Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Imzadi1979 (talk | contribs) at 03:01, 10 February 2012 (support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ontario Highway 401

Ontario Highway 401 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after over two years of work improving it from an unsourced mess, I think that it is time for Wikipedia to have a featured article on what is possibly the busiest road on the planet. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: transcluding this for the nominator. --Rschen7754 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: article is well structured, peer-reviewed and is now ranked A-Class. The time to have it featured has finally come. (I have contributed to the article and have assisted the nominator on various occasions.) Haljackey (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a few notes:

  • please remove imprecise words, such as 'recently' that occurs in the intro, and replace them with precise words (in this case, a date)
  • avoid using extraneous words, such as 'currently' or 'in combination' that I removed in a recent edit (I think there are other such instances)
  • although the Windsor-Detroit border is mentioned, there's no explicit mention of the fact that this is the Canada-US border
  • the topography section (Southwestern Ontario) has superfluous detail that should be removed, or incorporated more cleanly into the text to demonstrate its relevance.
  • clarify that The Basketweave and Allen Road interchanges are not the same

There are other issues I'll note once I've more fully reviewed the article. Mindmatrix 21:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do... though I note that there are many "currently"s in the article that are necessary. These are major multi-year construction projects that have no announced completion date; the article will need to be updated to remain comprehensive in any instance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I believe I've cleared things up (except a couple uses of "currently"). The southwestern topography was meant to explain the surrounding, but I definitely see what you mean. I believe I've incorporated it better. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those fixes are fine. Mindmatrix 22:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have reviewed this article twice and feels that it meets all the criteria and is a good read about one of Canada's most important highways. Dough4872 03:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not as scary as the M1 motorway on a Friday evening! I've been through the article twice too. To my mind, too many of the alternative names are bolded in the lead, but I don't know Ontario's roads well enough to fix myself, please review. Assuming the minor issues identified by Mind are fixed, I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The first few are synonyms, but I've wondered with the Highway of Heroes and Windsor-Essex Parkway myself... I was under the impression that when a term redirects to an article, it should be boldfaced in the lead. I've removed it from the two, will see if anybody thinks otherwise. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Macdonald-Cartier Freeway and Highway of Heroes are official names, but the Windsor-Essex Parkway seems to just be a name given to the under construction extension of the Highway in Windsor. Renders show signage for Highway 401 but not the Windsor-Essex Parkway. Perhaps it's just the name of the project. Haljackey (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box)
  • Citations need work:
  1. Citation 177 is an error.
  2. Citation 8 is dead on my screen, plus why is 6 & 8 the same source, effectively?
  3. Citations 129 and 130 give the newspaper but no publisher, yet there are other news sources with publishers, such as Citation 133. We should be consistent in my opinion.
  4. Citations 11 & 29 are maps, but not in the map section below, why?
  • The overbearing amount of red links in the junction (and the ones in the RD) bothers me a slight, might want to cut down on those.
  • Not urgent, but the infobox, why does ON 404 have a to destination rather than an In location?
  • What is going on after Citation 33 in the Greater Toronto Area section?
  • The last two photos in the article, the first one (lower traffic volumes) should have a new caption personally. The second I'd probably remove unceremoniously in favor some different wording.

Just a bunch of thoughts from me. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cites are fixed... I'm just waiting on an edit to {{sfn}} to make it more compatible with {{cite map}}, which will allow me to convert the short map refs to be more consistent and to link to the bibliography. However, besides one ref, all the maps are now taken care of. I can fix the redlinks, but only by redirecting county roads to their list articles. However, the provincial highways should remain as redlinks so that editors know they are needed articles. All the other issues you've brought up should be taken care of now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I believe this article is of high quality and property sourced. 96.46.194.150 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an image review and a source spotcheck here. Ucucha (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd point this out in advance of anyone doing that: All of the images that are tagged as PD-Canada are not subject to the issues with the URAA as they are government photos that are explicitly released into the public domain 50 year after publication. Anything taken prior to December 31, 1961 is good to go, so long as its author is a municipal, provincial, or federal government. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've reviewed the article, except for references. Here are the remaining issues that come to mind at this time:

  • there's little or no mention of traffic volume for the highway except for the highly travelled portion between Weston and 404 (ie - what traffic volume is there near the Quebec border or approaching the US border? what about passing near Kingston or London?); this data has likely been collected by the government; history of traffic volumes would be a useful addition too, though I don't know about data availability for this
  • there's no mention of the economic effects of the 401, including the volume of business-related trucking, and negative effects to the economy as a result of traffic snarls etc.; I know such data exists for GTA-wide economic effects - not sure about 401-specific data though
  • in Services, it's stated that MTO operates the centres. Is this correct? It later states that the land is leased to HMSHost, which operates the centres (and leases building space to other tenants, or operates franchises of those businesses?)
