Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Long Sault Parkway/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 11 December 2021 [1].

Long Sault Parkway[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 17:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the parkway developed in Ontario when the St. Lawrence Seaway was built. It is comprehensive, well sourced, and includes some interesting images. It's been nearly a decade since I last brought an article to FAC, so hopefully I haven't fallen behind on standards. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The parkway refers to both the roadway as well as the park system through which it travels. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink

  • ”The islands, which were created by the flooding of the Long Sault rapids during construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the late 1950s, include two public beaches and three campgrounds.” - that’s a lot of info for the second sentence of the article, especially the way it’s structured. I suggest switching the clauses, like “The islands, which include two public beaches and three campgrounds, were created…”
  • ”A road also known as the Long Sault Parkway serves to interconnect the islands.” - you just said this two sentences prior.
  • I think you should include “rapids” in the wiki link for “Long Sault rapids”, as you also mention the town of the same name, and it’s the name of the Parkway.
  • Thoughts on this in the lead? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought I fixed that with this change, but apparently not.[2] It's fixed now, let me know if that intro looks better! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it worth mentioning the 6,500 displaced people because of the project? It’s not directly related to the road, but IMO it’s interesting.
  • That was a no? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, didn't respond to this one. I think it fits in amongst the history pretty well, even though obviously not all 6,500 lived directly where the parkway now sits. I'm sure a lot of the content of this article could be copied into the Long Sault rapids or St. Lawrence Seaway articles though. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I followed the route description to Hoople Island, then I got lost how we got to Dickinson or Heriot
  • While The Wedge described it as "an oasis unlike any other." - this isn’t a complete sentence
  • That animation of before and after the spillway is awesome!
  • ”At 8 am” - specify time zone
  • Is there any history on the road since 1958?

The article is pretty good. I think it just needs a bit more for an FA. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these shortly, but I guess I should have mentioned that the Long Sault Parkway is both the road as well as the name of the island chain, and that's what I was trying to establish with that 3rd sentence in the lede. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so first off, thank you on the animation, it was pretty fun to make! So I've made some adjustments, and in conjunction with the above comment that I made, that should cover everything except the fifth ("I followed the route description to "), and the last point ("Is there any history on the road since 1958?"). Regarding the former, I'm curious if you might have a suggestion on wording the description without overusing the word "causeway"? As for the latter, There have been no significant changes since the parkway opened fully in 1959. The only thing I think could cover the time period after that would be attendance and perhaps seasonal operations (as pointed out by Hog Farm below); the St. Lawrence Parks Commission only seems to track overall attendance throughout the entire system, and not park by park. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so the "Long Sault Parkway" also applies to the islands? If so, then I think there should be a separate section then for the islands, where you could mention the names and stuff (instead of the route description). Like, the opening sentence says that the parkway connects the group of islands - perhaps you should specify something like: "The Long Sault Parkway is a 10.1-kilometre (6.3 mi) scenic parkway that connects, and is the name for, a group of eleven islands west of Cornwall in the Canadian province of Ontario." I'm not sure if that exact wording is ideal, but the article needs to reflect that it's not just a road article. It vaguely reminds me of Afsluitdijk, which is the name for a causeway and a dam in the Netherlands. It makes sense that the name and history would be the same for the road and the island group, but that just needs to be made clearer. Ref 3 calls them the "Long Sault Parkway Islands", FWIW. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case (as it appears to be), then I think the "islands" section should be a bit broader. You'd need to include the size of the islands, and as mentioned below, the flora/fauna, the climate. I think the islands section should include the naming, so the route description can be a bit more focused on the roadway itself. I hate to ask, since the article is now on FAC, but the entire topic might be better focused if all of the information was located in the Lost Villages article. There's a lot of overlap between the roadway, the islands, and the villages themselves. As it stands, the article has an unclear focus, being kinda about the road, kinda about the islands, and a large portion on the dam and the flooding. That equally applies to the Lost Villages article. I'm not going to oppose the article on those grounds, as you might want to still pursue this article at FAC, and the suggestion of a refocused article might be unactionable. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't feel as if flora/fauna/climate is of any purpose in this article. It's a par system that doesn't differ from the nearby mainland that it was once part of... that and there is really no coverage of it whatsoever. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A featured article on a group of islands would talk about more than just the road and how the islands were made. If it was just a road article, then it wouldn't need to carry it. As for whether it has any purpose, one of the picture has several bird-like creatures in it, and the article mentions beaches and nature trails. So I think they're relevant. But I don't want to oppose on those grounds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's about a parkway, both the road and greenway type; it just happens to cross islands. It's a driving tour with some campgrounds and beaches. I'm trying to find another featured article that covers islands that aren't out in the ocean and well separated from the mainland... the only one I could find is Barren Island, Brooklyn. As an aside there is next to no distinct coverage of the ecology or climate of the parkway on its own. This is all I can find that even mentions fauna/flora: [3] - Floydian τ ¢ 01:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But do you see the difference between Barren Island and the Long Sault? Barren Island includes much of the history, so the equivalent would be this article mentioning more about the Lost Villages. The Barren Island also has several decades of history. This only seems to cover the 1950s. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I do see that it's different, but what I was pointing out is that it is about an island and it doesn't cover ecology. This is about a park and the road that travels through said park. It didn't exist before the 50s and it hasn't changed in any significant way since then (the latter I suppose could be pointed out in the article though). To go into a full history of the floodplain is more appropriate for the Lost Villages article, or the Long Sault article. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

