Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 403


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ontario Highway 403
review
 * Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
 * Nominator's comments: It's March Madness! I know I said I didn't want three reviews here at the same time again... but, there are still 10 noms to go! This is at least a better example of recent writing than 402. The highway has a more varied history and plenty of controversy to go with it! Cheers,  Floydian  τ ¢  19:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nominated by:  Floydian  τ ¢  19:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First comment occurred: 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872
I will review this article.  Dough 48  72  04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) The sentences "It exits the small city to the east. Shortly after exiting Brantford, the highway curves northeast." should be combined.
 * 2) Instead of "former Highway 2" or " former Highway 8", maybe you should mention the current name/number so today's readers can understand what the road is. A notation can be left to indicate this is the former highway at the first instance it is mentioned.
 * 3) "Scenic views of Hamilton, its harbour, and a waterfall are located along this steep descent.", maybe you can add the name of the waterfall as the linked article has a list of all the waterfalls in Hamilton.
 * 4) "This section features a reduced speed limit." maybe mention what the speed limit is reduced from to.
 * 5) The sentence "Access to Highway 410, continues northward to Brampton." is awkward and incomplete.
 * 6) "The plan showed the expressway's eastern terminus as the Highway 401 and Highway 427 interchange.", I would change "as" to "at".
 * 7) I would combine the sentences "The final section to be opened took the longest to complete, involving construction of two bridges over the Credit River valley. It opened on December 2, 1982. "
 * 8) "On March 24, 1987, Chris Ward, MPP for Wentworth North officially announced that construction of the missing link between Brantford and Ancaster would begin in 1989.[48] Construction did not actually begin until the summer of 1990.", was there a reason the construction began a year late?  Dough  48  72  00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Even today, 16 to 17 years after the mass downloads, the majority of county roads that were major highways back then are still referred to by the old name. In many cases they're named "Highway X" on signs and numbered/maintained under the county/local road networks! Botched to say the least. The problem comes that Highway 2 tracks through several counties alongside Highway 403, going by different names or numbers (if any number). It's much easier to understand by referencing the old highway number in prose in this case. For Highway 8, it's just local named streets now inside Hamilton. The junction list provides both designations.
 * Done
 * Can do, but not sure how to source it other than G.Maps SV
 * Fixed... not sure when/how that happened but it was fine at one point :P
 * Done, also swapped "showed" with "featured"
 * Done with a semicolon
 * Government... Actually I'm not sure. I think the budget in the spring of '89 fell in non-confidence and triggered an election that fall, delaying the funding or scheduling or something. The latter source doesn't mention anything about delays, just that it was tendered last summer.
 * Cheers,  Floydian  τ ¢  01:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Great work!  Dough 48  72  03:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie
I'll take a look at this now. –Fredddie™ 04:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Infobox and lead
 * 1) For the 1997 date, do you think the it would be better to say "Opened December 1, 1963&lt;br>Completed August 15, 1997?
 * 2) Cleaned up some duplicate links
 * 3) The majority of Highway 403 is surrounded by suburban land use, except west of Brantford and between Brantford and Hamilton, ... Could you reword that so Brantford isn't repeated?
 * 4) In the last sentence, you might want to mention 401 again.


 * Route description
 * 1) I think with the subheaders, it would be better to say "X to Y".
 * 2) Clarification needed: "a now-channelized river from which the freeway may take its name.[7]" (my emphasis) Are you not sure that the freeway gets its name from the river?
 * 3) Thank you for using the verb form of interchange correctly.


 * The history section is excellent. The only thing I'd like to see is an adequate summary in the lead.


 * Junction list looks good.

Overall, this is very good work. I was really impressed by the history section. –Fredddie™ 04:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, I'm glad you enjoyed the read :) I've fixed up most of the points, although I still need to write a History summary. Regarding the Chedoke Creek, it's unclear (even to historians) where the name Chedoke came from. It's presumed to be from "seven oaks" that stood on the escarpment over the creek ravine. The creek got its name from that location, but it's unclear if the highway was named after the area, or the creek. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * progress? --Rschen7754 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for a notice that the history summary has been written. –Fredddie™ 23:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay (had to psych myself up to the task); a summary has been added, partially by relocating the summary that was the first paragraph of the "Bridging the gaps" subsection. -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll give you a Canada Day present (by my calendar it still is) and support. –Fredddie™ 00:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Preliminary stuff
 * 1) Map needs a caption.
 * 2) Perhaps a color should be used for the concurrency in the RJL?
 * 3) Image captions: if it is a complete sentence, it should have a period. If not, it should not.
 * Route description
 * 1) "It travels along the back lot lines of the second concession" - not following this.
 * 2) "some distance" - a bit too vague.
 * 3) collector lanes - should be linked earlier than the history section...
 * History
 * 1) The first sentence seems like it has some words missing.
 * 2) other freeways for over 20 years - period missing.
 * 3) has always been important to Ontario -> always been considered important?
 * 4) I'm not sure about the use of italics - is this allowed?
 * 5) As Toronto's anti-expressway movement gained momentum, plans ... whose plans?
 * 6) alongside the hydro corridor from Burlington to Etobicoke Creek was protected ... what do you mean by this?
 * 7) late-1985 - should not be a hyphen
 * 8) three discontinuous sections; - should be a colon
 * 9) driveway-lined - too ambiguous
 * 10) was site - seems like something is missing from this
 * 11) Should be a comma after "In particular"
 * 12) First paragraph of Recent construction - using However twice very close to each other
 * 13) High-occupancy vehicle - should not be capitalized
 * 14) links will be completed - trying to predict the future here. --Rschen7754 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've numbered your points for ease of reply, I hope you don't mind.