  • various future construction projects to review for potential inclusion (I don't think all of these should appear in the text, I'm just listing them for completion; some may already be in the text):

Overall, the article is in good shape. There are still a few phrasing issues - I'll fix the ones I notice. Mindmatrix 22:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the economic data that you mentioned in all of my research, although the article currently quotes a professor that calls it the single most important factor in the explosion of Ontario's economy. If you can find some I'd be happy to add it. I could add a table of AADT values like Don Valley Parkway currently has, selecting the highest value near some major cities (Windsor, London, Woodstock, Cambridge, Mississauga, Weston Road (Toronto), Oshawa, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, Cornwall, for example). I can source 1988 and 1969 values as well. I'll take a look at the services section and fix up that, but they were originally financed by the MTO but the new centres will be owned by a private corporation. As far as I know, all of the major projects are mentioned, including recent widening in Windsor, London and between Woodstock and Cambridge, the current work in Mississauga and Kingston (latter supposedly just finished, will see if I can find a ref), and the future work on the WE Parkway and in Durham. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find info specific to the 401, but I did find these with respect to traffic congestion affecting the economy of the GTA (and Canada):
There's also a Toronto Board of Trade document titled Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity – 2010 that mentions traffic congestion, though it cites the OECD report in one section, and makes unsubstantiated claims in another. I can't find data about trucking volumes and values of shipments. Mindmatrix 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a separate section for traffic volume data would be useful; it needn't be too long. The data you mention could be incorporated into a table with four columns (location, current AADT, 1988 AADT, 1969 AADT). Mindmatrix 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good source for traffic volumes [1]. They go from 1998 to 2008 and cover every interchange of the 401. These volumes could be integrated in the exit list if there isn't a good place for a dedicated list. For the actual figures, I think it would be good to use the 2008 figures the major junctions identified in the infobox. The highest number is 442,900 between Weston Road and Highway 400 in 2008. That's pretty insane! Haljackey (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For future projects, isn't the 401 going to get widened in Durham Region as well? I think it's part of the 407 East project to get the 401 to accommodate the volumes the two new Durham Connector highways to the 407 extension will bring. If I recall correctly, the 401 will be 10 lanes from Brock Road to the Durham West Connector and 8 lanes to the Durham East Connector. There's also an additional plan to extend the 401's Collector-Express System from Brock Road to Brock Street. However I'm not sure if there's any creditable sources for these stats as of yet. Haljackey (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of what I was thinking, but more along the lines of a subsection at the bottom of the Route description. A quick prose description of how volumes increase towards Toronto and decrease moving away from it could accompany the table. I'm not sure about adding general Toronto congestion data to this article (there is a Transportation in Toronto article), simply because that could be focusing largely on city streets as well. That last source is what provides the mileage for all Ontario highway articles and their exit list; I was going to use 1988 and 2008 (2009 comes this summer apparently), as well as the 1969 values from a book I can get at the Toronto Reference Library that shows the 1969 values. I wouldn't add any of this to the exit list just because that would go against MOS:RJL.
As for within Durham, there have been some informal announcements (one is sourced for the Brock to Brock collector express system from the Durham local newspaper). The 407 East technical plans don't include the expansion to Highway 401 unfortunately. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've implemented this table. I don't have the 1969 data on-hand, but it will be entered as soon as I get a chance to visit the library. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The table's good, though I'd prefer to invert the columns and rows. Right now, about one third of the table scrolls off the right side of the page for me. (I don't maximize my browser windows). Mindmatrix 21:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the inverted way first; it looked a lot worse. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. While the article does appear to be signifantly improved, it still seems to need significant work. I started checking a couple of references, and both didn't seem right. One listed a completely different date than the reference (137) and the second (126) doesn't necessarily support the claim (that the entire highway will have high walls and be widened - an odd claim for some eastern sections). Also about half the article seems to be a list of interchanges and service centres; this needs massively reformatting - is it really encyclopaedic that exit 599 goes to Yarker, Amherstview, Odessa and Loyalist (though ignoring Kingston, where those living on the western edge also use this interchange). Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are only checking online references, which will not get you far with this article (or any). As much as it is a strange thought that the eastern section would ever need expansion, we follow WP:verification, and I am only restating what the source says. In this case, you don't have access to reference 126 as you have stated at Talk:Ontario Highway 401#widen entire 401?, and it was the one that up until recently was available online and stated this verbatim. The Toronto Star reference was my attempt to add something there that was available online, even though it doesn't cover every element of the claim. In the exit list, I have generally avoided wherever possible the names of major destinations that are already linked in the 'Location' column, as these are nearby communities that are accessible from that exit. I have not driven the entire highway from end to end nor do I know the travel characteristics. Do you have a reference that Exit 599 is more used by Kingston residents? As for reference 137, clearly you didn't check reference 138, which has the date (from a more reliable source). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what WP:RJL has to do with the poor presentation of the interchanges. There are good examples of articles that present similiar quanties of information without looking so poor. I'm very familiar with the highway (having driven much of it far too many times in the last 40 years), and even if the National Post did say that they were going to widen the entire thing, it's likely wrong, or simply poorly written. And why would anyone build a tall wall when there is 50+ metres between the lanes in places? It's non-sensical. I don't see what reference 138 has to do with reference 137. The date in reference 137 is wrong - period. 