Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:50, 12 June 2010 [1].

Ontario Highway 401[edit]

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after four months of rewriting it from scratch, followed by two months of extensive scrutiny and peer review by myself and many others (especially the two reviewers and Haljackey), I feel it is ready to be presented as one of the finest works of the encyclopedia. Sourcing has been withheld from a few moot details that can really ONLY be sourced to google satellite shots or driving on the highway, but I think you will find they are few-and-far between and minor at worst. Thank you, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—a link to carriageway needs disambiguation, and there are dead external links to http://www.london.ca/Reference_Documents/PDFs/TransportationReport.pdf and http://www.london.ca/Reference_Documents/PDFs/TransportationReport.pdf . Ucucha 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found working links to those reports [2][3]. Fixing it now. Thanks for pointing that out! Haljackey (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carriageway isn't really a disambiguation page. Really, it should be classified as a stub article that's defining a road-related term. Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that shouldn't be a dab. Thanks for the fixes. ~~Now you have http://www.todaystrucking.com/news.cfm?intDocID=9293&CFID=1161538&CFTOKEN=62794508 timing out, which may be a temporary problem.~~ Ucucha 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link seems fine for me. Tried accessing it several times during the day and it worked every single time. I appreciate the constructive comments! Haljackey (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, working now. Ucucha 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—I didn't get to submit my full review while this was at ACR, so I'll endeavor to do so now.

