Talk:Long Sault Parkway

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Animation showing the land changes resulting from the Moses-Saunders Power Dam on the St. Lawrence River

• ... that the Long Sault Parkway connects eleven islands created by the flooding of the Long Sault rapids (pictured) during construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the late 1950s?

• Reviewed: The Palestine Oriental Society

5x expanded by Floydian (talk). Self-nominated at 16:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC).

• This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The interesting animation is in the public domain. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Post-approval note Let me know if I should rework the animation to highlight the Long Sault Parkway in the "after" map. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Long Sault Parkway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Shall review for the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive MWright96 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• Don't think the term Canadian should be linked; how about linking Canadian province to the relevant article?
• The wikilink for St. Lawrence Seaway doesn't need to be directed to Saint Lawrence Seaway

Route description

• Wikilink St. Lawrence Parks Commission
• "The later contains a nature trail as well as a boat launch.[3][1][8]" - I think the refs would be better off in numerical order
• In the third and fourth paragraphs, some mentions of "named for" can be changed for variety
  • How's that? Threw in a couple "honouring" and "named after" and even managed to slip in a "in remembrance of"
• "as well as the Lock 21 and Camp Carp campsites.[4][1][8]" - the numbering of the refs might be better off placed in numerical order
• "The Long Sault Parkway is considered one of the most scenic drives in Ontario." - considered by whom?
  • The people and magazines listed through the remainder of that paragraph. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• How about add the reviewers names of The Globe and Mail and Ultimate Ontario since they are mentioned in their articles?
  • I'm not seeing a reviewer byline, so I'm not sure what to do for this one. However, if you are seeing something I'm not, feel free to add it in. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

History

• Moses-Saunders Power Dam doesn't need to be linked here
• "At 8 am, 30 tons" - the convert template is missing on the text in bold
  • TNT equivalent doesn't really have a conversion that I know of. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Department of Mines might benefit from being wikilinked

Major intersections

• "The entire route is located in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry." - needs verifying with a reliable source

References

• Reference 22 is missing the author

Putting the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query each of the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@MWright96: I've replied to a few of the points, consider the rest completed as recommended. Thank you for the review! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@MWright96: guessing this slipped down your watchlist. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Floydian: My apologies for the late reply but am now promoting this article to GA status MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Before we shut down, could you give me some insight regarding reviewers for that Globe and Mail article? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)