138 has nothing to do with this. And as far as Exit 599 ... if you lived in Kingston at Collins Bay Road and Taylor Kidd ... would you really add almost 10 minutes to your travel time by driving back east to 611? Heck, if you live at Gardiners Road and Highway 2, it's no longer to drive to 599 ... and this was just one example. There are numerous examples like this ... I'm not going to start listing them all. The article needs significant work. I only spot checked a half-dozen things, and many failed. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note, two references are used to say that tall walls will be built, but an examination of the two references has no mention about walls, except for one segment west of London, and a throw-away comment about the complexity of median barriers that doesn't indicate that they will be used everywhere or not. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another (and I'm still only looking at 599 and 611. The table indicates that 401 passes through Frontenac County. It doesn't! The southern border of Frontenac county is about 8 kilometres north of 401. The article is good - but it's not featured article good. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RJL is the format used for junction lists. If you dislike it, take it to the talk page of that policy. The city of Kingston is part of Frontenac County, and I'm not going to address your original research any further. What date is incorrect in ref 137? It says the parkway work is to begin in August (from January). Ref 138 is a government source stating it began August 18 (from after August). State which refs don't mention that tall walls will be built, since you've just used the ambiguous "two references". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RJL isn't the issue. It's the horrible way it's been implemented. Other articles don't waste so much real estate. Kingston hasn't been in Frontenac County since sometime late last century, when it was almagamated with Kingston Township and Pittsburgh Township, and made a higher-order municipality with the same powers as a county. I don't know what you mean by original research - is that some kind of personal attack because you are unaware that Kingston is no longer part of Frontenac County? Ref 137 clearly says that the article date is August 12, 2011, but when you open the reference it clearly says Published: Saturday, May 07, 2011 - why do I keep having to point out that the date in the reference is wrong? No reference states that tall walls will be built from end to end - and why would they ... there's cliffs, forest, and large wetlands between the lanes in sections - perhaps you should point which one does. The intransigence of the proponent to deal with a small sample of the deficiencies in the article suggests that he is more interested in his own ego than in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia, and demonstrates that this article shouldn't be considered as a featured article until it is improved. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here is map of Frontenac county from their website [2] As you can see, Kingston is south of Frontenac county - with the township of Frontenac Island being south of Kingston. And the 401 never enters Frontenac county. See also the description of the County on the County's website [3]. Ironically, the county's office is actually in Kingston (in Glenburnie) - but that doesn't mean Kingston is in the county. Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you were referring to the publication date and not the date the reference is supporting. I probably added this ref on August 12 and saw the date in the upper left. As for Frontenac, that is finally a source! I CAN use that contradict my MapArt reference that says Kingston is the county seat of Frontenac County. If the "and add a tall wall" line is the issue, I will remove it as cannot find a source that states it verbatim. All three of these changes will be made. Now, what are your suggestions for the exit list? This is a 800 km highway with about 150 exits; it's going to take up a lot of room. It wouldn't be comprehensive to not include all the information available. There really is not better way of displaying it, and this is the accepted method for highway articles that several dozen featured articles make use of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (not an expert at all, just an interested passer-by, some technical spotchecks!)

  • Clarification from above, MOS:RJL is a style guideline, not a policy.
  • While we're referring to the MOS, it's a shame that the large table fails WP:ACCESS (no row or col scopes for screenreaders (MOS:DTT), use of colour-only to distinguish road types - perhaps a failing of RJL?). A similar comment applies to the colourful timeline graphic of sections of the road being opened, this is not accessible to colour-blind (e.g. me) readers.
  • Infobox image caption should not have a period, it's a sentence fragment.
  • Meanwhile, the Highway 401 caption should. Worth checking all the other captions.
  • "stretching 816.6 kilometres (507.4 mi)" vs " its entire 816 km (507 mi) length" both in the lead, would expect some consistency in d.p.
  • The Odessa service station "Open during 2010-11 reconstruction " needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 15 and ref 17 look like they need en-dash.
  • I was slightly confused by the "City of London" being a publisher, as in not the British one... worth disambiguating it?
  • I'm no expert in ISBNs, but wouldn't you expect to see all ten-digit ISBNs presented in the same way (as you do for the 13-digit ones)?

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll adress the rest of this later today, but on the ISBN note, I copy them exactly as they appear in the book - I'm not sure which presentation is the proper method (assuming its 1-5-3-1, which is the usual presentation) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the content.. too many issues that the previous reviewers haven't noted...

  • "the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway and colloquially as the four-oh-one" in the first case, "the" isn't in bold, in the second case "the" is in bold. I don't see a good reason why this inconsistency should exist.
  • "a 400-Series Highway" why not just "a 400-series highway"?
  • "along which over half of Canada's population resides" is that referenced anywhere?
  • " in 1964. In 1965" bit repetitive, perhaps "The following year" or something to break it up.
  • "as the road is travelled by a funeral convoy" reads odd, do you mean it's commonly used by convoys for this purpose or that it has been used once only for this? The "is travelled by a ..." confuses me a shade, maybe "is travelled by funeral convoys" or "was travelled by a funeral convoy" depending on the scenario.
  • I don't know what a "collector lane" is, maybe this is common in North America, not so in the UK.
  • You have [2][a] in the infobox and [a][11] in the prose, would suggest a consistent approach to this ordering.