Infobox
1. Should the infobox be changed to move the map up higher? Also, I fail to see the point of including a photo in the infobox. The MOS prescribes that a "lead image" be used at the upper right corner of an article if an infobox is not used. By laying the infobox out this way, what I would assume to be a natural lead image to encompass the highway as a whole (the map) is pushed down below, and a lead photo actually appears below two other images on my screen.
2. The caption on the infobox's picture should be updated. "collector / express" should be "collector-express" to follow MOS:DASH.
Lead
1. The third paragraph is rather short. It should be either expanded or combined at the end of the first paragraph.
2. In that third paragraph, the maintaining agency is called "the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" but the infobox calls it "the Ontario Ministry of Transportation". Please pick one variation of the name, assuming both are correct, and stick with it.
3. In the second paragraph, two of the distances given in the first sentence are in an adjectival form and should be hyphenated.
4. That sentence: "Three highways were renumbered "Highway 401" in 1952: the 11.8 km (7.3 mi) Toronto Bypass between Weston Road and Highway 11 (Yonge Street); Highway 2A for 54.7 km (34.0 mi) between West Hill in Scarborough and Newcastle, east of Oshawa; and the 41.2 km (25.6 mi) Highway 2S between Gananoque and Butternut Bay, west of Brockville, now known as the Thousand Islands Parkway." should be broken up. It's quite unwieldly to read.
Route description
1. Second paragraph of the section's "lead" contains a dash error: "Quebec City–Windsor corridor". That should be a spaced en-dash. It is correct when used in the first paragraph of the lead.
2. In the first paragraph of the first subsection, "However the 401 itself does not physically extend the last few kilometres into Detroit." I didn't think a Canadian highway could enter an American city, rather the designation would end at the border. Replace "into" with "to" or "toward".
3. Second paragraph of the first subsection: what does "bearably parallels" mean? Please reword and clarify.
4. "Some sections of the Highway 401 between Woodstock and Kitchener / Cambridge are four lanes..." I noticed that some Ontario locations use the slash, but this one doesn't. Please pick either Kitchener or Cambridge, or join them with an en-dash.
5. "As Highway 401 approaches the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), ..." Why abbreviate GTA if you never use that term again?
6. "As the 401 approaches the large Highway 403 / Highway 410 junction in Mississauga, it widens into a collector / express system (also referred to as a core-collector system)," Again, why use the "/" in collector-express, but a hyphen in core-collector? Slashes shouldn't be used under MOS:DASH.
7. What's a "hydro corridor"? Please link to an article, explain in the text or reword.
8. Section 1.3 is now titled "Collector-Express system", but should be "Collector-express system" since "Collector-Express system" is not a proper name. Additionally, I think I'd prefer that this section not break the logical flow of the whole Route description section. That whole section is divided into subsections based on geography: Southwestern Ontario, Greater Toronto Area, Eastern Ontario. I would attempt to integrate the content into the sections better rather than calling it out. If the only reason it is called out as a separate subsection is to use the "Main articles" tag, find a way to integrate those links into the body of the text and remove the subheading.
9. ""Highway 401 uses a collector-express roadway configuration within the Greater Toronto Area. The system employs a set of two unidirectional multi-lane roadways, with the inner and outer roadways representing the express and collector lanes respectively.[38]" Please reword this sentence. I'm not sure that the word "unidirectional" is needed nor appropriate in the sentence.
10. "The first set is currently 6.6 km (4.1 mi) long..." 6.6 km should be hyphenated because the distance together is modifying the word "long".
11. "This 43.7-kilometre (27.2 mi) system passes through the centre of Toronto and ends in Pickering to the east.[41]" why is kilometre now unabbreviated so far into the article when it hasn't been unabbreviated in a measurement in the article previously? Here the hyphenated form is used correctly.
12. "The 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) gap between the two systems is a traffic bottleneck,[36]" hyphenate the measurement. Audit all usages of measurements through the whole article for similar situations. This is becoming quite an issue in reading the text.
13. The whole "Eastern Ontario" section feels a bit short in comparison to the other sections of the RD. I understand that the section in the Greater Toronto Area has more stuff going on, but compared to the section on Southwest Ontario, this section seems shortchanged.
History
1. Coming review, but one comment for now. There are extraneous details that are unnecessary to understanding the topic at hand. Look at the sentence: "Before the highway could be completed, the 1934 provincial elections brought Mitchell Hepburn into office as premier; Thomas McQuesten was appointed the new minister of the Department of Highways." The fact that Hepburn became premier isn't really relevant. It could be recrafted to: "Before the highway could be completed, Thomas McQuesten was appointed the new minister of the Department of Highways after the 1934 provincial elections." The change removes 6 words from the sentence, and removes the unneeded tidbit. The subsequent sentence, "McQuesten in turn appointed Robert Melville Smith as deputy minister," could be combined as well, since the details of how the two men were appointed are not as important as the fact that they held their jobs at the time. If their importance to the history weren't established later in the text, I'd say that their names could be removed completely as extraneous. How about: "Before the highway could be completed, Thomas McQuesten was appointed the new minister of the Department of Highways, with Robert Melville Smith as deputy minister, after the 1934 provincial elections."
2. As an example of article bloat, the "Predecessors" section refers readers to four other articles. It should be a summary of the history sections of those four articles, so I assume that this subsection can be summarized more concisely, with the greater level of detail left in those articles.
3. Something I noticed, but on my screen the sentence: "Beginning in 1935, McQuesten applied the concept of a second roadway to several projects along Highway 2:[36]" has a line break in between Highway and 2. There should be non-breaking spaces between Highway and a number in the article text per the MOS direction: "A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that could be awkward at the beginning of a new line."
4. "From here the highway was constructed on a new alignment to Oshawa, avoiding construction on the congested Highway Two." Why is 2 spelled out here?
5. File:Carlb-hwy401-lastkm-682.jpg is about the opening in 1968, yet it's shown in the Predecessors section? Audit photo placement so that the photos relate to the text that appears next to them.
6. The second subsection of the History is titled Highway 401. This should be changed, per MOS:HEAD, which states: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)"
7. "The story was published in several major newspapers around the continent.[80][81][82]" Are 3 citations needed? Second, I wouldn't call The Spartanburg Herald and The Sarasota Herald-Tribune major newspapers. Third, according to the current information included in the 3 citations, all were Associated Press stories published the same day. It's a fair assumption that all 3 are the same story with locally-written headlines, so are they really different citations? A link to the New York Times should be sufficient to demonstrate non-Canadian coverage of the highway at the time.
8. "By the end of 1960, the Toronto section of the 401 was extended both eastwards and westwards: first, to the east between Newcastle and Port Hope by mid-year, then later to the west between Highway 25 in Milton and Highway 8 south of Kitchener.[85]" Replace "was extended both eastwards and westwards" with "was extended in both directions" It's more concise and doesn't repeat the two directions twice in the sentence.
9. "It included the reconstruction of most of the interchanges along its length into the Parclo A4," The term "Parclo A4" is needlessly jargonistic, when a simpler "partial cloverleaf configuration" can be used. In fact the former link redirects to the latter article.
10. "In January 1965, the Premier of Ontario, John Robarts, designated Highway 401 the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier, two of Canada's Fathers of Confederation.[6]" Again, does the name of the official matter?
11. "This was followed shortly thereafter by the widening of the highway through Ajax and a new interchange at Pickering Beach Road (renamed Salem Road) and Stevenson Road.[93]" Are the interchanges important?
12. "Around the same time, the section of Highway 401 between Windsor and London became known as Carnage Alley, a reference to the numerous accidents that occurred over that stretch of the highway throughout the 1990s.[36]" This is an awkward sentence. I suggest "Around the same time, between Windsor and London the Carnage Alley name was applied to Highway 401, a reference to the numerous accidents on that stretch throughout the 1990s." to eliminate the "became known" construction.
13. In the "Highway of Heroes" section, there's opportunity for summarization. The exact progression from newspaper to newspaper in the campaign to name the highway is not needed, As a side note, the newspaper names should be rendered in italics in the article, not left in plaintext.
14. "The entire width of Highway 401 through central Toronto was closed as a result, the first time the highway was fully closed since the Toronto Bypass opened in 1956." Uncited sentence for an extraordinary claim.
15. "This included significant reconstruction of the Wellington Road interchange, replacing the outdated 3/4 cloverleaf with a parclo A-4 containing a sub-collector system. The overpass was also replaced, allowing it to support a future ten-lane 401, compared with the old overpass built in 1956 that could only support four lanes." Uncited series of sentences.
Future
1. "The MTO intends to widen all of the remaining four-lane sections to a minimum of six and place an Ontario Tall Wall along the entire length of the highway.[110][126]" Ontario Tall Wall is used previously in the text without a link or explanation. I suggest moving the link up to the previous mention, and potentially piping the link to a more generic "concrete median barrier" to explain the concept in the article without resorting to uncommon jargon. Other more generic usages like "tall wall median" are fine since they explain that the wall is in the median, but Ontario Tall Wall alone doesn't provide context. Maybe the OTW is a kind of noise-abatement wall on the side of the roadway?
2. "In 2004, it was announced that a new border crossing would be constructed between Detroit and Windsor" Who made the announcement?
3. Shouldn't there be some mention of the controversies surrounding the DRIC and the current Ambassador Bridge?
4. Second paragraph links again to DRIC with the name spelled in full. Why give the abbreviation the first time if you're not going to use it?
5. "In their 2007 plan for southern Ontario, the MTO announced long-term plans to create HOV-lanes from Mississauga Road west to Milton.[145]" Spell out "high-occupancy vehicle". Since the abbreviation is used later, put it in parentheses afterwards though.
6. The last paragraph of the Central Ontario section discusses the Durham Region. Pipe the links to the Regional Roads to remove the name as unnecessary. Additionally, Regional Highway 12 and Regional Road 33 aren't linked but the others are. Any reason for the change in nomenclature and lack of links?
7. The last sentence of of the Eastern Ontario subsection has an unconverted, unabbreviated measurement.
Services
1. Prose reads fine. There's some extraneous detail, but on the whole it's fine.
2. The table could be merged into the larger exit list like Interstate 95 in Maryland or any of the UK motorway articles.
3. Do we need to know which food vendors are at each location, or is a general "food services" text just as informative? The list of food options in the prose should be sufficient, I think.
4. If the separate table is retained, remove the n/a from the "Scheduled reopening" column and leave those entries blank or insert a dash
Exit list
1. After a quick skim of the article, there are no kilometer measurements east of Toronto. Is there a reason that the exit list is so incomplete?
2. MOS:RJL frowns on highway shields appearing in junction/exit lists in the notes column. There are 13 instances of this that should be corrected. There are 17 or so similar situations where the graphic is not in use, meaning the inconsistency should be corrected.
3. Additionally, shield graphics should appear at the beginning of the line or not at all. There are instances of " <ON graphic> <ON highway> (to <US graphic> <US highway>)" that should have the American shield graphic moved or removed. I assume removed if MTO does not use the graphic on the road sign.
4. The correct abbreviation for the country located south of Canada is U.S. or US depending on the variant of English, not USA or U.S.A. (See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations). Even if the Canadian signs use the latter forms, our style guide says to use the former on Wikipedia.
5. I see an issue in the style in use to indicate directions in the Destinations column. The directions are placed in parentheses, but so are road names. The directions should not be in parenthesis so that situations like "Regional Road 36 (south) (Franklin Boulevard)" are avoided. This would also be consistent with the formatting example shown in MOS:RJL.
6. Please combine Exits 330A and 330B together into a single line. The given exit number should be just 330, the given destination just Highway 407 and the notes should be "Signed as exits 330A (west) and 330B (east) in the eastbound direction"
7. "Formerly Highway 29 / Ontario Highway 42" for Exit 696 should have the second link piped to match the first.
8. I won't make this a must change, but rather a friendly suggestion. This exit list only uses one of the 4 background colors standardized in the MOS, from a discussion in which the nominator participated in, and a change made at his suggestion. I would suggest utilizing the other colors from the MOS and updating the color key at the end of the table appropriately.
9. An additional suggestion for the end of the table. The last entry is for the terminus at the Ontario–Quebec provincial line. I'd modify the format there so that the terminal distance can be added in the kilometer column, the exit column left blank, the Destination given as A-20 east – Montreal. The Notes could be set as "Quebec border", or that could be the location spanning the Division/Location columns.
References: I won't go into detail, as I believe others will provide an in-depth review, but I spotted 3 issues.
1. Date format inconsistencies. Just compare how full dates are formatted in references 1, 2 and 3 for a sample.
2. Several references to the same source should be combined together. A "Bibliography" section would be useful to hold the full references with shortened references that provide specific page or map section numbers used in the footnotes. See U.S. Route 41 in Michigan for a sample of how this can be done.
3. I think in a few cases, authors and publishers are confused. Please audit to verify.
Images
1. File:Ontario 401.svg needs complete creation information, as I assume many of the other similar highway shield graphics would as well.
2. File:407 ETR logo.svg needs a fair-use rationale to be included in this article. Saying that though, inclusion of the graphic is not necessary for this article and it should be removed.
3. File:Highway 401 at Highbury Avenue, London, Ontario.jpg, File:401signs higher detail crop.jpg I'm unsure about the copyright and licensing status of these images.
4. File:401 construction phases.svg uses a self-published source as the basis for the map's creation.
5. File:401wardenold.jpg needs more detail to verify the permission.
6. File:401-DVP interchange.png, File:Highway 400 at 401.png, File:Carnage Alley.png someone will need to check the fair-use rationales to make sure they qualifies.

