# Talk:E. C. Row Expressway

EC ROW was the first post war president of Chrysler Canada but the initials EC stand for "Edgar Charles" not "Emily Carr" as you have in the article. EC Row Expressway is named after him. My source is Walt McCall the former manager of public relations at Chrysler Canada in Windsor.
Cheers,
Rob Miller CBC TV

Links:

- (http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/planning/plans-and-community-information/know-your-community/heritage-planning/documents/windsor%20archaeological%20master%20plan.pdf)
- (http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/publications/pdf/oa60-2-_lennox.pdf)
- (http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/planning/plans-and-community-information/windsor---official-plan/documents/nov2012_4.south%20cameron%20planning%20district.pdf')

"Fisher Archaeological Consulting, Historic Horizon Inc. & Dillon Consulting Limited
Murphy & Ferris 1990:229). Two individuals from the bundle burials had modified skulls (post mortem); one
had a cut that had penetrated the brain cavity; the other had been perforated through the sagittal suture
(Lennox 1984:28). Other post mortem modifications were also noted on post-cranial material (Lennox
1984:33).
The individuals were reportedly removed from the area around the Betts Avenue and Toronto Street
intersection, however, a field archaeologist who had been working on the excavation with Wintemberg,
indicated that some of the skeletons had come from a low mound west of the main investigated area,
approximately 150 to 180 metres (500 to 600') away (Reid 1978). These skeletons probably came from what
is now referred to as the E.C. Row site.
Three decades passed before more investigations were carried out on the site. In 1967, John Lee and Harry
Bosveld conducted a ‘brief and small investigation ... for the Hiram Walker Historical Museum ...” (Reid
1978:25). In the intervening decades, the site had been largely disturbed or destroyed by the removal of soil,
and the deposition of refuse and fill (Reid 1978:4). The investigations conducted by Lee and Bosveld just to
the south of Toronto Street produced no significant results. A year later, Phil Wright investigated the site on
behalf of the City of Windsor and the Ministry of Transportation and Communication in advance of proposed
highway (EC Row Expressway) construction through the area (Reid 1978:7). Wright found no significant
archaeological remains and concluded that due to extensive site disturbance, the site did not warrant further
investigation or protection. However, concerns expressed by the Caldwell First Nation prompted the City
of Windsor and the Ministry of Transportation and Communication to retain Professor Peter Reid of the
University of Windsor to undertake further testing (Reid 1978). Despite Reid’s extensive coverage of the site
area, no more burials were found and only a minor amount of cultural material was recovered. Construction
of the expressway was allowed to proceed.
the site may have been occupied, possibly intermittently, over an extended period of time. The houses are
similar in size and shape to contemporary Iroquoian examples, but they lack internal features such as bunk
lines, end-house storage areas and pits, and hearths (Lennox 1984:35). These features may indicate a cabin
site occupation, where the structures were occupied only during warm seasons as a shelter from inclement
weather (Lennox 1984:35).
A total of six burial features containing the remains of 23 individuals were found (Lennox 1984:18). Field
recording was carried out on the skeletons, but since they were being re-buried at the end of the work day at
the bequest of Walpole Island Bkejwanong First Nation, no detailed observations were undertaken. The burials
consisted of bundle burials and infant cremations. The cremations had occurred elsewhere and were then
deposited at the site. The E.C. Row burial styles were not as diverse as those found at the adjacent Lucier site
(Lennox 1984:31 & 32). One parietal bone of an adult showed evidence of post mortem modification. This
skull bone had been intentionally perforated, or drilled (Lennox 1984:33)."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaccuratesource (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:E. C. Row Expressway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
In mentioning the place names for the termini in the infobox, you use West Windsor, Ontario and City of Windsor/Town of Tecumseh. Can this be reformatted to be consistent?
The mention of the eastern terminus in the infobox needs to be cleaned up. I would fix it to read "Banwell Road on border of City of Windsor/Town of Tecumseh", linking the latter town.
Both the above fixed. - Floydian τ ¢
"the E. C. Row" sounds colloquial, should refer to it as the E. C. Row Expressway.
It is commonly referred to by this name by local news sources, so I assume it is a common local nickname, possibly even official in some way. - Floydian τ ¢
You use "sandwiched" a lot in the route description. Can some of these instances be replaced with different words?
Only twice actually haha... but I changed one instance regardless. - Floydian τ ¢
The link Edward Charles Row needs to be fixed as it links to an unrelated person.
Delinked the second instance that does this. No article for him, but it is a worthy candidate for one in the future. - Floydian τ ¢
I noticed Highway 2 is unlinked in the Route description and the first instance in the History while linked in the second instance in the History. I would link the route at the first point it is mentioned in the prose.
Removed link from history section as it's already linked in the lede. - Floydian τ ¢
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Can a source be added for the length in the infobox?
It can, and it has. - Floydian τ ¢
Citation needed for "The westernmost 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) of the expressway is undergoing reconstruction as part of the Herb Gray Parkway project, which will also result in construction of a new international crossing northwest of the intersection with Ojibway Parkway."
This statement is still unsourced. Dough4872 01:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The sentence "No work has progressed on the extension since." needs a citation.
The entire future section is uncited; sources need to be added.
With recent completion of the Herb Grey Parkway alongside the E.C. Row, I have updated the History and Future Section and cited. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Can some more historical information be added to the lead? Specifically when the expressway was built.
Done. - Floydian τ ¢
Do you have a kilometerpost for the Highway 401 junction?
Not that I can source at this time, though I know what it is. - Floydian τ ¢
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 
A photo of the road would be nice, but not required.
Hadn't checked for several years,
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I will put the article on hold for fixes to be made. Dough4872 02:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, just got the notice of this about 2 or 3 days ago. All fixes made. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
There is still one unsourced statement I pointed at above that needs to be addressed before I can pass this. Dough4872 01:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for the review :) - Floydian τ ¢ 03:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I will pass the article. Dough4872 03:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on E. C. Row Expressway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214103516/http://citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=1273 to http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=1273
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Floydian, you haven't provided a valid reason for reverting my edit in which I cleaned up and reduced the size of the article. A preference for the the vertical method is not reason enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A preference for changing the coding using an automated tool is not a reason to make the edit either. In fact, it is discouraged per WP:COSMETICBOT:
"While this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance if making such changes in a bot-like manner" (AKA using an automated tool).
WP:STYLERET states:
"When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change"
You have in fact done the opposite of "cleaned up" by creating massive blocks of text with the references buried into them, and you haven't reduced the size at all since the MediaWiki software ignores whitespace. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I find it ironic you're saying that I created massive blocks of text when I'm attempting to remove the needless blocks created for references. Can you show me an example in the Wikipedia namespace where this reference style is mentioned as an alternative (so as to establish that your style is considered appropriate)? I ran the ProveIt tool because editing articles with the reference style that you're a fan of makes editing, in my opinion, more difficult. Yes it can still be done, but the needless multiple breaks in a paragraph resemble that of lists or infobox instead of the "horizontal" citation style that is widely used and applied by standard across Wikipedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
It surely easier to separate references from text when they are separated from prose to stand out with indentation in the editor. I have no problem converting horizontal style citations added to articles into vertical style though. Also why is it acceptable for infoboxes but not citations, in your view? As for an example, Wikipedia:Citation templates. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)