  • You have "Don Valley Parkway/Highway 404 " unspaced slash in the lead, and "Don Valley Parkway / Highway 404" spaced slash in the infobox, would suggest consistency here once again. Multiple examples exist throughout.
  • London is over linked in the Southewestern Ontario section.
  • You talk about COMPASS in the Greater Toronto Area section, but then link it the first time and explain it in later sections. Suggest you do it the other way around.
  • File:Freeway Overload.jpg has no alt text.
  • "enables the Ontario Ministry of Transportation Traffic Operations Centre" why not just "enables the MTO's Traffic Operations Centre"?
  • Maybe just a personal style preference but there are several very short paragraphs in the latter part of the GTA section.
  • "It was quickly announced in the days thereafter" don't think you need "quickly" as "in the days thereafter" probably takes care of that.
  • "2S, for Scenic," -> "2S (S for scenic)"
  • "accidents that occurred throughout its history" -> "that have occurred..."?
  • "but Carnage Alley became " most places you refer to it in italics, not here, why?
  • A lot of text squashed between images in later sections looks pretty poor.
  • "The Ontario Ministry of Transportation is also " why stop using the abbreviation?
  • "features 19 service centres " I count 14 "open" per your colouring in the table.
  • Is Woodstock open or closed?
  • Ref 169 shouldn't have a space before it.
  • Mallorytown ("due to open late 2011") - well, it's early 2012 now, what's the deal?
  • "Reopened Early 2011[168]" no need for Early to be capitalised.
  • Is "Service Road" really a "Service road"?
  • "Highway 3 - Huron Church Road – Ambassador Bridge to U.S." en-dash needed there.
  • Why not have a conversion into miles in this table? You convert to miles throughout the prose, so it would make sense to do the same in the table.
  • Can you explain how ref 2 should be used to reference the distances from exit to exit? It's on highway 2, in 2008 for me with a bunch of blank fields.....
  • Some odd format going on in the Essex, Tecumseh entry, the line under Tecumseh doesn't align with 20.4 in the km col.
  • "Doon-Blair Road" should that be an en-dash?
  • "401-427 interchange" should presumably be a spaced slash or an en-dash.
  • "Exit 350 " why is this capitalised? The other "exit"s aren't. There are other examples of this.
  • Be consistent with the use of full stops in the Notes column. For instance, why is "Ramps removed, access to Jane Street via Black Creek Drive." full stopped but this: "401-427 interchange. Exit 348 (eastbound exit and westbound entrance), Exit 350 (eastbound exit and westbound entrance), Exit 351 (westbound exit and eastbound entrance) and Exit 352 (westbound exit and eastbound entrance)" not?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed/am fixing most of these issues, but there are a few that I cannot so easily. In the intro, 'the' is bolded for the colloquial use because it always proceeds 'four-oh-one'; not so with Macdonald-Cartier Freeway. The Alphabet Soup article should be sourcing the population figure in the Route description at some point, but correct me if I'm wrong (two years of research leads to some fumbled notes here and there). The wording of that funeral convoy sentence has come up at every step of the review process for this article, and nobody seems to be happy with any wording. A convoy travels the highway, bringing dead soldiers' bodies from the base in Trenton to the coroners office in Toronto. Collector-express is linked and otherwise they are essentially labels given to the lanes on the highway. I've moved the COMPASS stuff up. While only 14 centres are currently open to the public, there are 19 centres along the highway. There is no reliable source to the opening of the Mallorytown centre, so I can only report that it was sceduled to open in late 2011. Service Road is just a road named Service Road, though I'm sure that there is some etymology there (another topic, another day). I'm guessing you aren't using one of the major browsers or have javascript disabled, but ref 2 also provides a pdf download for those cases. For most, those drop downs allow you to select a highway number and then section along that highway. The length of that section is displayed. The exit list and the length are simply summing those values for Highway 401. The Exit 350 is the correct way and I've remedied other cases. They are proper nouns when referring to a specific exit by number; Exit ###. Doon-Blair is a hyphen as far as I know, but I'm not able to verify it based on maps or signs.
