Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don Valley Parkway/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 00:03, 24 September 2010 [1].

Don Valley Parkway[edit]

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it had most of the minor kinks ironed out by the time the last nomination ran its course. A lack of reviewers led to no promotion. I'm hoping for a better turn-out this time around.

I believe this article presents a better embodiment of information than any other single source available on this highway. It meets all the FA criteria and is an interesting read even to those who don't really care about roads at all. To residents of Toronto, it provides an in-depth examination of an otherwise overlooked part of the city's infrastructure.

Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: in full disclosure, I've helped with some copy editing during and since the last nomination. Having said that, there are no disambiguation links, and no dead external links.
Image review: all images are Creative Commons or public domain. There were no outstanding issues on images from the last FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola cleared images in last FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Overall a very nice article on a subject I assumed would be boring.
- In the route description, would it be possible to have an annotated map? As a non Toronto resident, it is confusing to me.
- Why is "traffic congestion" a subsection of "route description"? It seems separate to me.
- "The section south of the 401 is often congested." - this sentence is overly vague.
- "Congestion in the northbound lanes is attributed^{[by whom?]} to truck traffic coping with the steep grade of the valley..." - This might be fine the way it is, but the passive voice and weasel words make me question it.
- "The construction of the Don Valley Parkway changed the Don River valley." - this sentence is out of place; the following paragraph does not discuss changes to the valley.
- The section on construction doesn't have information on the contractors who performed the work. That might be important.~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

I'm working on final touches on the map such as this. It should be up within a few days.
WP:HWY encourages the use of only the Route description, History and Future sections. I felt that the traffic congestion is neither past nor future, and belonged in a description of the route.
Haha, indeed... Though in this case the vagueness could be interpreted literally in many cases. Changing to "section immediately south"
The source at the end of that information is a traffic study by Toronto. The findings of that study would be the whom in this case.
~~Agreed, I'll fix this.~~ Actually, on second inspection... The whole reminder of the paragraph discusses first the valley before the parkway, then that "The construction of the six-lane highway modified the valley through the removal of hills, other earth works and the rerouting of the Don River."
No sources have ever mentioned it as far as I've read. Details beyond the dates each section opened are pretty scarce. I could contact the consultation company and see if they have the name, but there would be no source for it.

I'll make the changes shortly. Running out for dinner now :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the 'changed the valley'. It's not a great sentence, agreed. That and other content was a response to a comment about the modification of the valley not being covered enough in the previous FAC review and is stuff I worked on. I'm sure I can improve that and I'll do that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to determine the road-builders from newspaper archives. I'll investigate that. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks serviceable in terms of prose.

Overlinking: MOSLINK says to avoid bunched linking; I wonder who wants a direct blue-link to "Ontario" next to "Toronto", right up in the first sentence? Readers are more likely to click on an isolated, undiluted link, the most specific possible.
But on the other hand, why not expand the pipe "cancelled", to "cancelled many of the others", so readers know it's not a dictionary-term link.
Sorry to fuss, but "Opened in" is not repeated just below, so why not remove "in"?
"Complex bridge structure" image: why not center it and make it 400px or so?
Consider removing the comma after "southern end,". Remove "which is".
"is available from" -> "is via"
Please ration "then" in a sequential narrative. "and veering" better than "then veering", for example.
You like the right–left–right positioning of images? Personally, I find all-right neater, but it's up to you.
C$ first time, I think, then just $; but no need to link it.
Would be nice not to have these adjacent, but I don't have a solution right now: "1965, 136". Tony (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, made most of the fixes. For the third point, are you suggesting I change the sentence to read "The first section opened 1961 and the entire route was completed by the end of 1966." or are you referring to the infobox? As for your "then" point, I can't find any other instances, but the one you pointed out does use it sequentially. Highway passes beneath Eastern Avenue, then veers left as it passes beneath Queen Street. In this case, Queen is just after Eastern, and the highway veers beneath Queen. As for the last point, would "136 accidents had caused four deaths and 86 injuries during the first five months of 1965." work, or did I just smack grammar in the face? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In: Sorry, was referring to the infobox; "in" is used for one and not the other line. Still plenty of "then"s hanging around. Leave in only if you need to "mark" sequence. Sequence is the default. Sometimes, "and" is preferable; often, just remove "then". Every sentence is a "then" already. 136 ... yes, that works.
"diverges into two branches: two lanes continuing north as the 404, the other three serving Highway 401"—"splits ... , and the three others as Highway 401".
Utilizes is so ugly. Why not uses?
Is it just the closures that manage traffic flows, or the previous items in that list, too? Try to remove "in order", too.
Grammar inconsistent in these listed items: "non-urgent messages to motorists, such as future construction, safety messages and smog alerts"—construction is not a message.
"was chosen as a way to avoid expropriation of existing development"—kill three words.
Do watch non-parallel grammar, in lists: "other than adding one partial interchange at Wynford Drive and the updating of its infrastructure to current standards". the addition of ... the updating of; that works. Or "adding ... updating ... Not both, though.
Image in the Construction section: can you brighten it a bit? Tony (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I hope I passed your grammar lesson. Probably not, but I try and I learn. Fixes made :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

