Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 416/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 promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC).

Ontario Highway 416

 * Nominator(s):  Floydian  τ ¢  05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As a fine piece of civil engineering and a vital artery in Ontario's transportation network - Connecting Ottawa, the capital of Canada, with Toronto, the capital of the province - Highway 416 is an important and interesting feat. The article has been polished through the various review stages and represents one of my best works, with complete sourcing for information that was very hard to obtain. It represents the work that a bit of dedication can accomplish, and so I present it to the FAC overlords for review. -  Floydian  τ ¢  05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria.  Dough 48  72  05:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support and image review I reviewed the article at the ACR and believe that it meets the criteria. I also did an image check. --Rschen7754 05:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, with a few comments:
 * C$ is linked in "this section was C$196 million", but its first appearance is earlier in "a cost savings of over C$7 million"
 * you don't use undefined undefined in "Highway 416 "North" was a 21 km (13 mi)", but you do later in the same paragraph with "the twinning of 57 km of"
 * "to strike a cost-to-benefit balance": worth linking Cost–benefit analysis?
 * : a hard number of columns is inflexible and doesn't work well on different-sized screens—it forces a column off-screen on mobile devices, and leaves a lot of whitespace on large screens. If you choose an appropriate "|colwidth=" instead, users' devices can adjust the number of columns automatically
 * ———Curly Turkey (gobble)
 * All fixed, and thank you for catching all these rather obscure, yet easily solved issues. The convert situation was most likely due to the fact that Canada adopted the metric system in 1977, and that all distances provided by sources prior to that are given in miles. -  Floydian  τ ¢  09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Review from  Admr Boltz  18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC):
 * Issues resolved -- Support --  Admr Boltz  20:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd replace 76.4 km-long with 76.4 km as I did on my FAC. There are several instances where this should be used throughout the article.
 * "The median also narrows for the remainder of the distance into Ottawa." - this sentence seems awkward. Can you rephrase it?
 * MOS:RJL states that you should be highlighting the incomplete interchanges with that pink shade, and then defining the shade in the legend at the bottom.
 * Why is the footnote about the park a footnote and not just in the route description?
 * Fixed
 * Fixed
 * Canada, or at least Ontario (I'm not watching many BC articles hehe), doesn't use the pink or cyan colours for incomplete interchanges and concurrency terminii. See Highway 401 and Don Valley Parkway. I find them too distracting and that the note column describes the setup best.
 * I can't remember to be honest. It feels kind of like directions that are better presented as a note to the article, since the article on the park was merged into this article. -  Floydian  τ ¢  19:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments—I made a few updates to citations, but a few changes are still needed. Otherwise, the article looks good, and I'd be happy to support promotion.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You've used on in convert when you should be using undefined to display the adjectival form. Additionally, the unit shouldn't be abbreviated in running prose (that's reserved for infoboxes and tables), and convert/spell should be used for the "approximately 5 km" measurement in the History section.
 * Footnotes 26, 28–30 should probably use cite press release to explicitly indicate that these are press releases.
 * Should be able to get these tomorrow (too inebriated to try now), but I'm just wondering about the issue with sources 26/28-30: If these were published under the mantra of what seems like a press release, but feel and have the layout of a news article, do you think I should cite them as press release still (I'm assuming you already checked the citations, but figured I'd just double check). -  Floydian  τ ¢  10:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd treat them as a press release... when I worked on a newspaper staff, we'd republish university press releases, with minor stylistic changes to match The AP Stylebook as necessary, as news articles. That didn't change the fact that the original is still a press release written and published by the university. The same concept would hold with MTO press releases; they're still written and published by the MTO.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I quickly made those changes so that any pending closure of the nomination isn't held up over minor details.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Support promotion now.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.