 * Preliminary stuff
 * Done
 * I personally don't like using the concurrency termini colour (:P). I find it imparts nothing useful, since the existence of a concurrency is a minor detail compared to the route that it is concurrent with. In short, I feel a note accomplishes it better, and using the colours here would be inconsistent with other Ontario highways.
 * I think they're all correct now.


 * RD
 * Concessions were rectangles of properties dished out by the government in ye olde days. A concession had roads built on the north and south sides, and property lots faced those roads, divided down the centre of the concession. The back of those lots, down the centre of the concession, is where the highway was built, to avoid splitting farms. Not sure how to reword as such.
 * Made it slightly (but not really) less vague
 * Done


 * History
 * Not sure where exactly... looks fine to me.
 * Fixed
 * Fixed
 * I tend to use them to highlight terms or names, but I've removed them
 * Fixed
 * A right-of-way parallel to a hydro (power-transmission line) corridor was protected from being blobbed into cookie-cutter subdivisions.
 * Fixed
 * Fixed
 * Fixed
 * Reworded
 * Added
 * Changed the second instance
 * Fixed
 * Well... the planning docs have both the widening and the ramps in the same project... but reworded nonetheless to be not as absolute
 * Thank you for the review. Cheers,  Floydian  τ ¢  05:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 06:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

 * File:Ontario 403 map.svg - CC-BY-SA 3.0, GIS sources?
 * File:403 near Jerseyville.png - CC-BY-SA 2.0
 * File:Freeman Interchange.JPG - CC-BY-SA 2.5, OTRS verified
 * File:403 facing west towards Highway 2 overpass, Ancaster.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0
 * File:Hwy2 divided near Woodstock.png - PD-Canada
 * File:Highway 403 Hamilton.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
 * File:QEW - 403 Interchange Oakville.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0
 * File:Highway 403.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
 * File:Highway 401 interchange with 403-410 in 1987.jpg - it says CC-BY-SA 3.0. But due to the history of the nominator, and the low-res picture, and the aerial nature, that makes me think that this is a copyvio. I dug around on kingshighways.ca and couldn't find it though.
 * File:403 Grand River.JPG - PD user
 * File:Highway 403 End.jpg CC-BY-SA 3.0
 * File:QEWHOVlane.jpg - GFDL 1.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0
 * File:403 Through Escarpment.jpg - should be CC-BY-SA 2.0, also please link directly to the Flickr page. --Rschen7754 07:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the aerial 1987 photo (I'm hoping you meant the uploader GoldDragon and not the nominator myself hehe), it looks like it was taken on approach or takeoff from Pearson Airport, so it's not too far fetched that he took it himself and scanned the photo (which would explain the small res and sunburnt colours). I have never seen this photo elsewhere on the internet, so I'm not sure. Added sources to the map (will also reupload it shortly with fixed colours and an inset of Canada) and fixed the licence / linked the escarpment pic. Cheers,  Floydian  τ ¢  17:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ sounds good then. --Rschen7754 16:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

 * Source 8: good on CP and V.
 * Source 28: good on CP and V.
 * Source 55: good on V, but the wording is too close ("due to a sudden increase in volume", for one). Seems to have been inserted by the same editor mentioned above... you may wish to check all his edits to the page to be safe.
 * I think I added this info originally, then he put the source in and changed the wording to be, AGF, verifiable. It's actually coincidental, but I've removed that sudden increase in volume bit and reworded it the best I can... hopefully it's better now. -  Floydian  τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source 57: was scheduled to be added? since the article was written before the installation...
 * Fixed -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source 58: good on CP and V.
 * Source 59: not seeing the dates in the article, though I would assume that it is included in the one just below it on the page.
 * Hmmm... missed a ref for the December 13 date. Added it. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source 60: not seeing it.
 * Took out the bit on the high mast lighting, minor detail. The bit on the median is there. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source 62: good on CP and V. --Rschen7754 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All good and ready for close. --Rschen7754 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. <br style="clear:both;" />