The end result is that I must oppose promotion of the article at this time. There are failures to comply with FAC criteria 1a (well-written). 1b (comprehensive, missing distances in the exit list), 2c (consistent citations) and 3 (image policy). In attempting to complete my review of the prose, I stopped reading after the Route description's subsection on the Greater Toronto Area. The article needs a copy edit, with a view toward correcting breeches of the MOS. There are questions concerning WP:NFCC as well, but other, more-qualified reviewers will need to weigh in on that with the exception of the 407 ETR logo. I will come back later to see if this article meets FAC criteria 4. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, I've completed my review of the article's prose sections. While it is not exhaustive, there are significant issues with the article that prevent me from supporting promotion. In addition to my previous objections on criteria 1a, 1b, 2c and 3, I'm adding criteria 4 to the list. The article is missing distances in the exit list. It is also lacking any mention over the controversies surrounding the DRIC and Ambassador Bridge, the resolution to which will effect the final eastern segment and the timetable for its construction. There's problems with the images and their permissions that need to be resolved and properly clarified before promotion. There are problems with citation formatting. The final big issue is going to be the hardest to resolve. There's lots of extraneous details that are not necessary to an understanding the topic. Ordinarily I'd be fine with it, but the sheer length of this article makes it an issue. Rather than split this article into sub articles, removing the unneeded details would go a long way to fixing the length of the article. The whole article could benefit from the touch of an uninvolved editor giving it a good copyedit with an eye to removing the extraneous detail, fixing MOS errors and unifying the style of the writing. Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ETR logo has been removed. The photographers of the Highbury Avenue and the high detail signs have given us full permission to use them. I have now made that clearer in the image descriptions. The Warden image will also be investigated to help verify it's permission. As for your other comments, I'll let the main author of the article (and nominator) respond to them. Thanks very much for your through analysis of the article! It will certainly help us make it better! Haljackey (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have permission, you need to file with OTRS. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Rs chen 7754 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have premission. It has been verified as OTRS for all images except the Highbury avenue image. The author and myself are not sure about how it works, but he is perfectly fine with having his images here. I'm not sure what you know about OTRS, but perhaps you could help get it sorted out once an for all. Here is the link to the image: [4]]. Additional images by him are used in the London, Ontario and Highbury Avenue articles. Haljackey (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Any photos that I did not take, that were not hosted on websites like Flickr that list licenses or copyright releases, have been submitted with OTRS with the appropriate permission to verify that permission was granted. I suggest that in the case of these photos that the e-mails that detail the permission be submitted through the OTRS system for verification. I see that you added an OTRS tag to File:401signs higher detail crop.jpg. I want to assume that it was in good faith, but ideally those tags should be added by an editor with OTRS access, since only those editors can see the tickets, and can verify that the contents of the ticket match the images. Image names are matched to the permission granted and licenses used in the ticket, so they are specific to the listed images. See commons:Commons:OTRS for more information.