These are just some quick comments, full review to follow later

  • "Beginning immediately east of Inglewood, the Long Sault Parkway branches south from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (SDG) County Road 2 and passes a parkway information booth, with the Ingleside Sewage Treatment Plant located on the southeast corner" - source only covers that the treatment plant is on the Long Sault Parkway, not the other details
  • Accessed this off Google Scholar, it includes the statement The Long Sault Parkway was initially popular with motorists, with cars often backed up at the entrance gates on weekends. Initial enthusiasm tapered off, however, and tourism and camping on the islands remains mostly seasonal, limited to warm months. which looks like information suggesting material lacking from the article

More to come. Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The later contains a nature trail as well as a boat launch" - should be latter, not later, shouldn't it?
  • Some of the connections between the island ain't clear - Heriot-Vankoughnet, Vankoughnet-Philpotts, and Macdonald-Mille Roches
    • Should be fixed with latest edit. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear what the 11 islands are - route description says McLaren and Moulinette is out, but then the list of islands includes Moulinette but not McLaren
    • Fixed, I did that list quickly yesterday and put Moulinette and forgot MacLaren, also the misspellings you pointed out. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of stronger sourcing, can the list of what exact islands are part of it be sourced to a stronger source than a map?
    • How is a map not a strong source? It clearly labels the eleven islands. I haven't been able to find a reliable text source that lists them, just the ones with amenities. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Referring to the map heading the list, it does clearly show the 10 connected. But how does it clearly and strongly support the inclusion of Snetsinger? It's connected to the 10 main ones, but so is Moulinette. And the color used Snetsinger and the other 10 is the same as used for unconnected Wales island, so that map isn't a good source for excluding Moulinette/Wales but including Snetsinger. Does Dunphy contain a stronger listing that could be used to back it up? Hog Farm Talk 18:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • After extensive searching, it appears it does.[4]. Added the ref to the island list. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Learn about Battle of Crysler's Farm". Upper Canada Village. Retrieved April 20, 2021." - ref appears to be nonfunctional?
    • Worked back in April... I've added an archive link. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the latter saw a monument installed at Upper Canada Village" - first source only announces plans for it, and the second doesn't work, so this isn't well-supported
  • Brior 1960 appears to be self-published. What makes it high-quality RS?
    • Appears or is? I'd say regardless that having a forward written by one of people in charge of building the seaway, or being carried by the University of Michigan or Archives of Canada, makes it quite reliable. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will look at the credentials of author after work, but being carried by those libraries does not indicate reliability. The library of my college contained books from the 1950s with ethnic slurs in the titles and a book claiming that the Native Americans were the 10 lost tribes - being held in libraries doesn't necessarily mean it's high-quality RS for the purpose of FAC. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can find pretty much nothing that would support Brior being the sort of high-quality RS required for FAC, aside from a single citation to one page of the work in a Yale UP book. I'd be willing to accept it for GA, but probably not for FA. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article really doesn't feel complete - has literally nothing of note happened here since 1958? I really don't think there's adequate coverage of post-opening here
    • Not really. The parks were closed in 2020 because of Covid, but otherwise all the existing beaches and campgrounds are the same as they were in 1959. I don't mind working in something based on the source you found in your first comment. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iroquois is only mentioned in the lead
  • There's a number of spelling inconsistencies in here - Mille Roches Island vs Milles Roche Island, Vankougnet Island vs Vancougnet Island
    • Mistakes in my addition of the island list yesterday, fixed. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope here is unclear - is this about both the islands and the parkway? Because a FA about islands would need information about such as plant life, fauna, climate, etc, but we mainly just have the human history of the road here. But the lead seems to suggest this covers both.
    • It's about the parkway, which is both a term for a roadway lined by parks, as well as a line of interconnected parks. These islands were part of the mainland and have the exact same makeup of flora and fauna that any other part of the St. Lawrence region would have. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am leaning oppose here, because this doesn't seem to be properly complete and has an unclear scope, as well as the internal inconsistencies. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian - I know a lot of roadway articles contain traffic statistics - would those be available for this roadway? Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the St. Lawrence Parks Commission to see if they have traffic or attendance levels. I only have stats for provincial highways. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the animation
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Is there an unaltered replacement for File:Long_Sault_Parkway_near_Lansdowne.png available? See WP:WATERMARK. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've upped the image size, not sure if it's too big now or not. Alt text added. I've contacted the Flickr author, but I'm not sure they're still active; might have to take this to the photography workshop to have it removed. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should be able to remove it if you want or need me too. - Tcer99 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tcer99: That would be very much appreciated, thank you! - Floydian τ ¢ 00:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Floydian: Consider it done. I uploaded the new version of the file. It should update on the article in a couple minutes. Tcer99 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

So far we're approaching the 3-week mark without much sign of progress towards support. Without that happening in the next few days the FAC may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is a lack of review as well. I've responded to everything but seem to be at an impasse with some feeling I need to treat this as an Island in the middle of the ocean instead of a park in the St. Lawrence River, so I'm not sure how to proceed. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Long_Sault_Parkway/archive1&oldid=1059844106"