There is consensus to promote this article to A-Class. TCN7JM 21:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: In hopes of bridging the line of Featured articles between Michigan and New York, I present Highway 402 for review! It's been a couple years since this went through GAN, so it may need tweaking. If you spot a full paragraph that seems wonky, just point out which one and I'll do a rewrite of it. Overall, however, it is high quality, comprehensive, and well sourced.
I will review this article. Dough4872 03:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Why is I-94 listed before I-69 in the infobox and exit list? Typically with concurrent routes of the same type we list the lower number first.
The phrase "Motorists crossing into Michigan at the western end have direct access to Detroit via I-94 and Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul via I-69" needs a citation. Also, if you keep this phrasing, you need to elaborate how one gets to Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul as I-69 does not make it to either of those cities. I would simply reword this to "Motorists crossing into Michigan at the western end have direct access to I-69 and I-94".
"With the exception of the Front Street interchange in Sarnia, the freeway features Parclos throughout its length", what kind of interchange is Front Street?
The sentence "After interchanging with Forest Line, the freeway is crossed over by London Line, momentarily diverging from its straight alignment while dipping south of Warwick (where London Line meets Egremont Road and continues east of Warwick north of the highway)." reads awkward. I would also ditch the parentheses and incorporate into the sentence.
"When it was opened at some point between 1946 and 1949, it featured at-grade crossings with Front Street, Indian Road and Modeland Road (the Highway 40 Sarnia bypass).", do we have a more exact date for this?
Support - Article looks good now. Dough4872 01:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is well written and has good structure. Haljackey (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As this is not a substantial review, I am not inclined to count it for the purposes of the net 3 support. --Rschen7754 04:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a proper third review is required. - Floydianτ¢ 06:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...providing a quicker route over the busier Ambassador Bridge crossing in Windsor, which also has 13 traffic lights leading to the bridge.[3]" "Also" makes it read like both 401 and 402 have traffic lights, except you said 402 is non-stop.
I don't like using interchange as a verb. I read it as "trading places" not "cars exiting the highway".
@Haljackey: could you crop your Highway 4 photo so the horizon is level?
History
I'm not going to force it, but I think a mini-lead would look better than starting the section with a 3rd-level header.
You use alignment/re-aligned three times in quick succession.
Overall
Only a few things to look over and I fixed some minor stuff myself. –Fredddie™ 05:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Added, although you may need to purge your cache to get it to appear.
I suppose not, fixed.
Changed it to "the only town", since all other places near the freeway are little villages / unincorporated communities.
RD
Originally it said "suffers from 13...", which I felt was an appropriate way to describe the pros/cons of one route over the other... but I've tried another wording that should work.
I've always agreed with that, to be quite honest. Fixed the few instances.
Fixed it for him.
History
Added a minilead. As it encompasses all the sourced facts contained within the subsequent sections, I've left it without refs as I normally have done in such situations.
Now, I get why the original crappy shields were pd-i, but the new ones seem a bit more involved. That crown is pretty intricate for pd-i... Maybe these should be re-tagged (as a batch) as {{PD-Self}} or something similar. --AdmrBoltz 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I uploaded them the first reaction by many was to delete them and restore the old junction shields... The original shield with a crown was introduced in 1930 and the modern design of the crown in 1955, so these can all be tagged as {{PD-Canada-Crown}} now that the issue around the URAA has been dealt with. I've retagged this shield for now, will have to do a batch of the others sometime. - Floydianτ¢ 22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, and retagged all other ONT markers. --AdmrBoltz 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source image is CC-BY-SA-3.0, GFDL (Self). This work should be licensed the same with PD-Retouched for the crop. Also needs {{extracted from}} and orig needs extracted. --AdmrBoltz 18:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I did this all correctly. There was no PD-Retouched template, so I just wrote that the retouching is released under the same licence. Not sure what is needed on the original, so I linked the retouched as a "other version". - Floydianτ¢ 22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. --AdmrBoltz 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I'm stuck at 1024x768 at the moment. I imagine a very wide monitor might get issues with the photo nudging the junction list to the right and the article not looking as tidy as it could.
Done
Added
Glad you found it difficult to find issues, that means the ACR process works well methinks :) Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. I am at 1280 x 1024 and don't have issues. You're probably safe to remove the clear. --AdmrBoltz 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck by Rschen7754
Source 3: 13 isn't in the source.
Source 4: currently -> as of X. Also, "a new route known as the Windsor–Essex Parkway" now disagrees with source 4, where a new name is given.
Source 5: Good on V and CP.
Source 20: does not back up the entire paragraph for the second citation.
Source 21: dead link.
Source 34: Good on V and CP, but "that of a man who succumbed to hypothermia on a nearby county road" is not an independent clause.
Source 35: Good on V and CP.
The results of the spotcheck are a bit disappointing, in particular source 3 and 20. Please go through the entire article and make sure that all statements are backed up by sources, and post here when you have done so.
In addition, I am happening to notice stuff that should have been pointed out by other reviewers, and am uncomfortable with signing off on a spotcheck when there could be other issues. Thus, in order to uphold our high standards at ACR, I will be conducting a fourth review of the article, and will be procedurally Opposing this article until I have done this additional review, and when the above issues have been fixed, including the additional source checking. --Rschen7754 07:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that I am not trying to discourage those who reviewed this article, but to advise all our regular ACR reviewers to take a bit more care with their reviews. --Rschen7754 07:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the two big ones. I had used the wrong ref for one and copied the other from the Highway 401 article without checking. The dead link has been updated to the new links and other changes made. As I said, this article was promoted to GA a while ago and I expected some issues to arise. - Floydianτ¢ 00:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that there are other instances of this, apart from the sources that I checked? --Rschen7754 06:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it, there was one case of a fact not in an article and one case of a google maps link referencing a 1964 date. I've fixed these, and upon scanning the full article, I believe it is now properly referenced. - Floydianτ¢ 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll mark the spotcheck complete, and begin my review soon. --Rschen7754 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Rschen7754
Images
Captions should not have a period if they are not a complete sentence, and should if they are.
Map needs a caption.
RJL
No periods in the notes
References
No ALLCAPS in the references
Lead
Controlled access should be linked earlier than it is
The freeway originally did not exit Sarnia -> something is missing
RD
is under construction as of August 2011 -> three years ago...
History
It forced drivers off -> too vague
Should be good for a support after this. --Rschen7754 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the ALLCAPS ref was the "PRESS RELEASE", which I've fixed. Captions should be good now, RJL notes fixed, CAH better linked. The sentence you pointed out is correct: the freeway was originally within the Sarnia city limits. I could make it "...did not exit the Sarnia city limits" if that would help? Construction on the 401 extension began in 2011 and will continue until 2020, but I made that sentence read better nonetheless. I hope I've managed to clarify the last point as well now. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 21:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 21:29, 7 March 2014 (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.
Support –Fredddie™ 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
