Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 401

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review
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.
Promote. --Rschen7754 03:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Highway 401 edit

Toolbox

Ontario Highway 401 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Haven't been keeping a close eye on this one since I was working on it, so I apologize if there are a few obvious problems that jump out at you.
Nominated by: ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved issues from Dough4872 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I have some concerns with the article before I can support it for A-class:
  1. You have a few dead links in the article, see this.
  2. In the infobox, it is possible to indicate the city for every road? In addition, the dashes between the routes and the city names should be replaced with "in".
  3. "It became fully navigable from Windsor to the Quebec border in 1964.", perhaps clarify what "it" is here.
  4. The Greater Toronto Area of the route description seems to be a little hard to follow as it jumps from describing the progression of the route to features such as the traffic cameras. Is there a specific reason why this is?
  5. "At Pickering, the highway again meets the former Highway 2, which runs parallel to the Quebec border", does Highway 2 parallel Highway 401 or the Quebec border? Maybe reword to "At Pickering, the highway again meets the former Highway 2, which parallels Highway 401 to the Quebec border".
  6. The section of Highway 401 in Toronto passes through heavily urbanized areas? Are there any attractions easily accessible from the road such as malls or museums that can be mentioned?
  7. "Several of these structures, including the former CN overpass, are slated for demolition, either due to their age, or to prepare for the planned widening of Highway 401 through this area.", perhaps define what CN is here since its the first mention.
  8. The sentence "A 40 m (130 ft) right-of-way was purchased along the Middle Road and construction began to convert the existing sections to a divided highway, as well as on Canada's first interchange at Highway 10" sounds awkward.
  9. The Assumption section seems to list some of the opening dates out of order. Is there a reason why this is done?
  10. I am a little concerned with using "Recent history" as a section title as what is now "recent" will change in the future. Maybe use "Since 2008".
  11. The sentence "The resurfacing will be completed through the summer of 2010." needs to be updated.
  12. In the services table, the services column listing the specific restaurants and gas stations should be removed per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, being replaced with a column concerning reconstruction.
  13. Is it possible for the missing shields to be added to the exit list? Dough4872 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - As a major contributor to the article in the past and reviewing content with Floydian for several months, allow me to offer some input on your noted concerns.
  1. Updating sources is always an issue, but these should be able to be fixed without considerable hesitation.
  2. It is, but if you have more than one major junction within one city, it seems a little repetitive in the infobox. For example, Highway 427, 400, 409 and 404/Don Valley Parkway are all in Toronto and as such you'd see it four times.
  3. That seems do-able. "It" refers to Highway 401 even though construction wasn't fully complete until 1968.
  4. In the Greater Toronto Area, there is so much content that can be described for the highway that I can see how it can become a little hard to follow. A little rewording here could go a long way.
  5. Yes, the former Highway 2 parallels Highway 401 in Pickering to the Quebec border. I support your rewording here.
  6. There are attractions that can be mentioned such as Yorkdale Shopping Centre.
  7. CN stands for the Canadian National Railway. That can be described if desired.

For all the others, I'll allow Floydian to answer them because I believe he has more knowledge regarding your concerns. Thank you very much for your comments Dough4872! Much appreciated!