As for displaying miles, we (as in Wikiproject Highways and Wikiproject Ontario Roads) are planning to convert all junction lists over to a template based form that will serve the two-fold purpose of ensuring consistency between entries and allowing us to easily convert the tables to include both metric and imperial measurements. This is a rather huge undertaking, so in the interim a conversion factor is supplied in the footer of the table (as well as a legend for the colours used). Finally, the image which colour codes the dates: I'm not sure what I can do here, but I'm not willing to deprive readers of such a unique and explanatory diagram. Would writing out the dates by section in the alt text or the file description suffice? I may have missed a few of the issues you brought up, so just let me know what I've forgotten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you've got with these but I still see captions incorrectly punctuated, en-dash/hyphen issues and maybe I can't count properly, but I'm sure I see 20 service stations, of which 5 are closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still got about 4 points from your second list and most of your first list to go through. I'll have more time in the next couple hours, after my weekend begins, to finish everything up. I'll double check my count, but there was originally 20, one was closed and demolished in 2006 (Mississauga; no longer a need for it since the city has sprawled out since the 60s). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update:Almost done, just have to check through the captions and notes for periods. Are you satisfied with what I mentioned about collector lanes and isbns? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collector lane stuff is fine, I would always use 13 character ISBNs correctly formatted where possible, and I would also look at WP:ACCESS to see how far from acceptable a lot of this article is. My oppose stands, perhaps your project needs to work on its oft-quoted "style guide" (MOS:RJL) since it's something often quoted as gospel. The "style guide" and its examples are something that we should not be using to guide others; in short, it's a crock. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in use on over three dozen featured articles; this is not the place to attempt to argue the merits of it; that is the guideline junctions follow. You're going to need to point out how it fails WP:ACCESS; the colours are acceptable as there is both a legend and they are merely supplemental to the notes. Colspans are in place and rowspans will be added when this article is converted to a templated junction list (as well as centre justifying the km/exit columns). The colour coded image cannot be represented in any better way and I refuse to deny such a useful piece of information solely at the concern of colour-blind readers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe I have addressed all your other issues at this point, but please correct me where/if I'm wrong. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance, image captions still need work on punctuation and there are still too many images cluttering up the article and squashing text. I'll do a more thorough run through later. From the sounds of it, until the "templated junction list" comes along, I will find it difficult to support this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The absence of either single "centre" coordinates (using {{Coord}} or a series of coordinates for junctions or other features, on this simple linear highway mean that it is not possible for users to locate it, via GeoTemplate, on their preferred map, or for machine parsers to determine its location. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As there is currently an ongoing RfC on the use of coordinates in highway articles, in which you are participating, to determine whether there is consensus for their use, this concern is inactionable at this time. I feel it is wholly original research for me to pick one point on this 817 kilometre highway as representative, and I cannot be responsible for the inability of geotemplate or the various mapping services to adequately portray linear features. This concern can be brought up once the RfC has closed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ongoing RFC notwithstanding, there is already consensus - as you know - for the use of coordinates in junction lists, as evidenced by their inclusion in MOS:RJL. Your OR concerns are invalid, per recent discussion elsewhere and the near three-quarters of a million instances of {{Coord}} already on Wikipedia. Your comment about GeoTemplate and mapping services is a red herring. Coordinates lists are already in use with no drama, on other Wikipedia articles about linear features, including major higwhays. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no such drama-free inclusions on highway articles. I will leave it to the closing delegate to determine. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are. M1 motorway, as mentioned above, for instance, you have so far been unable to explain what harm is supposedly done by the coordinates on that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, you just ignore them:
  1. At 160 junctions, using a coordinate template on every junction will exceed the template limit for a single article
  2. A centre coordinate would be placed in the narrow countryside greenbelt between Ajax and Whitby; this area isn't indicative of the entire highway in any way and gives undue weight to that point.
  3. A limited number of coordinates is cherry picking
  4. The external link to google maps is far more informative than 160 coordinate pairs could ever dream of being to our readers
  5. There is an ongoing dispute involving coordinates which is the subject of an RfC. This is forum shopping. It is a malignant cancer spreading. I refuse to provide ammunition for further drama and so until the RfC has closed, coordinates will not be placed on this article. Full stop. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who has called for 160 coordinate pairs to be included on this article? If you are unable to select suitable coordinates, I'm sure others would be willing to do so. An external link to a singe mappings service does not serve users who wish to use other services, and is not machine readable to our parsers and reusers. This s not forum shopping, but perhaps we should not feature any highway articles until the dispute is resolved? The decision is not yours to make; please try to understand how Wikipedia works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shapefile has been added; see title bar and footer. --Rschen7754 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Andy. The RfC is a red herring. Wikipedia:Five pillars (remember those fundamental principles of wikipedia?) helpfully defines wikipedia as, in part, as a gazetteer. WP:FACR states that FAs should be "exemplify our very best work". I cannot imagine how you can describe an article describing a geolocatable subject yet failing to provide means by which users can link to any part of that subject on any of the many internet map sites as our best work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As Floydian states, there is an ongoing RfC designed to determine a solution, but until/unless it comes up with one, there is no consensus at this moment on the best way, or if we need to, include specific geospacial data. External links such as you describe are not required by the FA Criteria as they exist at this time. Wikipedia fulfills its gazateer role simply by including articles such as this, whether or not coordinate data is included. You're welcome to disagree, but this nomination isn't the forum to continue that ongoing discussion; please confine your additional comments to the RfC. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, there is already consensus - as you know - for the use of coordinates in junction lists, as evidenced by their inclusion in MOS:RJL. This is the forum to suggest ways in which articles should be improved, to meet best practice, before they are featured. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting MOS:RJL#M5 motorway: "Note: A few junctions in this example have been geotagged; however, there is no consensus on how to implement geotagging on roads articles." Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While there may be no consensus on how to do it; there is clearly consensus that it may be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "May" meaning that it is optional. --Rschen7754 23:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting MOS:RJL is all very well but it's a project style guide, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed optional for Wikipedia as a whole; but omitting coordinates for a subject such as this means an article is not representative of our best, and so not suitable for being featured. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm.... what? Care to elaborate? There have been other highway articles featured that didn't include this. Haljackey (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See, for example, coordinates on M1 motorway or M5 motorway. The fact that such articles have been featured previously is not reason to do so again, now that this deficiency has been identified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See, for example, no coordinates on M-185 (Michigan highway) or U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, which are featured articles while M1 motorway and M5 motorway are not. Also note that M-185 and US 2 were promoted as FAs in December 2011. Imzadi 1979 → 15:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shapefile has been added; see title bar and footer. --Rschen7754 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Does File:End of 401.png really add anything? It just looks like an undistinguished piece of road to me.