History: Should the second valley be capitalized in "The construction of the Don Valley Parkway changed the Don River valley."? It is capitalized in the lead, but not in this section.
Since completion: CAA should be fully spelled out; better to avoid using only an abbreviated version when possible.
Future: Remove space between references 57 and 58.
In the references, I see both Toronto Star and The Toronto Star among the ref publishers. This should be made consistent.
A couple references are missing PDF indications (14 and the last ref in the bibliography). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Alaney made most of these fixes already... Though I question the wisdom of the first point: In this case, the valley of the Don River, only the Don River is a proper noun. Likewise, the Don Valley Parkway is a proper noun. However, the Don River valley is the valley of the Don River, and is not a proper noun. My thoughts anyways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion, pending minor comments. I was on the fence and ready to support the nomination the last go-around, but Karanacs closed the FAC while I was out of the house and away from the computer for a short period of time. I found more issues that I felt needed addressing after that closure and commented about them on the article's talk page. I've been hesitant to declare support this time because I was helping copy-edit the article in the interim between nominations. I still feel there is room to improve the article, but not to the degree that it should impede promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose, but will switch to support with two fixes:

~~No referencing at all for the first para of the History section.~~

These two phrases under "Since completion" make no sense, and i can't work out a fix: "...a report criticizing the lack of safety in the completed section's design of the as yet unfinished expressway"; "...light standards exposed to traffic."

Other queries:

Why no reference for this: "This area, known as Milne Hollow, is partially forested, some of the land being conservation reserves." (particularly the fact that the land is conservation reserves) (also, why plural reserves?) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in response:

The first paragraph of the History section is a summary of the rest of the section. What's the standard that applies? Or is that only for leads? I believe everything in the 1st paragraph is in the rest of the History section. So I could use those references again, I suppose. As for the sentences, just bad English. Will copy edit. I will find a cite for Milne Hollow conservation reserve (Sauriol) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. IIRC, I've not seen this before (summary intro paras in individual sections). Taking that on board, i looked at it again and i can see you are right. Leave it be, I think. Now that I've looked at your fix, I have only just understood that "light standards" is a compound noun referring to poles with lights on them! I've never heard that expression before, and I assumed it was about the quality of lighting! I've provided a wikilink for foreigners like me! hamiltonstone (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I've never heard of the term either... Might be better to switch over to the more universal street light. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky bit of wording. It's the poles that were the safety issue. You want to be specific on the poles being the issue. Not lighting in general. The word 'standard' seems to be the technical term, in the cited article and I used it. Light poles isn't exactly right either. Street light poles? Unthinkable today, but the poles were less than a foot from the roadway. And they were supposedly designed to withstand high winds and were made of concrete. No thought to collisions. In those days, they did not put in guardrails between the directions either, or guardrails around bridges. Just no thought to the safety, it was an industry that was not yet mature. At the expense of drivers. They were really proud to be able to build the highway for only $3 million per mile but it took Shulman to wake them up to the lack of common sense in the safety design. He also took the province of Ontario to task for the safety of the provincial expressways. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support No issues for me. Aiken (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment, but the layout for File:Gardiner Lake Shore Don Bridge.jpg has been changed, and on my screen it is overlapping the infobox. Can someone fix it? Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I have a few concerns before I will support this for FA:

It would help to mention the length of the road in the lead.
The first paragraph of the South of the Forks section of the route description needs citations.
Try to avoid colloquial terms such as "the Gardiner", "the 404", and "the DVP".
Citation needed for "North of Bloor Street, the wide valley floor became dominated by industrial concerns of the Taylor family, including the Don Valley Brick Works. The area from the Forks of the Don and north along the river valleys had been lumbered and farmed, such as at Milne Hollow, but several natural areas remained by the 1950s."
"1 1/4 mile" should be properly converted to kilometers, with kilometers being listed first.
"$2.723 million" needs an inflation conversion.
The sentence "The ramps between the parkway and the Gardiner are directly over the Don River channel." needs a citation. Dough 48 72 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Done, though this is oddly one of the figures that only Google Maps or a ruler, string, map and calculator can verify
I'll wait and see if Alaney has anything for this paragraph. If not it may have to be sourced to a map.
Done
Again, I'll leave this to Alaney. I imagine its from one of the books he used for all the preconstruction stuff.
Done, as well as for several other cases
This one I disagree with. The final construction figure has been adjusted for inflation, but to do so for the other two or three construction figures would become somewhat redundant.
I'll see if one of the revitilization projects mentions this, but otherwise it too will be a map citation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. is definitely a map source. It's about the connection with the Gardiner. Not sure what is debatable about this. There is a photo directly above the paragraph that illustrates this. It could go below the paragraph.

4. I'll source and cite that today.

7. Again, the photo illustrates this.

I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy, but a photo illustrating something seems good enough, no? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once the missing citations are added, I will support the article. Dough 48 72 20:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally photos will pass for verification, but not for the featured article process. They are both easily sourceable to Toronto & Area. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've added the citations for the route description and the conditions before construction paragraphs. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article looks good now. Dough 48 72 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.