All the best! Haljackey (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply from Floydian
    1. Fixed. The government was nice enough to delete years worth of news releases from their site which doesn't allow spiders to index it. Fortunately they are news releases and don't require a web link. A lone dead link remains, as I've sent an email to CBC with the hopes that they remedy it.
    2. Changed the wording on some. However, the sign for the DVP in Toronto still says to Toronto. As Haljackey mentioned, a few aren't indicated because they would all be Toronto.
      1. For consistency, all of them should list the city, even if the same city is listed several times. In addition, the dashes should be removed from the Highway 3 and DVP entries and replaced with words. Dough4872 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Done
    1. Done
    2. This was a very difficult route description to write. As you can see there is a lot of stuff directly related to the highway, and its hard to maintain flow without occasionally diverging from the west to east description of the surroundings. However, it could be rearranged so that attractions and the freeway traffic management system are discussed first and then a standard description follow that.
    3. Fixed
    4. I added information about three major malls the highway passes near in the GTA. There isn't much in the way of attractions or museums though, at least within close proximity to the highway
      1. A reference should be added to this sentence. Dough4872 01:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Done
    1. Done. It's the only mention, so I didn't add the abbreviation after.
    2. Broken into two sentences now
    3. Because of the shear magnitude of the number of projects that resulted in the present highway, it made more sense to discuss the section near Toronto first, then explain the rest in chronological order (and TBH, I can only find one part of the highway outside of that section that was completed by August 1956). It didn't make sense to introduce the paragraph about the expansion through Toronto in the midst of the paragraph about when various parts of the route first opened to traffic, even though it began a few years before the rest of the route was completed. That being said, I'm going to rewrite a bit of this section because I've come across a better source since I originally wrote the article.
    4. Done
    5. Done
    6. Done. Not sure who did this; the prose already describes the service centres.
    7. This would take a lot of work, as the highway passes through over a dozen counties. However, when they are eventually uploaded the template will automatically add them.
Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I will now support the article for A-class. Dough4872 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Now that these edits are done, I feel that this article is ready for A-Class status. Haljackey (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Imzadi1979
  • Comments For now, just some comments to start, working from the bottom up.
  1. Newmarket and Sprawl are dab links in use in the article.
  2. http://www.liveinlambton.ca/newcomers/portal/pages/Sarnia-LambtonLocation.aspx has gone dead since March 29, 2011.
  3. Images:
    1. File:Highway 400 at 401.png should be ok. You might get told at FAC to add a FUR to it because it isn't PD in the US. Consider this a friendly comment that someone else might object on purely legalistic/technical grounds.
    2. File:Carlb-hwy401-lastkm-682.jpg Someone might say that the text of the marker is under copy right, and the photo isn't a de minimis usage. Again, above my pay grade, and more of a friendly comment that someone else might object to it.
    3. It would be nice if you could geotag the rest of the photos from the article that lack the coordinates. (Over time, I'd even geotag the rest of the Hwy 401 category.)
    4. The Commons box results in a redirect. There's a way to specify the exact category in that template. You can also add in commons:Category:Highway of Heroes to the box as well to have it display two categories. Brockway Mountain Drive has two showing after someone split all of the photos up on Commons.
  4. Ok, ALT text isn't currently required for FAs anymore. I'd simplify the map's ALT text to just say something like, "Highway 401 runs along southern Ontario connecting Windsor, Toronto and the Quebec border." or something similar. The ALT text for File:401 construction phases.svg could just be "A map with legend of" because the screen reader/browser will read/show that before the caption of "Highway 401 colour-coded by the year each section opened to traffic" (drop the period from the caption because it's not a full sentence.) The other images should have their ALT text streamlined. See the ALT text for US 131] for an example. We don't need to have the text that describes the image in such detail, but rather indicates, with the caption, what the purpose of the non-text content is.
  5. I'm not a fan of quotations in footnotes. If they were all short, fine. Most of these are multiple lines, so I'd move them to the talk page for the article. I'd create a section there with the quotations with a copy of the footnote citation. That would streamline the length of the page's reference section. If a quotation is really needed to explain something in the body of the text, I'd convert the citation footnote to an explanatory footnote. U.S. Route 131 uses nested footnotes which are also explained at WP:FOOT. What I mean is that I'd use the quote as the content of the explanatory footnote and reference that to the citation footnote. In US 131, the fact that Michigan first signed their highway system in 1919 is referenced using an explanatory note that has the appropriate citation in it.
  6. Fn 12, 25, 28, 35, 90, 99, 130-2, 137, 138, 140-2, 144, and 150-1 need the PDF format indicated.
  7. The books in the bibliography should have publication locations added, if known.
  8. For your explanatory footnotes, I have a totally 100% optional suggestion for you to ponder. If you use the group name of "lower-alpha", the footnote links will be lettered instead of "<group> #". The only thing is don't use the quotation marks around the group name in {{reflist}}, or the list will be numbered and not lettered. I used the letters for US 131 and converted all of the other Michigan articles with separate explanatory and citation footnotes over. I personally think it helps to visually distinguish them without being as obtrusive like [note 2]. YMMV.
  9. 400-Series Highways (Ontario) and List of Ontario provincial highways should be removed from the See also section. They're both at the bottom of the infobox. The former link is in the lead as well. I'd find a way to work the link to King's Highways into the body of the article, if it isn't already. The Basketweave is linked from the text, so it needs to be pulled from the section as well, per MOS:LAYOUT.
  10. The bottom of the exit list needs the distance conversions added per MOS:RJL. You can simplify this just by using {{legendRJL}} at the bottom, even if the legend generates colors in the key that aren't in use.
  11. The services table, if retained needs a color key added to the bottom of it. However, all of these could be incorporated into the exit list.
    • Insert a line into the table for each service centre.
    • Use the distance measurement for the centre, and have the name of the centre span the exit and destinations columns.
    • Move the notes for each into the notes column, indicating the eastbound/westbound status there. You could further steamline that by only listing the direction if it is "eastbound only" or "westbound only".