  • File:Highway 400 at 401.png lacks author, date info, etc. I strongly advise that you fill out {{Information}}.
  • The caption "Heavy traffic traverses Highway 401 within Toronto 24 hours a day" is a full sentence, so it needs a full stop.
  • I note your comment above regarding PD works in Canada, but can I ask: how are Canadian government works exempt from the URAA? File:401 pre-widening at Keele, March 21, 1958.jpg was still copyrighted in Canada on the URAA date.
  • Squishing the text between two images at the same place in 'Since 2008' and 'Central Ontario' is very nasty.

—Andrewstalk 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown Copyright Act (I believe it's in section 12) states that images subject to Crown (government) Copyright are copyright for a period of 50 years, then become public domain (and not simply that they are copyright for 50 years). This is the copyright holder setting explicit terms for the copyright, which apply worldwide and not just in Canada.
As for the images, I agree with you about the end of 401; I merely added it since it shows the end. The text squishing was also raised by another reviewer so I hope to fix that up in the coming days (as well as adding traffic volumes as requested above) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Moving or removing File:401 Oshawa.jpg might fix the problem. The photo shows an old bridge, which isn't very important to the article, but it does show the original artery in Oshawa. It will allow some wiggle room for other images around it. I'll leave the call up to you. Haljackey (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done, let me know how it looks on your various monitors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my concerns, however I am a bit dubious about those images' PD status in the US, especially as {{PD-Canada}} explicitly states that relevant files must be PD prior to URAA date, and there is nothing mentioned about Crown works in that template. —Andrewstalk 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know; this is an issue I've raised at the talk page for that template, at commons, and at the Media and Copyright forum and nobody seems to have offered any opposition to the concept. This is an email I received from the Senior Copyright Advisor (the head copyright hauncho) for Ontario, Carolyn Grey:
"Under section 12 of the Copyright Act, the term of Crown copyright is "the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year". Once the term of copyright has expired, materials are in the public domain and may be reproduced without seeking permission."
Which is pretty clear: the law that determines the copyright status also indicated that said status expires after 50 years. The URAA can't copyright an image that the copyrighter has explicitly released the rights to. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comment a lot of reference to MOS:RJL here, has anyone advocating this considered that this is simply a guideline and is actually pretty poorly constructed (for example, it completely contravenes WP:ACCESS)? Any reference here that says "this is how we do it because of RJL" could use a re-think. MOS:RJL needs to be reviewed to ensure it actually is useful and that it complies with the rest of the MOS; essentially claiming "RJL" has no substance if reviewers can show that the article fails the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:ACCESS contravened by it? The community has accepted its use in over 40 featured articles thus far. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps the community need to look a bit closer. Some issues exist at a quick glance. For instance, the exclusive use of colour to convey a particular element of information contravening WP:ACCESS (see the table footers, also with an inexplicable over-capitalisation of Former...). For instance, the example which incorrectly uses spaced hyphens contravening WP:DASH. I would be interested to know if the {{MIint}} and {{ONint}} templates implement row and col scopes as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Color does not exclusively convey information, as you claim. The information is duplicated in the alt text, in the table footer, and in the notes column in the row that is colored. Furthermore, some projects choose to forgo colors entirely; see WP:NYSR which bans most of them from all its articles; this proves that they're not essential to the understanding of the junction list. --Rschen7754 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, how does "Westbound exit and eastbound entrance; interchange under construction" with a pink background convey "partial access" as opposed to say "unopened"? If colour is going to be used then I would advise the exact text should be duplicated, i.e. start the note with "partial access" and then explain why... I shouldn't have to "interpret" the notes to understand how the background colour relates to it. And yes, I agree, getting rid of colour would be fine, better for people who find it difficult to distinguish between them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put "partial access" because that's redundant. "Westbound exit and eastbound entrance" means there's partial access; full access would be "Westbound entrance and exit and eastbound entrance and exit" but that's the default, so we don't put that. Adding "partial access" will clutter a table. This just seems like personal preference to me. Also, as far as dashes go, RJL doesn't mandate any particular style of dashes. (Also, can you be more specific as to which particular dashes are offending? They're used in so many columns that it's hard to tell what you mean). --Rschen7754 08:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that "westbound exit and eastbound entrance" equates to "partial access" I'm afraid. It's a question of making it clear to all readers, I think it should be explicit. Oh, and the last table of RJL (Tomei expressway?) uses spaced hyphens and not en-dashes. Also not sure about the M5 motorway table which calls it the M5 Motorway and has spaces between text and footnotes... but this isn't the forum for that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partial access is far less explicit than specifically providing the directions that one can travel; the colour summarizes that, and if I were to take away the colours, nothing in the notes would be changed. Some of the examples on RJL may have been copied directly from their articles; the intent I believe was more to provide an example from different parts of the world, and less to say "here is a perfect, grammatically correct junction list" (though I agree it should do both). I believe I've fixed the use of dashes (in this article), but point out the hyphens that remain because I can barely see them. Ditto the images; I have a widescreen monitor and for the most part there is no squishing after I removed some pictures. