Talk:Sussex Drive

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

1. Ottawa Regional Road 93 doesn't seem to exist.
2. "a major street" on what basis is it "major"?
3. I would have thought the lead might describe the "major junctions" (as listed in the infobox) as they are significant?
4. What is "The Driveway" in the infobox referring to?
5. This is pedantic, but you say in the infobox that it's maintained by "City of Ottawa" but that doesn't appear referenced or in the article.
6. How much of the opening two sentences is really cited by reference [2]? I see Sussex Drive listed but none of the other claims made in those sentences seem to be verifiable there.
7. "It proceeds" Last thing you mentioned was the high commission. Suggest you reiterate "Sussex Drive proceeds"...
8. "two lane road" two-lane road.
9. I thought we weren't supposed to "autocollapse" tables by default?
10. Table needs row and col scopes for accessibility.
11. Notes (free text) aren't usefully sortable.
12. Nor are images.
13. Address col seems to sort four ways. I wouldn't leave blank cells in there either, perhaps N/A or something if address is not appropriate.
14. Year established sorts three ways for me too.
15. "now the Senate of Canada Building" overlinked.
16. "now Élisabeth Bruyère Hospital" likewise.
17. "tre-Dame Cathedral,[27" should that have a "Basilica" on the end of it?
18. "sprung up " not encyclopedic tone.
19. "land in Lower Town, as" overlinked.
20. "October 2, 1945 and" comma after year.
21. "Sussex Street would be renamed Sussex Drive" why not "was" rather than 'would be'?
22. "for the Rideau Centre commenced" overlinked.
23. "The Embassy of France and the High Commission of South Africa were both established prior to World War II,[11][77] while Japan and Saudi Arabia both " all overlinked.
24. "latter would not open" why not "did not"?
25. "0.062" is an absurdly precise conversion of 0.1km.
26. Also absurd is 1.9km and 2.0km both then converting to 1.2mi! Decimal places need to be tailored here for such a short road and to avoid these kinds of things.
27. Lots of spaced hyphens in in the refs, all should be en-dashes.
28. Interestingly in the navbox Sussex is listed as "Collectors/Secondary arteries", I don't know what either of those really mean but also neither of those terms are used in the article.

That's all I have for a quick pass. On hold, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review TRM; this is the kind of review I hope for out of GANs. Blasted backlog drives attracting fly-by promotions. Anyways, I've switched your points to a numerical list just so it's easier to respond to specific items. Any items I didn't respond to can be considered "fixed as noted".

3. I'm finding it kind of difficult to put words to this explanation, but basically it's not that significant... but it has an article. Almost like "Associated acts" for artist infoboxes; you'd almost never find them mentioned in the lead.

6. It was only meant to cite the "many of which are designated National Historical Sites" part. I tend/try to make the first sentence or two of each section a tertiary summary of the remainder of the section, and it seems visually unappealing to pile the 7 references together here. Regardless I pushed the ref to the end of that sentence along with the google map reference that validates everything except "Among one of the most famous roads in Canada". That last bit has bothered me because it's impossible to find a reference for, but it's a given for myself as a Canadian... almost how Downing Street

9. I wasn't aware of this... Frig first China's tortoise-speed death of Internet Explorer and now dumbed down mobile sites and Google searches practically render the interactivity of the internet pointless. Anyways, would this not possibly fall under "simply repeats information covered in the main text" and/or "is purely supplementary"? Uncollapsed, it nearly double the vertical length of the article. Frankly, if it is being stripped from low-bandwidth users: good, why waste their limited bandwidth?

• See WP:COLLAPSE. Also, I'm not convinced by the data argument, surely the whole page loads whether it's "displayed" or not? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently the Google search lite strips collapsed tables... allegedly. It also claims that the mobile view does that, but when I view the article on mobile, it simply uncollapses the table. That style page also falsely states that browsers that do not support css or javascript won't display collapsed tables. I'm not concerned about a few kilobytes or all 2 users of Lynx, but I am concerned with excessive scrolling and having that ~40% of the vertical space taken up by information covered already in the prose. This is one case I'd like to implement WP:IAR, because the accessibility concerns of the table being displayed seem outdated and catering to the absolute lowest rung (browsers that are 25 years out of date and some crappy side tool made by Google) as opposed to the presentation of the article to over 50% of our audience (desktop). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

10–14. I've added a bunch of accessibility coding and sortkeys. They appear to sort properly now, let me know if you still get odd results.