I'll continue my review later when I read through all of the prose. As I remember though, the article prose was in good shape. Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Fixed
  2. Fixed
  3. I'll work on the third point (I'm not sure what the template is to do it). On the fourth point, it's too bad you can't combine the two, having two categories, but also setting up a pipe for the first link. I may have to code it manually to do it correctly, or make the Highway of Heroes stuff a subcategory of Highway 401 (Ontario). Thoughts?
  4. Fixed the ones you mentioned and one or two more. I tried to write these to describe the image to a blind person in the first place. Not sure who keeps adding periods to them.
  5. Have to contend this one. I use quotes for any material not available online and for most news articles online, for when they inevitably disappear from the internet.
  6. Done
  7. Done all the ones that I can
  8. Done. I quite like this :) thanks for the tip
  9. Done
  10. Done
  11. I think that given that there is a section of prose devoted to the services that they fit best in that section. I have fixed the table, however.
--ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the service centres table can be merged into the exit list. I played around with the idea User:Imzadi1979/401 is what I came up with based on the information I have. (Obviously, the distances and locations will need to be updated/corrected, but the idea holds.) Imzadi 1979 → 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally not do that though. There are almost 20 of them and many are actively being reconstructed right now, so I think its best to have all the service centre information (prose) plus the table of them in that section. Highway 400, however, with only 4 centres, would be an appropriate case to put them into the exit list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
Imzadi1979, are your issues addressed? --Rschen7754 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to look through again. I never did give this article a prose review before. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if I said it here but I support promoting this article to A-class. Haljackey (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Typically we wait until we have 4 supports before we promote. Imzadi1979 will hopefully be the third, then I'll review for the fourth. --Rschen7754 04:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typically I would agree with you. This article has been stalled here since March. Haljackey (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:There is no deadline. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Picking up where I left off...
  1. Starting at the bottom of the article and working back up, either list publication locations (preferered) or not for books. In short, scour through all of your references and works cite for consistency. If you missing something, Nikkimaria will spot it and comment on it at FAC. :P
  2. Another consistency issue is how corporate authorship is handled. Now, it's my preference to use "Staff" as the author unless a specific office/division/bureau can be listed instead. Then the publisher can still be listed as whatever corporation/agency/etc as appropriate. I mention this because the 401 book looks to be corporately authored, yet some of the footnotes are listing the corp. author as the author without a publisher. The benefit in the end, for me, is that only newspaper or magazine articles without a reporter byline are missing an author.
  3. I still recommend working on streamlining the usage of quotations in the footnotes to help keep overall article length in check. YMMV.
  4. FN 3 has DD Month YYY formatting, but the rest seem to be in Month DD, YYYY format.
  5. FN 29: "p. Page 4."?
  6. FN 38... what does this refer to? I'm not seeing a full citation below that would match up to it.
  7. You probably should add terminal punctuation after all of the page numbers the shortened footnotes for consistency with the full footnotes.
  8. Be forewarned, Nikkimaria will probably comment on some papers having publishers and others not if it isn't an all or nothing thing. She won't ding you for locations if they're only used on papers like The Globe and Mail that lack the location in the paper name.
  9. FN 95: Kitchener–Waterloo Record isn't in italics.
  10. "United States Federal Highway Administration" the US part is probably redundant if there isn't another FHWA out there. Up to you if you keep it in citations.
  11. FN 98 is to an online copy of a magazine article by the FHWA, so it should be reformatted as a magazine/journal article.
  12. FN 109 has the location linked, but the others don't. I'd drop the link.
  13. FN 122 and subsequent: "Contract #: 2005-2014" looks weird. I'd quietly reformat it to remove the colon. I make highway abbreviations consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia article in citation titles all of the time, even if that means we no longer parrot the sources' formatting 100%.
  14. FN 125: HTML is unneeded and check date formatting.
  15. FN 133: "CBC news" should the N be capitalized?
  16. FN 135, 136, 138 has "Detroit River International Crossing Study team" but above it was abbreviated in FN 127. Consistency here would be nice.
  17. FN 167 doesn't look like {{cite press release}} to me... (If there is a press contact, use that as the author for PRs in line with my comments on corporate authorship.)
  18. The two borders aren't formatted the same in the exit list... one is left-justified and the other is centered. Also per MOS:RJL, the shields should be next to, and to the left of, the link in an entry. Otherwise the table looks pretty good. Oh, I'd say that the roadway will connect to I-75, not continue as I-75 because in reality, the connection with DRIC will be at a right angle, not a straight-on continuation.
  19. You might want a citation for exit 179's status. You might have that in the prose, but it wouldn't hurt to duplicate it here as well.