Additionally, I've added sections to my review above for the sections of the article I haven't reviewed yet. I will endeavor to complete reviewing the RD section as well as the other 3 sections I haven't reviewed yet. I'll strike comments as I see them completed. The whole article though could use an uninvolved editor's touch on a good copyedit, and potentially with an eye for MOS errors and removing minor details to help shorten the text somewhat. In reading the article, it's not as focused as it could be, which is bloating the text somewhat. The article is quite long at over 6000 words plus a very complete exit list. I'm not suggesting that it be split apart so much as reviewed for opportunities to remove bloat and streamline the text. Imzadi 1979 → 18:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the exit list is the most appropriate, if anything, to split off. I had three editors (independent of the article) copyedit in the past month, but I find that FAC is the only place where articles are truly reviewed correctly. I've limited time today, and I HATE my computer (yay Knoppix +Firefox 1.4 +tap-to-click), but I will be able to chop down most of the items in the two reviews rapidly once I get going. The km in the exit list I am thinking of removing, they do not match the markers posted along the roadway in Toronto (and I can't get to Windsor to see if the km markers start at 13.0 or at 0.0), so I don't see what they add at this point in time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't with the exit list. The page size tool says that the article is at 6,196 words. That tool skips captions, infoboxes, templates and tables. There is the concept that there should be nothing in the text of the lead of an article that isn't in the body of the article. For highway articles, the only detail that usually appears just once in article is the length. The terminal distance, in this case, the distance at the Quebec border is the length. If you remove the exit list completely, then the junction list in the infobox should be removed. If a scaled down version of the list is left here, that could invite problems on what junctions to use and what to remove in the summarized list. Interstate 10 in Texas is 878 miles (1,413 km) in length, and that article has a full exit list. The length issue is based on the prose, not the table. You can streamline the text without losing key information and still reduce the length of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing which stay and which go wouldn't be hard. Only allow King's Highways, or only allow divided highways.

