This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 16/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 09:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article, and will have comments soon. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floydian: - update - I have posted my first comments. Sorry about the delay. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm pretty busy these days myself, but I'm going to try and address these in the next day or twofour. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

• Link "twinning (roads)"
  • Done
• Again, based on the map and route description, the Highway 16 designation does not appear to cross the bridge. Elaborate.
  • Clarified that it provides access to the bridge.
• The Ottawa–Prescott Road was one of the first highways designated in Ontario; it was one of three designated by 1918 - I would condense this to something like "The Ottawa-Prescott Road, designated in 1918, was one of the the first three highways designated in Ontario."
  • Done
• The highway was numbered in August 1925 - indicate what the numbering was.
  • Done
• carried out through the next three decades - change "through" to "throughout" or "over".
  • Done
• Split run-on sentence at the end of the second paragraph.
  • Done

History[edit]

• I would add a subheader for the first two paragraphs, such as "Early history", "Original route", etc.; whatever is appropriate.
  • Done
• Is "The Provincial Highway" a proper name? If not, "The" needs to be lowercased.
  • Yes, in 1916 the whole system of roads was to be called "The Provincial Highway" (similar to how the system as a whole is now "The King's Highway")
• Remove dash in "10 m (33ft)-wide".
  • Done
• Change "from overgrown fence line to overgrown fence line" to something like "between overgrown fence lines".
  • Done
• Paving began in 1922, from the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa southerly approximately 6.5 km (4.0 mi). - this reads awkward; would change to something like "Paving began in 1922, starting at the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, and progressing in a southerly direction for approximately 6.5 km (4.0 mi).
  • Done
• That year [1925] also saw it paved through Kemptville to the Rideau River, as well as beyond North Gower in to Ottawa. - was paving completed in 1925, started, or both?
  • I figured "paved" was good enough as a past tense indicator. This article was one of my extreme examples of trying to avoid repetition with "paved", "paving" "pavement", etc. Pain in the ass when everything was done in a dozen 4-mile projects. Any thoughts on how I could improve this?
    • If paving did not begin before 1925 or if you cannot confirm this, I don't see anything wrong. If it began another year and was completed in 1925 would be the only reason I would change this. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified (I think)... it was "laid" in 1925. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This left gaps in the pavement south of... - when I hear "gaps in the pavement", I think of cracks or potholes. I would replace with something like "unpaved gaps".
  • Done
• To overcome the issue of abutting properties established along the Highway 16 corridor, the DHO began purchasing a new right of way between Highway 401 and Century Road by late 1967 and constructed a two lane bypass of the original alignment, avoiding all the built up areas that the original Highway 16 encountered. - was this the right of way for this bypass? Also, when was it constructed? Was it the super two mentioned in the next paragraph?
  • Clarified that yes, it is the super two. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would change "and constructed a two lane bypass of the original alignment" to "for a two lane bypass of the original alignment" since construction is described in the following paragraph. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think "Super two" is a proper name; lowercase "super".
  • Done
• Citation needed at the end of second paragraph in this section.
  • Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This certainly isn't a requirement, but it wouldn't hurt if you could find more precise dates for these projects.
  • This point and the previous are big ones. I'll knock the easy stuff off now, and maybe see if I can find some more specific dates in my Annual Report collection.
    • I honestly don't have the will to try and look up more precise dates. The maps RfC may well lead to my retirement. Can't be bothered to expel effort to put in hours of research into a topic only for it to be considered "original research" by boorish non-content contributors. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would generally rely on newspapers, press releases, etc., for information as this, but I agree that some of the OR allegations are absurd. I don't know if you saw my comments, but my take is, if you think that using maps to infer information about distances, generic characteristics of roads, terrain, etc.; something millions of people do everyday for navigational purposes; constitutes original research, then we shouldn't have maps. Because if you really don't think that basic information that is not explicitly written cannot be deduced beyond a reasonable doubt from reading a map, then I expect to see you getting lost all the time. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Inconsistent uses of dashes in "right of way" throughout article.
  • Fixed
    • Still not fixed. There are currently two uses of "right of way" and only one is dashed. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Must've not hit save on that one. NOW it's fixed :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation needed at the end of final paragraph.
  • Making note of this one as well. Pretty sure I have all of this covered in ON 416, just need to sort through and copy the citations over.

Route description[edit]

• The photo caption seems to indicate that Highway 16 crosses the bridge over the St. Lawrence River, yet the first few sentences and the map indicate otherwise. Elaborate caption.
  • Adjusted to indicate the connection is via the bridge
• Move link to "interchange (road)" to first usage.
  • Done

General comments[edit]

• Shouldn't the route description be before the lead?
  • I figure that this is one of those exceptions, just because the Route description only covers a little stub road, while the history has a more over-arching coverage. I don't mind swapping it around though, for consistency sake.
    • I understand the rationale now (full disclosure: I had only skimmed through the article when I posted this). I agree now that this is definitely an exception. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My replies thus far are indented. I'll get to the rest shortly. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few more addressed. There's four big ones that I'm going to sit down later this week and try to iron out.
    • @Floydian: No hurries. Note that I've just noticed that there appears to be a large backlog of highway GA nominees, and I have decided I am going to try to review some of them myself, so I may end up doing some more of yours. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Few more addressed. Again, sorry for the delay... I've more or less lost the desire to edit. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Don't give up. I have been frustrated by that RfC myself, but if some of those users do indeed get what they want, it will indeed damage this project to a magnitude that they do not yet realize. That will most certainly have to be revisited if this happens. But the unfortunate reality is that, just like with elections, turnout is the ultimate arbiter of discussions on Wikipedia. They don't like it when you say that, but it's true. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]