17. Nope. It was only a cathedral in 1867, becaming a basilica in 1879.

25–26. I'm kind of limited by both the table and templates used for junction lists. I get exactly what you mean here though. The template runs off Module:Jctint/core, which has no parameter for significant digits that I can find. @Fredddie: is there any way to set the number of significant digits in the distance conversion for {{jctint}}?

28. I don't either, hah. I've never actually paid much attention to navboxes for city streets. Went ahead and changed this one however.

Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That's weird that 0.1km converted like that. Precision is supposed to be gleaned from the input via Module:Math. Interestingly, {{convert}} has the same behavior.

1 km (0.62 mi)

2 km (1.2 mi)

0.1 km (0.062 mi)

0.2 km (0.12 mi)

10 km (6.2 mi)

20 km (12 mi)

I don't have a quick fix for this. –Fredddie™ 20:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Difference is you can force {{convert}} to use as many or as few decimal places as you like. It appears this template does not provide that function. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to trace it back, the conversion itself is performed on lines 170 and 185 of Module:Road data/util which should accept a value for "prec" from line 140, or the value passed for _precision should have 1 subtracted from it if the value of km/mi is less than 1 perhaps. Beyond that it's hieroglyphs to me. Yada yada yada, I've added a zero to every row and hard-coded the row for McKay Street to show 0.06. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Floydian thanks, looking good, just the collapse issue, response above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'm content this passes (exceeds) the requirements for GA. Forgive me pursuing a slightly higher bar (e.g. MOS:ACCESS compliance) but thank you for tolerating it and investigating. I'm happy with the outcome and will be passing this now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, in any way, or ever will that be a problem to me! I much prefer a thorough review that prepares an article for future peer reviewing (A/FA) than waiting four months for someone to skip-de-loo along with "yup, its good. Pass!" Accessibility has always been one of my big concerns and I often take the time to run pages, templates and imagery through various colour-blind filters to ensure everyone can enjoy the knowledge! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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 Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sussex Drive and the Royal Canadian Mint, circa 1920

• ... that Sussex Drive (pictured) is known as Canada's ceremonial route? Source: Refs 2, 3 and 4 in the article; one local, one from the other side of the country, one from the US
  • ALT1:... that Sussex Drive (pictured), location of the home of the Prime Minister of Canada, is known as the country's ceremonial route?
  • ALT2:... that Sussex Drive (pictured) forms part of a ceremonial route used by foreign dignitaries and royal visitors to Canada?

• Reviewed: Wer unterm Schutz des Höchsten steht
• Comment: Sussex Drive was actually Sussex Street in 1920, but for the sake of brevity, the image caption uses the current name.

Improved to Good Article status by Floydian (talk). Self-nominated at 01:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC).

• I made minor typo fixes to both hooks (changing "know" to "known"). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• New enough GA. QPQ present. No textual issues I see. Image is public domain with suitable caption. Hook facts check out for ALT0 and ALT1 in all three provided sources (and thanks for clipping them all!). This one is ready. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floydian, Sammi Brie, SL93, and Khajidha: further to the discussion we had at WT:DYK, because there was still uncertainty about the best hook to use, and also because it's now only half an hour before it was due to go live, I've reopened it here. It sounds like the key point is to get Floydian's desired message accross, namely "what I'm aiming for here is a rendition of "Sussex Drive is to Canada as Downing Street is to Britain". Personally I wouldn't call Downing Street a "ceremonial route", it's just the home of the PM. If we did have a ceremonial route it would probably be The Mall, but again I've never heard the term used myself. Anyway, this should give us time to figure something out! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I would just remove the ceremonial route part, but my thought on this might not mean much as someone who isn't as familiar with the topic as the nominator. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What if we go with "is part of Canada's ceremonial route", given the sources Sammi Brie provided at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Prep 5: Sussex Drive - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that Sussex Drive (pictured) forms part of a ceremonial route used by foreign dignitaries and royal visitors to Canada?" --Khajidha (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That works for me. @Sammi Brie and SL93: any objections to Khajidha's wording? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That works for me as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I like the wording, but I guess I want to see what Amakuru thinks since they had an issue with the term ceremonial route being used. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SL93, Sammi Brie, and Floydian:, Khajidha's wording looks fine to me actually. This one goes on to explain what is meant by "ceremonial route" so it satisfies my original concerns. Thanks for the good suggestion.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can add the final approval on that wording once the article is updated with the statement. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. That wording was only slightly modified from the article itself. What do you mean "once the article is updated with the statement"? --Khajidha (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I missed that part in the article. Ignore my statement. Your alt is approved. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)