Regardless, I think it'll be pretty easy to slim most of the article down. I do not wish to remove many of the details, as they are indeed vital for a total understanding of the picture (this is mostly with regard to the history section). Regardless, I'm always happy to find ways of cleaning up the presentation of that information. But, for example, the string of events leading to the Highway of Heroes title is one following the other. Every link in this chain is as important as the last, and the fact that it went through this chain before becoming official is what makes it worthy of a mention beyond "this is what it is called and this is where it applies".

You missed my comment about the Highway of Heroes completely. Several of the intermediary details can be omitted without a loss of clarity on the story. I counted 4 newspaper names, as well as the names of two journalists, one firefighter, one petitioner and finally one government official. I think that chain of names can be summarized better without losing the impact. I don't expect the section to be cut down to a "Name assigned in X year to Y segment of roadway." This level of detail though is verging on recentism in the level of detail. Imzadi 1979 → 07:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, my replies follow below:

Infobox
1. My idea behind putting the image in the infobox is solely organization. I don't feel any image is the 'main' image, as it would be impossible to sum up the highway with one photograph.
2. Fixed
Lead
1. All fixed
Route description
1. Fixed
2. Fixed
3. Hah! I asked the same thing when I saw it. One of the copy editors put it there, and I figured they must know what they're doing. Changed to "generally"
4. Fixed
5. The term is commonly abbreviated in Canada. For international readers, it is good to know this ahead of time for the many sources that use the abbreviation, as well as for the articles this one links to (many of which are stubs that do not expand on the term)
6. Fixed
7. Fixed. Hydro is synonymous with electricity here.
8. Title fixed. It was separated in order to explain the system (the article didn't explain it very much beforehand). We decided to split it off so that the GTA section didn't dominate the other two (as you also pointed out).
9. Fixed (I'm proud of this rewording, why didn't I think of it before?)
10. See next
11. The convert template only allows one or the other. The adjective form does not work with the abbreviated form.
12. Will Do
13. I know :( The highway is barren out there (and almost no sources cover the geography in the east), and I honestly struggled to make it as long as it was. Not sure what to do with this one.

More on its way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The list of citation problems is amazingly depressing and proves its far from ready.

