Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Ontario Highway 427
Ontario Highway 427
edit- 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.
Toolbox |
---|
Ontario Highway 427 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review
- Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
- Nominator's comments: Always good for a last week Highway cup scramble, I present Highway 427, the second busiest highway in Canada after the 401 and one of only a handful with an extensive 12-14 lane collector-express system. Not a long highway, but certainly a beast :)
- Nominated by: Floydian τ ¢ 03:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- First comment occurred: 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Review by Dough4872
editReview by Dough4872
|
---|
I will review this article. Dough4872 03:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Comments:
|
- Support - Article looks good. Dough4872 04:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Image review by Evad37
edit- File:427 take 2.JPG – CC-BY-2.5, permission archived in OTRS
- File:427 south of Eglinton.png – CC-BY-3.0
- File:409-427 Interchange.jpg – CC-BY-3.0
- File:Reconstruction of 27.png –
PD-Canada {{Not sure}} Source claims photos are copyrighted, a claim of PD would need to show that the photo was was published before 1964, according to {{PD-Canada}}PD-Canada-Crown - File:Toronto International Airport and Airport Expressway, 1964.png – Non-free image with use rationale for this article
- File:27 widening and Toronto Bypass construction, 1954.png – PD-Canada (the more explicit template {{PD-Canada-Crown}} would be better)
- File:427 traffic lights.png – CC-BY-SA-3.0, permission archived in OTRS
- File:401 Airport Expressway.svg – CC-BY-SA-3.0
- Route markers all check out – PD or PD-Canada-Crown (as expected)
- Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the not sure, Canada Crown copyright doesn't require publication, and thekingshighway.ca tries to claim that all their photos are copyright regardless (we're the competition after all hehehe) - Floydian τ ¢ 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that websites may claim copyright on everything, including images which are clearly public domain - state libraries in Australia do the same thing. But that's not really issue - if we want to use the image on Wikipedia, we have to show that it is PD, suitably licensed, or have a valid fair use rational. While copyright protection wouldn't require publication, to be PD, the photo would have to be published before 1964, would it not? [1] claims (under section 5. Government Publications) that an unpublished work does not fall into Public Domain. Copyright law of Canada#Public_domain (referenced to the copyright act) and {{PD-Canada}} also specifically include the phrase "after publication". Or am I missing something? - Evad37 [talk] 02:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I guess Wikipedia is out of date or someone misread. the government claims that "It lasts until the end of 50 years after the year of creation." Combined with the OTRS ticket I acquired from the government earlier this year, once crown copyright expires the item enters the public domain as far as the government is concerned. I've updated the PD Canada crown template accordingly. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for that. All good now. - Evad37 [talk] 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
editResolved issues
|
---|
I plan to review this article, though it may be a day or two. --Rschen7754 05:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Source review by Rschen7754
editPlease bear with me as this is my first source review ever.
- I would suggest using {{reflist|30em}} as there is a lot of wasted space.
- Source 6 is a bare URL.
- For citations like 8 and 10, consider linking to the citation at the bottom.
- Compare source 29 versus source 30 - can the ISSN be added?
Otherwise I don't see any issues. --Rschen7754 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- All done and definitely agreed on that first one. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Source 14 should have a link to the bottom citation too. Also, for cite map, the author= field should be filled out, even if it is just a repeat of the publisher. --Rschen7754 00:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done and done. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Source 14 should have a link to the bottom citation too. Also, for cite map, the author= field should be filled out, even if it is just a repeat of the publisher. --Rschen7754 00:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Done and ready for close. --Rschen7754 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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.