Talk:Ontario Highway 406

	Ontario Highway 406 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.
	Ontario Highway 406 is part of the 400-series highways series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 17, 2011 Good article nominee Listed September 21, 2016 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Ontario Mid‑importance Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. Canada Roads: Ontario High‑importance Roads portal This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics: /  Ontario This article has a KML file.

Untitled

New Image appears to be used from Gribblenation.com. Was permission gained from Douglas Kerr (the copyright holder as stated on Gribblenation.com) for the image to be used here? If not, image should be immediately removed, as it is copyritten. --149.99.202.64 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Angela. 00:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Permission has been obtained from Doug to use the image in this article. Snickerdo 01:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice to Wikipedians: My website at www.thekingshighway.ca contains copyrighted material! You may not reproduce it without my permission. Thank-you. Cbevers 01:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Construction information can easily be obtained from any source, including my family who lives here in the region. It's not like someone copied your (and excellent, I might add) detailed history of 406 construction. The only information that was included was the years it opened. Snickerdo 01:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that even the average family member would know 40 year old highway information off the back of there hand. Such information needs to be sourced, always, whether from a family member or not. Until information (and pictures) are sourced, they do not belong on pages. --149.99.200.38 03:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

So publicly available information is now considered copywritten?! Should we now go running around on a witch hunt removing all other publicly available information that is posted in these articles? Also, I have permission from the person who took the picture (a friend of mine) to use it on this web page. If you want a revet war, that's what you'll get. Snickerdo 10:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Information that isn't common knowledge has to be sourced. This irrelevant of where the information came from. If you got the date information from old maps, then in your reference section you source them; If you got the information from old annual reports, then you source them; and if you got the information from thekingshighway.ca then you source that aswell. Whether or not information is copyritten or not it still always needs to be sourced. Properly referencing articles not only gives people reading articles more information, but also makes the article more credible. For theses reasons, I just cannot understand why so much of the informaiton on this website isn't sourced, (unless authors are trying to hide something) it just seems like such a no-brainer. --149.99.202.161 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright stuff.

I sourced The King's Highway just to make everyone happy. Claiming that construction information cannot be used on this page because it is copywritten is ridiculous. I could understand a direct copy-and-paste of Cameron’s excellent detailed construction history, but the dates that extensions were open could have been easily obtained from the MTO, the public library, or maps that people have laying around in their basement. Nonetheless, I have added a reference to the website to cover all angles.

As for the image, I have known Doug for many years, and a number of his images have even been taken with me driving him around the region. I have permission to use this image (as well as other images in the future), it sourced to him, has the correct copyright tag, and all that fun stuff. If someone has a problem with this, I recommend you contact Doug. I am weary about posting his email here due to spam, but I would be happy to personally provide it to anyone who doesn't already have it.

There, are we all happy now?

Snickerdo 11:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also, you guys might like to take a look at the following line from the Copyrights article:

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. (See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.)

Snickerdo 11:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That quote is all well and good, but has nothing to do with the argument. That information is about not plagerizing text, it has nothing to do with referencing it. --149.99.202.161 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thekingshighway.ca is a self-published source, and therefore not a reliable reference. All information in these articles are sourced to the original DHO/MTO reports obtained from the Archives of Ontario or Toronto Reference Library. The picture on thekingshighway TAKEN BY CAMERON BEVERS are copyright by him. All non-Postcard photos taken before December 31, 1961 are public domain - The king's highway watermarks on such images will be removed by our graphics labs, or I will find the original photo and retake it. All postcard photos taken in Ontario before January 1, 1946 are also public domain. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

GAN

GA Review

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ontario Highway 406/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

 Working Will post the review within the next few hours. –Grondemar 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My goodness. I've never gotten such a quick review. Mind the occasional unsourced paragraph, as I thought I'd have a few days to do a final tidy-up. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'd hold off the review for a couple of days. Let me know when it is ready. –Grondemar 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like I'm down to the lone paragraph in the Future section. I'm going to try and find the best way to source that over the next few hours (though some of it is a summary of the history up to that point), so feel free to start your review. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've completed my review, and have a few minor concerns that need to be addressed before this article is promoted to GA status:

• I made a few copyedits; if I've inadvertently changed Canadian English to American English, please feel free to correct.
• King's Highway 406? Wouldn't it be Queen's Highway 406, especially since there hasn't been a king since the highway has been built?
• "Recently" it would be better to specify a more exact time, since one day the resumption of construction on the highway will no longer be "recent".
• You might want to mention in the lead that, following the completion of construction, there will no longer be any at-grade crossings and the highway will be a full freeway.
• "which is currently being rebuilt as a grade-separated interchange." Again, put an "as of" here because one day the construction will no longer be "current".
• First paragraph under Future needs at least one citation, possibly more.
• In the Exit list, do two exits really have the same number 11B?

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

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This nomination is placed on hold for a minimum of seven days until the above issues are addressed.

Thanks. –Grondemar 03:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I've made your recommended changes with regard to recently and currently, as well as expanding the lead. I've also fixed the exit list so both the exit number and km span two rows (that exit is a big interchange where Highway 58 is the primary exit, but with some ramps connecting to the regional road). All the highways in Ontario have been known as King's Highways since 1930... I believe it is sourced on the linked Highways in Ontario, but if not it will be... However it has been normal practise not to go into detail about that in the many other Ontario Highway GAs since that article on the system does/will cover it. That just leaves the refs for the Future section, which I should be able to get to after my exams tomorrow. Cheers! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, everything should be taken care of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing all of my concerns. I can now pass this nomination. Congratulations! –Grondemar 17:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lake Gibson

"The freeway crosses over Lake Gibson, infamous for its connection with the crimes of Paul Bernardo..."

Is this relevant, or even appropriate for an article about the highway? It's not even mentioned on the Lake Gibson article, so it seems like an especially peculiar line to include here. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Lake Gibson is a stub article, whereas this is a Good article. It should have a detailed section on the murders. The Paul Bernardo article has a fair deal of detail that could be used. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But why would the Paul Bernardo case even be mentioned in an article about Highway 406? On Lake Gibson's article (if expanded beyond a mere stub), it would make sense. But the Bernardo article states that one of the girls abducted was dropped off "on a deserted road near Lake Gibson." Since Highway 406 is obviously not the "deserted road" in question, and the article is not about the lake nor Paul Bernardo, a passing mention of Paul Bernardo's heinous crimes seems completely out of place here. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Only highway with at-grade crossings

I've removed a quote stating that 406 was the only highway with at-grade crossings prior to January 2, 2015. I thought it odd to have such a specific date; I thought maybe that was the date that the last of the new interchanges opened, but that's not in the source, it just happens to be the date that someone went down there with a camera. And besides that, one might say that the roundabout in Welland is an at-grade crossing, and Highway 420 meets Stanley Street at-grade; although the designation ends there now it didn't always. I see elsewhere in the article the quote may refer to rail crossings, but it was not accurate as it was. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)