Citation 4 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citation 9 - Same for all maps
Citation 11 - Maps again
Citation 14 - Add cartographer
Citation 16 - Only an abstract (I've been hagged at FAC for this before)
Citation 17 - Only an abstract
Citation 18 - formatting busted
Citation 19 - Cite map will be useful here, add cartographer.
Citation 20 - see map thing near bottom
Citation 21 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citation 22 - Format date back in line
Citation 27 - formatting busted
Citations 28, 29 and 30 - Now why are we inconsistent here?
Citations 32, 33 and 34 - Condense and make "bibilography" for normal books
Citation 36 - Lack of major information
Citation 37 - Add Metroland Media Group Ltd.as publisher, the Durham Regional News under |work=
Citation 42 - Not reliable.
Citation 45 - formatting busted
Citation 47 - formatting busted
Citation 52 - Publisher?
Citation 54 - Publisher?
Citation 56 - Publisher?
Citation 58 - Page number will be useful
Citation 61 - Complete redo - Canadian Press to publisher, Paper name to |work=
Citation 65 - Publisher?
Citation 68 - Publisher?
Citation 71 - Same as 61
Citations 72, 73, 74, and 75 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citation 78 - Publisher?
Citation 88 - Can |author=
Citation 89 - Not even in citation templates
Citation 92 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citation 95 - Can |author= if you don't have one
Citation 106 - Reformat, turn the fire company to the publisher. Dump the author
Citation 117 - Author change
Citation 119 - Author change
Citation 120 - Not helpful
Citation 128 - Canwest Publishing not Canada.com
Citation 129 - Really poorly formatted
Citations 135 and 136 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citations 138 and 139 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citation 144, 145, 146, 147 and 148 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citation 153 - Change publisher as that's not really correct.
Citation 161 - reformat |publisher not |author=
Citations 160, 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176 - condense, move map to bibliography. Also split among which maps go to what.
Citation 170 - Newspaper reformatting

This above is utterly ridiculous. I highly suggest this FAC be withrdawn and ALL citations (yes all 176 of them) be checked and formatted for consistency: Date formatting, author/publisher, reliability, "bibliography" section, etc.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 22:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a night, I'll go through all of them. Which is preferable when only one name is given with a source: Author or publisher? What about sources where the publisher isn't shown? Ref 120, the title is not available, just the author, publisher and date. Other reliable sources point to it using these details, but I have been unable to find the title. Ref 16 and 17 you'll have to purchase, as I did (as well as several other articles from the Star and New York Times). I see no reason why I can't link to the abstract for those who have subscriptions or wish to pay, and it's no less informative than any offline source. I figured 42 wasn't reliable, but it isn't supporting anything I really care about. Will get to the fixes soon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media File:Ontario_401.svg is missing a publication date, as is File:M-C Freeway.png. File:407 ETR logo.svg lacks a fu rationale. File:401_construction_phases.svg lacks a properly linked source. File:401-DVP_interchange.png & File:Highway_400_at_401.png fail wp:nfcc. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is the source for 401 construction phases (and the research accompanying the article). There is no single reliable source that lays out the dates. What part of NFCC do the two interchange pics fail? They add to the readers understanding, they are commentated on within the article, they have proper fair use rationales, and technically the 400/401 photo is public domain in Canada, which is acceptable as free on commons. I am removing the FUR for it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal

There are too many problems with this article to bother listing. A-Class review was withdrawn in order to bring it to FAC. This wasn't the right move. I also suggest going through GA and A-class reviews and passing both before bringing this back to FAC. Each step is designed to shake out problems before coming to FAC. Brad (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A failed FAC is still twice as constructive as any of those venues. I know the article would pass GA without a second glance and the A-class review sat without comment for 2 months. At least here I am getting constructive criticism that allows improvement of the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me apologize now as I promised a review while it was ACR, but I got side-tracked and forgot to come back to the ACR. Had the nominator pinged me, most of my comments would have come at the ACR and not here. Had the nominator also solicited interested parties to review at ACR, there would have been other comments. As an aside, until the Image concerns are completely addressed, this article can not pass at GAN. There are also concerns raised about how focused the article is, which is also in the GA criteria, so the article would receive a second glance. Imzadi 1979 → 02:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Whatever the merits of the article, it is the nominator's responsibility to ensure that the FA criteria are met before the nomination - that is made clear in the FAC process. Using the process for article-building, as is clearly the objective here, is inappropriate. The nomination should be withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator stated, it sat in A-class review for about two months without feedback. Given that situation, it's almost impossible for the article-building process to take place if things like that happen. While I do see your point, the constructive criticism will work wonders for this article, which is something it craves. I'm not agreeing with the nominator here, just stating a point that progress will be made here, which is always a good thing. Haljackey (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.