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying say "Partial access" and then explain it. (For what it's worth, I certainly have absolutley no idea what a concurrency terminus is, that's "explained" in the RJL in light green, but how would I correlate that to "Exit not numbered for southbound traffic; I-275 joins I-96 and uses its exit numbers; cloverstack interchange with three loops"? Am I supposed to know that a "cloverstack interchange" is a "concurrency terminus"? It's not a problem here, but it's symptomatic of what I'm trying to say...) And as for text-squashing images, I thought we tried to take account of those readers using lower resolution, probably un-widescreen monitors. Are you saying that you have no squashed text at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have images in places on both sides (the biggest example being the Highway of Heroes section, but the image on the right is very narrow), but that may not be the case for a narrow monitor when the text has less room to spread out. For me it looks visually appealing, but that's at 1280x760. I am converting the exit list to templates now, so please point out any errors that you happen see crop up over the next few hours (it is an intensive process for 150+ junctions). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, table is now converted to templates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, still issues with captions and periods, and also can you confirm that the Highway 416 and COMPASS images don't squash text? Would also still recommend that "Unopened" is added to both the "Under construction" and "Planned" entries so we don't have to work out that they both mean "Unopened". Also need consistency on the punctuation in all the notes. Where is all the "Woodstock" information (in the table after Norwich)? And is there a reason why some exits are blank, e.g. "Highway 3 west – Ambassador Bridge to U.S." (which appears to be under construction, so why not in salmon colour like those other "under construction" above?) Finally, for now, you relink destinations in the destinations column, but you don't relink names of former highways in the notes column (for instance). Surely you should be consistently with over linking? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If exits are blank, it means that there is no number (such as for an exit under construction where the number isn't assigned yet.) --Rschen7754 21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one whole row is blank. And some exits under construction have numbers, so perhaps you need an en-dash and a note to say "no exit number assigned"... And check ref formats, e.g. compare ref 114 with 116 regarding author name format, check others. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Woodstock row was an error. Exit 238 is on the boundary of Woodstock and Norwich. It was a very large conversion so there are bound to be a few artifacts that need to be tidied. As Rschen pointed out, numbers aren't included where sources don't provide those numbers yet. A few exits are unnumbered or not in the highway logs (ref 2). Highway 3 is the current end of the highway, but will be an interchange in a few years; the exit list reflects its current role as the terminus rather then portraying it as a future connection. The salmon colour is only for unbuilt interchanges (ie you can't access the road listed in the destinations column from the freeway yet), and is cosmetic and not meant to convey additional information; ergo no need to add more to the notes. The prose already explains everything in great deal, and the exit list shouldn't attempt to cram that same amount of information into a table format, unless I'm mistaken? I have no problem adding repetitive links in the notes column (it would be a pain in the ass to manage a balance in the destination column between the consistency between entries granted by using a template, the ease of a new editor recreating the link for some reason if its a template parameter, and the overlinking issue), but I'm not sure how other editors feel about that. I've fixed up the author consistency issue; a few refs were using author instead of first/last. I've checked and rechecked them a hundred times in the past year, so honestly I can't spot these type of errors amongst the blur and I really appreciate them being pointed out by a fresh set of eyes (even just the ref number and I'll check it thoroughly). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, avoid blank cells because it looks like there's something missing, add an en-dash or something with a key that says "no number exists" or similar. Text squash: just don't do it. Overlinking, do it always or never. More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the recent image restructuring, I am seeing a lot of white space at 1920 pixels (width). See here for a screenshot: [4] Haljackey (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know how it looks now. I've inserted centred dashes into any blank km or exit cells. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
Looks good now on my end. Nice work! Haljackey (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just some quick fresh comments, there still exists squashed text and incorrect punctuation in captions and in the table notes, among other things, but in addition
  • Traffic volumes table - 1969 row is all blank so what's the point of it?
  • Based on alignments of data in other tables on this page, shouldn't these volumes be right-justified?
  • "Average Annual Daily Traffic counts of select sections" do you mean "Average annual daily traffic counts of selected sections"?
  • And no period needed there.
  • That large table, you now repeat Highway 2 linking to be consistent, but you don't relink concurrency...
  • Is it "Controlled Access", "Controlled-access" or "controlled access" or "Controlled-Access"? Would pick one and be consistent throughout.
  • Still seeing the odd single-sentence paragraph which is undesirable.
  • Need consistency in the slash spacing (I currently see a " 401/400 interchange").
  • Pure paper ref like ref 115 need a page number.
