dead links and dabs as wall as several images that lack alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know of a standard setting, and I doubt there is one since readers use whatever settings they like. When anyone says my images are overlapping sections or otherwise behaving badly, it's usually a close call, and I make minor adjustments such as moving an image up or down a bit. It helps sometimes to look at a particular article on multiple screens to get an idea of the range of appearances. Finetooth (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Nikkimaria's comment: The automated peer review will also offer some suggestions for what to look for before heading to FAC. I'll take a look at the copy-editing situation shortly...Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, although alt text is useful and beneficial to some readers, keep in mind that it's not currently a requirement for FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Jhfortier's comments: I shall copyedit as I go, but major comments will go here. Upon my first read-through, the following issues popped out at me:
- Most of the highway occupies only a portion of the 91.4 m (300 ft) right-of-way purchased by the original planners. I think this is meant to indicate that along most of the route there was a width of 300ft bought, but am not certain. This could due with some clarification, perhaps something to the effect of "Although the land purchased/set aside for the 401 is about 91.4m (300ft) in width, most of the highway does not occupy the full allotment." or something to that effect.
- The truck route in the world,[1]carrying 60% of vehicular trade between Canada and the US. This could also use some clarification; I realize that the wikilink will elaborate on the topic, but even just saying "The just-in-time inventory systems, which do blah blah for the highly-integrated..." would improve the clarity of this part.
- "Tall mall median barrier" -- what is this? A quick google search didn't reveal much, perhaps this is a typo?
- Due to the lack of engagement along the flat and straight lengths of highway,he section of the 401 from " This sentence is a bit troublesome; I get the feeling it's meant to say something like "The flat, straight lengths of highway tend to cause drivers to lose focus, and result in car accidents etc". The term "lack of engagement" is a bit vague here, and could be re-worded.
More to followJhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are right about the first one, and the third is a typo (they are Ontario Tall Wall barriers)
- The second I'll change it to "the just-in-time auto parts delivery system of the highly..."
- The fourth, I used a term that several media outlets (Cbc, City, Toronto Star) used to describe the highway, but I agree that it could be clarified. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Continued
- Route = Overall, this section is really well done. I made a few little changes here and there, but was really impressed with how in-depth and interesting the information was. Nicely done.
History
- "While initially gravel and today only a two-lane road, it was a fully paved four-lane roadway by the end of the decade." This could use some clarification.
- "its new extension to Newcastle and Highway 2S were designatedHighway 401,[2] a move scorned by one critic" Perhaps explain why this was scorned?
- A lot of the changes I made here were to do with tenses and some extra words, but overall I've found this article quite well-written. Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 21:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Future A few changes made -- overall, a good section, with lots of well-researched facts.
- Images - As Finetooth mentioned above, there are a lot of images here. You might consider removing one of the two old photos of interchanges; the photo of Highway 2A; and one of the two "construction" pictures from the Futures section.
- Redlinks - I haven't removed any of these, in case one or more of the major editors of this page are looking to start these articles in the near future, but you might consider removing some of the Wikilinks to minor highways, which are unlikely to be written in the immediate future.
- Overall This article looks excellent, and I've seen a number of good editors making edits throughout the PR. Best of luck taking it to FA! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you both Nikkimaria and Jhfortier for your in-depth examination of the article! With regard to the redlinks, I find that it is useful for any article that could ever be written that wouldn't be deleted. All numbered county roads have a potential, and at the very least they will be linked to their appropriate county's list of roads in due time :)
- As for the images, the ones that I feel need to go are the pictures of the highway today. Boring, and next to zero encyclopedic value. Three is good, maybe four. I count eight that don't serve a second purpose (ie illustrating signs and such). The historic photographs offer something unique that can't be found on most of the external links. But I digress, I agree that the number of images needs to be reduced. I'm going to go make some of the other fixes right now. Thank you very much again, wish us luck at FAC! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)