OK, I'm still skipping the prose since Fredddie has been reviewing that, but just a comment to watch the number and placement of images. That, and just make sure your non-breaking spaces are good for SandyGeorgia. (When in doubt, use one, even in links. You don't have to pipe a link, the server treats a nbsp as a space for wikilinks.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get to this within a week or so, but I just wanted to point out that for #18, MOS:RJL doesn't indicated that and MOS:ICONS encourages not breaking a line of text in half by an icon where possible. I'd like to keep them at the end for visual cleanliness. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, most of these should be taken care of (unless I forgot to save it a few days ago), with the exception of the author/location issue, which I'll work through over the next few days. For number 8, I've kept it unabbreviated just since its a non-American article and may be an unfamiliar abbreviation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of the items I reviewed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Fredddie edit

Resolved issues from Fredddie

I like to go section by section and even sentence by sentence. Each number is in order. –Fredddie™ 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  1. First thing that jumps out is that with an article this long, the lead should be at least another paragraph longer.
  2. I would put the length of the route in the first paragraph.
  3. I know what you mean when you say their assumption, but will the average reader?
  4. The last sentence could be misconstrued that dead CF personnel drive the 401 to the coroner's office.
Route description
  1. Do you think it would sound better if you said the planners purchased a 91.4-metre-wide (300 ft) right-of-way? I do, but I want your opinion.
  2. What highways in the world are busier? You list a few highways that the 401 is busier than, it may benefit to list some that are busier.
  3. I don't like interchange as a verb.
  4. Are the snow squalls lake-effect snow?
  5. You should define your abbreviations. Looking at you, GTA.
  6. Are the malls really worth mentioning by name?
  7. The Canadian Shield returns from where? It can't return if you haven't already talked about it.
History
  1. Pretty sure it's always 20th century. Might want to check the MoS.
  2. Is Lake Shore Road no longer in existence or was the pavement improved from macadam? If it's the latter, you may want to say formerly macadam Lake Shore Road. Regardless, it's an awkward sentence.
  3. Are Lake Shore and Lakeshore interchangeable?
  4. ...again congested on weekends. You never mentioned that Lakeshore Road was congested on weekends before, I'd have it read ...again congested, especially on weekends.
  5. I don't think quotation marks are required on 401's "completion".
  6. You mentioned above the design inspired by the Dan Ryan Expressway is a collector–express system. You should mention it again.
  7. In the Carnage Alley section, around the same time as what?
  8. Actually, that whole first sentence could be revised for clarity.
  9. Is Ontario Tall Wall always capitalized?
  10. 20+ km should be converted.
Future
  1. Nothing jumps out at me.
Exit list
  1. There is some inconsistent formatting. US–Canada border is left-aligned while Ontario–Quebec boundary is centered. Same thing with the unbuilt section at the top. The en dashes are centered but the numbers are not. Personally, I'd recommend using the templates, but I won't oppose if you don't use them.
    Do the templates work for Canada? --Rschen7754 22:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. It sounds like they will, but it will take some finagling at best to get them to work properly. –Fredddie™ 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Imzadi tested them out and they seem to.... I dread doing it because of the size of the exit list but may as well take out one of the two largest now rather than later. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
External links
  1. Is there any reason there's a link to Brockway Mountain Drive pictures on Commons?

Overall, this is a great article. Nice work. –Fredddie™ 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'll get to these soon enough, but I'll address what I can now: The external link issue is strange, but accidental. As for assumption: perhaps, but "take possession of" is one of the definitions of assume; I don't think there is another way to convey that info. I agree about the first point for the RD. I do not know of any highways busier than the 401, but I can't find any sources that claim it is the busiest in the world. I'll link snow squall, but yes. The malls mentioned are massive regional shopping centres, so I think they're pretty noteworthy. The final point for the RD came about because a user corrected me about an earlier appearance of the shield not being the shield; will fix. In the History, Lake Shore is in Toronto and Lakeshore is in Mississauga. Not sure who to thank for that screw up. Ontario Tall Wall is capitalized in every source I've seen it mentioned in, and is a specific modification to the original Jersey Barrier (52 inches tall instead of 42 IIRC). As for the quotations, I use them because the route was completed lengthwise, but construction has never really stopped. The other fixes, as I said, I'll try to get to hastily (except the exit list, that will take me some time yet) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full response from Floydian

Okee dokes, here is my reply as I fix up problems.

