Talk:Ontario Highway 6

Latest comment: 1 year ago by The Corvette ZR1 in topic GA Review
Good articleOntario Highway 6 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 13, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

References

edit

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags

New Highway 6

edit

I designed the electrical for the New Highway 6 in Ancaster/Glanbrook part of Hamilton, and also helped work on the Linc/403 interchange. I have asked around here at work, and cannot find anyone who can confirm that the Linc was ever used as a routing for Hwy 6 (which I assume you mean would have been the connection from 403 to Upper James). So I deleted that statement from the article.

In fact, the Linc is a city-owned parkway, while Hwy 6 still lies under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (as it's a long-haul route), so I think it would not have even been legal to route Hwy 6 along the Linc. I certainly didn't label the Linc as "Highway 6" in the contract drawings I had prepared for the Linc/403 interchange, and I would have had to if this assertion were true.

I do remember, however, that the original routing of Hwy 6 through Hamilton came off the 403 (either on King & Main, or via York street, I'm not sure which), came up the mountain on either Wellington or James/John (probably Wellington because it then would have taken the Claremont Access to Upper James), and then along Upper James out to Mount Hope and beyond. I can supply a map scan if someone wants definitive proof of this.

I'm open to being corrected, but I think my past 6 years of employment would have been different if that Linc assertion were true.

207.34.120.71 15:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can essetially verify this as well. The 2003 Ontario road map shows Highway 6 following Upper James Street right through Hamilton. When the airport bypass opened on November 26, 2005, it was moved onto Highway 403.[1] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

B Class

edit

The article meets the following five criteria:

  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.

May be assigned by any reviewer Updated PR SriMesh | talk 04:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in Ontario Highway 6

edit

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ontario Highway 6's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gmaps":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 04:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Correction

edit

The map on the top right of the page needs to be corrected. It's showing Lake Erie to the North of Lake Ontario, where as it's the other way round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.89.57.225 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 6/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Corvette ZR1 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


No cleanup, POV, or unreferenced banners, no citation needed or clarify tags, no copyrighted material, no edit warring, and it looks good for reviewing. Note that this is my first review ever, so it will take a long time.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    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):  
    The sources are mainly books, that I cannot verify as reliable or not.
    c. (OR):  
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Once again, since they are books, I cannot check for plagerisim.
  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 non-free use rationales):  
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:  
    Aaaaand we are good! Looks and feels beautiful, truly GA worthy. Pass!

(Criteria marked   are unassessed)