Talk:Queen Elizabeth Way/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. T C  N7 JM  21:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) I will resume this review at a later time. You can address these comments in the mean time. T C  N7 JM  22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Name and signage – The final sentence of the first paragraph reads confusingly. Are Highway 420 and Falls Avenue the same road?
 * 2) From which year are the inflation figures calculated?
 * 3) Speaking of the inflation figures, I'm not sure a comma is the correct punctuation mark after them. The first sentence of that paragraph appears to be a run-on.
 * 4) Route description – "The QEW is a 139-kilometre (86 mi) route that travels from the Peace Bridge, connecting Fort Erie with Buffalo, New York, to Toronto, the economic hub of the province." – Two things on this sentence...
 * 5) It seems a bit odd (and inconsistent) to write out "kilometre" in full just that one time, and also stick a hyphen in it.
 * 6) Reading the sentence a couple times over, I realize what it's supposed to mean, but that word "connecting" should probably be swapped out. At first glance I wasn't entirely sure if it was referring to the Peace Bridge or the QEW itself.
 * 7) A customs booth provides access to different highways? How?
 * 8) Linking interchange may or may not be an overlink violation, since you linked it in the lead and it is a fairly common term. I'll leave this at your discretion.
 * 9) "Numerous creeks flow through these forests, often flooding them." – This seems kind of irrelevant unless these floods often close the highway, in which case that should be stated and sourced.


 * Fixed
 * Whichever year is mentioned as the completion date prior to the monetary figures. I've clarified this however
 * Fixed
 * Reworded and abbreviated this instance of km and unabbreviated the first instance in the lede.
 * Reworded
 * Unlinked both instances. I think it is in any case, there is information at the controlled-access highway article.
 * The forest is often flooded through the year, and this is simply a description of the surroundings in this case.
 * --  Floydian  τ ¢  23:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

IP here! Sorry to butt in... there seems to be an error with the caption for the photo of the monument under History > The Middle Road. It says "In 1974, the monument was removed. It was later reinstalled in X." Presumably 'X' is a placeholder and should be replaced by a date and/or location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for noticing, and you may butt in as much as you like :) Yes that was a placeholder that I forgot to go back and fix. I've taken car of it now. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll resume my review now. T C  N7 JM  04:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, it's getting late here, so I'll have to...uh...postpone this again. Sorry, but I kinda fell asleep earlier and lost all my free time. T C  N7 JM  05:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) "...interchanges at 50 Road, Fruitland Road and Centennial Parkway (formerly Highway 20). The latter is.." – Former/latter should only be used to compare a pair of items, and there are three in that list.
 * 2) "After crossing Etobicoke Creek, which forms the boundary between Mississagua / Peel Region and Toronto." – This is a fragment.
 * 3) History – " Middle Road, a dirt lane named because of its position between the two, was not considered since Lake Shore and Dundas were both overcrowded and in need of serious repairs." – I'm confused by this statement. What exactly was it not considered for?
 * Haha, no problemo, take your time.
 * Fixed
 * Not sure what happened there, but I've added the piece of text that I thought was there already...
 * Well, it was a dirt lane, so there were more pressing needs along the established roads.
 * --  Floydian  τ ¢  06:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The image under "Name and signage" does nothing to illustrate either of those. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily need to; its more of the "lede" image. I'd rather the images spread throughout the article in a nice neat fashion, preferably in the proper sections where possible, but occasionally not where doing so makes a mess of the article. -  Floydian  τ ¢  20:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I should note that I am still interested in finishing this review, either tonight or tomorrow. T C  N7 JM  00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, time to do that. Alright, I'm finally done for now! This is on hold. T C  N7 JM  19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I think that instead of using semicolon'd subheaders in the Conversion to freeway section, you should use Level 4 headers so section edits can be done more easily.
 * 2) Why is "salvaging" italicized?
 * 3) Who or what is "the W.E. Fitzgerald"? If it's the name of a person, why is a definite article used before it?
 * 4) "$152795031 adjusted for inflation" – Possible to just round this off to a couple decimal places?
 * 5) "traffic had already been flowing over the 2,200-metre-long (7,200 ft) bridge" – I think traffic flows on a bridge, not over it.
 * 6) There's a paragraph in the 1960s and 1970s section that's entirely unsourced.
 * 7) "Planning for the removal of the Stoney Creek traffic circle was completed by 1970, and construction began in 1974." – I feel like "construction" isn't the best word that could be used here, since it's describing something being removed.
 * 8) Recent work – "Parclo A4" isn't a common term. It should be linked to partial cloverleaf interchange.
 * 9) Same with "diamond" to diamond interchange.
 * 10) Also, that first paragraph is unsourced.
 * 11) I get a bug like this three times at different spots in the exit list. What causes this, and can it be fixed?
 * Done and agreed
 * Should have been quotes
 * It was a ship... but I'm not sure how to refer to it as such... if it had an article it would be easy enough.
 * Yep, done
 * Haha, true enough. Fixed
 * Fixed
 * Changed to reconstruction, since it was both removal of the old one and building of the new one
 * Added
 * Diamond interchange is already linked, but I added the word "interchange" to this instance to make it clearer.
 * Ah yes, this was the one paragraph I still had to source... forgot about it. All fixed
 * That appears to be the error caused by a browser like Chrome incorrectly rendering split cells, which is very unfortunate. I'm guessing it also appears at the Burlington/Oakville boundary and the Oakville/Mississaga boundary. All fixed, as ugly as it looks.
 * Thanks for the review and for cutting the ribbon to connect Michigan with the rest of the US at the GA level! -  Floydian  τ ¢  20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, looks better now. Passing the article. T  C  N7 JM  20:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)