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.
Nominator's comments: In hopes of bridging the line of Featured articles between Michigan and New York, I present Highway 402 for review! It's been a couple years since this went through GAN, so it may need tweaking. If you spot a full paragraph that seems wonky, just point out which one and I'll do a rewrite of it. Overall, however, it is high quality, comprehensive, and well sourced.
Why is I-94 listed before I-69 in the infobox and exit list? Typically with concurrent routes of the same type we list the lower number first.
The phrase "Motorists crossing into Michigan at the western end have direct access to Detroit via I-94 and Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul via I-69" needs a citation. Also, if you keep this phrasing, you need to elaborate how one gets to Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul as I-69 does not make it to either of those cities. I would simply reword this to "Motorists crossing into Michigan at the western end have direct access to I-69 and I-94".
"With the exception of the Front Street interchange in Sarnia, the freeway features Parclos throughout its length", what kind of interchange is Front Street?
The sentence "After interchanging with Forest Line, the freeway is crossed over by London Line, momentarily diverging from its straight alignment while dipping south of Warwick (where London Line meets Egremont Road and continues east of Warwick north of the highway)." reads awkward. I would also ditch the parentheses and incorporate into the sentence.
"When it was opened at some point between 1946 and 1949, it featured at-grade crossings with Front Street, Indian Road and Modeland Road (the Highway 40 Sarnia bypass).", do we have a more exact date for this?
"...providing a quicker route over the busier Ambassador Bridge crossing in Windsor, which also has 13 traffic lights leading to the bridge.[3]" "Also" makes it read like both 401 and 402 have traffic lights, except you said 402 is non-stop.
I don't like using interchange as a verb. I read it as "trading places" not "cars exiting the highway".
@Haljackey: could you crop your Highway 4 photo so the horizon is level?
History
I'm not going to force it, but I think a mini-lead would look better than starting the section with a 3rd-level header.
You use alignment/re-aligned three times in quick succession.
Added, although you may need to purge your cache to get it to appear.
I suppose not, fixed.
Changed it to "the only town", since all other places near the freeway are little villages / unincorporated communities.
RD
Originally it said "suffers from 13...", which I felt was an appropriate way to describe the pros/cons of one route over the other... but I've tried another wording that should work.
I've always agreed with that, to be quite honest. Fixed the few instances.
Fixed it for him.
History
Added a minilead. As it encompasses all the sourced facts contained within the subsequent sections, I've left it without refs as I normally have done in such situations.
Now, I get why the original crappy shields were pd-i, but the new ones seem a bit more involved. That crown is pretty intricate for pd-i... Maybe these should be re-tagged (as a batch) as {{PD-Self}} or something similar. --AdmrBoltz18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I uploaded them the first reaction by many was to delete them and restore the old junction shields... The original shield with a crown was introduced in 1930 and the modern design of the crown in 1955, so these can all be tagged as {{PD-Canada-Crown}} now that the issue around the URAA has been dealt with. I've retagged this shield for now, will have to do a batch of the others sometime. - Floydianτ¢22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I did this all correctly. There was no PD-Retouched template, so I just wrote that the retouching is released under the same licence. Not sure what is needed on the original, so I linked the retouched as a "other version". - Floydianτ¢22:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I'm stuck at 1024x768 at the moment. I imagine a very wide monitor might get issues with the photo nudging the junction list to the right and the article not looking as tidy as it could.
Source 4: currently -> as of X. Also, "a new route known as the Windsor–Essex Parkway" now disagrees with source 4, where a new name is given.
Source 5: Good on V and CP.
Source 20: does not back up the entire paragraph for the second citation.
Source 21: dead link.
Source 34: Good on V and CP, but "that of a man who succumbed to hypothermia on a nearby county road" is not an independent clause.
Source 35: Good on V and CP.
The results of the spotcheck are a bit disappointing, in particular source 3 and 20. Please go through the entire article and make sure that all statements are backed up by sources, and post here when you have done so.
In addition, I am happening to notice stuff that should have been pointed out by other reviewers, and am uncomfortable with signing off on a spotcheck when there could be other issues. Thus, in order to uphold our high standards at ACR, I will be conducting a fourth review of the article, and will be procedurally Opposing this article until I have done this additional review, and when the above issues have been fixed, including the additional source checking. --Rschen775407:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that I am not trying to discourage those who reviewed this article, but to advise all our regular ACR reviewers to take a bit more care with their reviews. --Rschen775407:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the two big ones. I had used the wrong ref for one and copied the other from the Highway 401 article without checking. The dead link has been updated to the new links and other changes made. As I said, this article was promoted to GA a while ago and I expected some issues to arise. - Floydianτ¢00:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it, there was one case of a fact not in an article and one case of a google maps link referencing a 1964 date. I've fixed these, and upon scanning the full article, I believe it is now properly referenced. - Floydianτ¢18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the ALLCAPS ref was the "PRESS RELEASE", which I've fixed. Captions should be good now, RJL notes fixed, CAH better linked. The sentence you pointed out is correct: the freeway was originally within the Sarnia city limits. I could make it "...did not exit the Sarnia city limits" if that would help? Construction on the 401 extension began in 2011 and will continue until 2020, but I made that sentence read better nonetheless. I hope I've managed to clarify the last point as well now. Cheers, Floydianτ¢21:11, 6 March 2014 (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.
Support –Fredddie™ 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