Lead
  1. I suppose... the only thing that is big enough to get special mention, that pops to my mine, is the Windsor-Essex Parkway. I will add this shortly.
    • If you write three or four sentences summarizing the route description, you'd be good to go. –Fredddie™
  2. Done
  3. Note my response above this section. Assumption means to take possession of something, which is really what is meant in the highway context as well.
    • My issue with assumption is the exact point you mention. Highways are inanimate things; they cannot take possession of anything. People can assume positions of power, highways just kinda sit there. –Fredddie™
      • Ah, but it would be the highway department as a group taking possession of the road initially constructed by a construction company or owned by a lower government. The highway doesn't assume itself after all. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
  4. Maybe they do ;)... fixed
Route description
  1. I do! Done.
  2. I don't personally believe there are, and no statistic can show higher. However, some have disputed the claim because they say you can measure business by the number of vehicles using the entire length of a highway during a day... But AADT is the stat at one location on the highway. Regardless, no source for the world... yet.
  3. I don't either, but the replacement is often less informative since there is no verb to replace it. "Merges" or "splits" is directional, while "partially interchanges" is more general.
  4. Yes... sudden whiteouts. I have linked the term as we have an article on it
  5. Fixed
  6. Yes. See my comment above, these are major regional shopping centres.
  7. Correct. I had originally written under the assumption that rocky outcroppings further west were part of the shield.
    • Just think about casual readers like myself who know little about the Canadian Shield. –Fredddie™
      • Given the amount of detail in the article, really all that needs to be conveyed is that there are rock outcroppings and that the shield is the geological land form those outcroppings are part of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
History
  1. True, fixed.
  2. I rewrote this bit.... care to double check that you the meaning I intend is what is inferred, as it is awkward to describe.
    • What now? –Fredddie™
      • My bad. Following frequent erosion of Lake Shore Road, then Macadamized,[55] a cement road known as the Toronto–Hamilton Highway was proposed in January 1914.[56] - Is this more cohesive now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
  3. See my reply above. It's a headache, but it's one in Toronto and another in areas west.
  4. Fixed
  5. I suppose that was some dry humour at the never ending construction. Fixed.
  6. It does. Where do you think it should again?
  7. Was a reference to the timeline of Advantage I-75.
  8. Agreed and done
  9. Yes. It's a specific design that advanced on the original Jersey Barrier.
  10. I just took it out completely. The distance isn't all that important so much as the completion of the sole 4 lane stretch between London and Toronto.
Future
  1. Even still, I need to make sure everything is up to date in time for the FA.
Exit list
  1. With the recent changes to the templates I will make the transition to them... But it will probably take some time compared to the other fixes, which I've already made.
    • One thing I just noticed was calling it the (427) mega interchange. Mega is a bit subjective, I think. –Fredddie™
      • I could probably add a source, but I could also take it out. Probably the latter because I haven't heard the term used by non-roadgeek people in my lifetime. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
External links
  1. I don't know how that slipped through, but imzadi1979 had shown it to me on IRC as an example and I guess I somehow put it in. Fixed nonetheless.

Hope that takes care of most of the issues. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added in some replies here and there. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of this review? --Rschen7754 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice Fredddie had responded within a day of me, but I have now added my replies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review double check
  1. Lead is still too short. A summary of the route description is all that is needed.
  2. Still don't like the word assumption. But, if you make it "assumption to provincial highway status", I'll be happy. This should alleviate any fears I had of the casual reader asking "assumption to what?"

Only a couple issues left from above. –Fredddie™ 23:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian: what is the status here? --Rschen7754 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, been very busy. I'll try to get around to the last issue (expanding the lead) in the next week or two as my school semester winds down from all the craziness.
  • Support. However, I still don't like how you use the word assumption. Consider this my "I told you so!" –Fredddie™ 04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good guys. Regarding the 'busiest in the world' fiasco, can an assumption be made here as well? Clearly there isn't any variable source for this (if there are any at all), but the 401 has higher volumes than any other highway reported in any country's documents. Anyways, I'll be keeping my eye on this review. Haljackey (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... though I'm wondering if the Guinness Book of Records would be of any use here... It used to mention them 15 years ago when the Santa Monica Freeway was the busiest. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images comment

I did notice that the images are placed at the end of preceding subsections. This is allowable per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, but runs against Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Images which explicitly states: "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading nor at the end of the previous section, otherwise screen readers would read the image (and its textual alternative) in a different section; as they would appear to viewers of the mobile site." That's something that will need to be fixed in case it comes up at FAC. I just looked at http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_401 in my browser, and yes, the photo for "Carnage Alley" does appear above the section to which it belongs. Imzadi 1979 → 02:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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_401&oldid=1138362995"