Talk:Ontario Highway 802/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 21:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to review this over the next day or two. Hog Farm _Talk 21:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"there is no signage to indicate this." - I've gone through all three english PDFs at the linked source, and I cannot find anything that supports this directly
"The speed limit along the north branch is 50 km/h (30 mph), while along the south branch it is 80 km/h (50 mph)" - needs an as of date, because these things change
"This appears to have been a cartographic error," - that's original research. We can't draw that sort of conclusion from the presence/absence of it on a map.
"and no records indicate that the Ministry ever actually assumed jurisdiction over the road." - more OR here. None of the PDFs at that source seem to say anything about Lac des Milles
The infobox gives the beginning date as April 25, 1962, but the body says April 28, 1962. Is one of these wrong, or are they referring to different things?
""Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, Part IV - Tertiary Roads". Government of Ontario. July 21, 2020. Retrieved January 23, 2021." - flagging a reference error here, due to the use of {{cite journal}} when it's not really a journal

Frankly, I think the Lac des Milles section should just be removed. I agree it's almost certainly just a cartographic error, but there's nothing we can really say about it without venturing into original research. It's an error, it happened, and there's nothing that can really be said that's meaningful. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have removed it. All the other fixes have been made as well (not sure why April 25 or 28 ended up in the article, but I just double checked through my pictures of the annual reports and it was April 19) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.