  • "Closed for reconstruction;[174]" no need for that semi-colon.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've mentioned above (but you may have missed), I've read this article a thousand times in the past two years, and so I cannot spot problems anymore. My eyes aren't fresh. I've gone through the notes and captions and as far as I can tell the punctuation is there where the sentences are complete and not when they're fragments. Let me know which images are squishing and I'll meddle around some more (again, squishing is relative to screen resolution). The 1969 row will be filled in shortly (need to go to the library to get the source). The controlled access depends on the context: Controlled Access is a direct quotation, Controlled-access and controlled-access are non-proper nouns (either at the start of a phrase or mid-sentence, affecting the "C"), Controlled-Access Highway 401 is a proper noun. It should have the hyphen but the one quotation does not. All the other issues I'm fixing now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry to report I'm off to bed shortly, but here goes with stuff. I'm sorry that you can't spot problems, hopefully you can fix the ones I'll point out here and subsequently...
  • "Highway 401 (in red) within Southern Ontario." no need for a period.
  • "Highway 401: the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway widens to six lanes at Highway 402 in London" period needed.
  • "Throughout the Greater Toronto Area, Highway 401 uses a collector-express roadway configuration, ranging from 12 to 18 lanes wide to manage its high traffic volumes" needs a period.
  • "East of Highway 416, Highway 401 is a low-volume rural freeway with a grass median" needs a period.
  • "Traffic cameras are mounted at every exit within Toronto and form one part of the COMPASS system" needs a period.
  • Those two images squash text.
  • "The former Highway 2A near Highland Creek, aside from a resurfaced pavement, has not been altered since it opened in 1947" needs a period. It is also squashing text with the colour map.
  • "Heavy traffic traverses Highway 401 within Toronto 24 hours a day" needs a period.
  • "A plaque near Brockville commemorates the official completion of the highway" needs a period.
  • "Within years after opening, the four-lane Toronto Bypass was congested, prompting the Department of Highways to widen this section to 12 lanes beginning in 1963" needs a period.
  • "Canadians line overpasses along the Highway of Heroes to pay their respects to the fallen soldiers who pass" doesn't describe the image, it's a single overpass here, I know what you're saying.... in any case, it needs a period.
  • "Highway 401 was closed during a series of propane explosions in Toronto in 2008, allowing for this rare photo of the 14-lane highway occupied by a single vehicle" needs a period.
  • "Work is underway to widen Highway 401 from six to fourteen lanes between Highway 410 and Hurontario Street" needs a period.
  • One other thing, I'm told by some "sourcing experts" that Google Books links don't need to use "access dates", so your first "Map" link amongst others don't need it. Just a warning really, I think it's fine to include it, but apparently it's "not the done thing". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all the fixes made except the change to the Highway of Heroes caption. Alt text describes a specific picture, the caption doesn't necessarily need to. In this case it is showing one of the overpasses that they line. Also just for consistency I'm going to leave the accessdate for the Google Books link. Thank you for pointing out the pictures that needed a switch. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick revisit, sorry I'm sick at the moment so not been as active as I'd like... Still seeing plenty of squashed text, Highway of Heroes in particular. Last map ref, should that be "McNally, Rand"? Ref 151 has its pdf formatted differently from other pdf links. "Average annual daily traffic counts of selected sections of Highway 401 over 20 years." doesn't need a full stop. " forty five" needs a hyphen.. Is it Highway of Heroes or Highway of Heroes? Be consistent. "A typical section of Highway 401 between Highways 4 and" you link just "4", all other highway links would suggest you should link "highway 4", so perhaps a rephrase and relink needed. Not mentioned it before, but wouldn't it be more prudent to reduce the width of the Notes column so that most of the Destinations entries don't span more than one row? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rand McNally is a company name. --Rschen7754 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, good to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes made. The pics are now all good on my 1200 pixel wide display, which means anything smaller will have no issues as well. Only the first use of Highway of Heroes in its section should now be italicized (for emphasis). As for narrowing the width, I could, but its gonna look different on every monitor (Many rows could never fit the destinations cell in one line, no matter how wide). Right now the user's browser automatically handles the balance and that's probably the best in such a complex table. Ref 151 wasn't a pdf url so that may have been why it was displaying differently? I removed it nonetheless - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks great on my 1920 pixel wide display. The only comment I have on the photo rearrangement is that the two pictures from London are close together. The two pictures are only one interchange apart and I think it's a little much having them one after the other. If [5] could be moved back to the "since 2008" section I think that would help, and it fits right at home there because the widening/reconstruction was done since 2008. Otherwise, well done! Haljackey (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for the delegates/director: A RfC was recently conducted on the issue of coordinates in highway articles. The RfC was advertised at WP:CENT, and the only proposal that gained consensus is to use shapefiles instead of {{coord}} in articles. This solution will require time to develop and test. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shapefile has been added; see title bar and footer. --Rschen7754 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I was quite critical of this article the last time it was here, and it's come a long way since then. It received a fairly thorough A-Class Review and plenty of attention here. The only editors opposing at this time have based their opposition on the lack of geographic coordinates, yet this article has implemented a new system that, IMHO, is superior for linear features. One editor has !vote to "delist" the article, yet this hasn't been listed as a FA yet, so that !vote makes no sense to me.
    I've read through the prose, and I feel it substantially meets the criteria. (I hedge that statement only because we can always polish the prose in articles, and other editors may have different opinions on a piece of text, and both be right.) As for the other criteria, I believe that the article meets them as well. Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ontario_Highway_401/archive2&oldid=476058390"