# Talk:Conestoga Parkway

Does someone have another photograph to put up?  I'm removing the one in the article since it is a photograph of Highway 8, not the Conestoga Parkway. -- timc | Talk 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to add it to my list of photos to take when I get a chance. If I get a chance soon... Radagast 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Land purchasing wrapping up in 1967.[1]
Bot Construction awarded bid for Frederick to Bridgeport in 1968.[2]
Construction begins early October 1968.[3]
E and E Seegmiller constructed Bridgeport to King Street North beginning in 1969, through mostly-undeveloped farm fields.[4]
King Street East to Wellington Street opened February 1970.[5]
Bridgeport to King Street North opened November 13, 1970.[6]
-- Floydian τ ¢ 16:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conestoga Parkway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 08:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Overall looks close to GA quality; at first glance, the only complaint I have is a need to trim down the lede a bit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey sorry I haven't responded sooner. I'm super busy at work this week so I'll try to get to this Friday or Saturday at the latest. - Floydian τ ¢ 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Nvm, found some time haha. I've responded to your points with indents. I assume you haven't gone through the history section yet. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


### Infobox and lede
Interchanges with Highway 8, and probably Highway 7, should be listed in the infobox under major junctions
They already are... Highway 8 to Cambridge and Highway 7 to Guelph.
You're right, my mistake.
Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the existing lede section is loo long. I can take a closer look once it's shortened. I would cut by a joint committee of representatives from Kitchener and Waterloo in 1967 and (DHO), and trim all but a series of projects saw the parkway completely rebuilt through its central section between the mid-1990s and early 2010s from that sentence.
I've trimmed a little bit, but that's as far as I can really go without leaving out something significant. It's ironic, because with most of the highways I've brought to GA, I find it hard to write a large enough


### Route description
Most of the first paragraph is duplicated in the next two subsections. Everything but the first two sentences can be trimmed or merged to those subsections.
Somewhat. It covers the route in a general sense in the first section, then goes into details in the subsections.
I'm not sure that "j" is the best way to describe the shape - it's much more like a backwards L
I guess it depends on the font, but yeah I wasn't sure how I felt about the J or the backwards L, but I'll take your outside opinion over my unsureness.
I tend to avoid using Google Maps as a source - because there's no way to cite or archive a certain version, there are verifiability issues. Is there anything currently using that source that's not verifiable from the other sources? I will also note that the mileage on the Google Maps link doesn't match that given elsewhere in the article.
So I (and many other WP:HWY editors) tend to use Google maps in conjunction with paper atlases. My thoughts on this are two fold: Firstly, it provides an online and convenient source to verify a large portion of the description to the majority of people that don't have a paper map (it's a dying breed after all); secondly, it verifies some bits of the description that aren't shown in paper maps at all. Notably in this case it's the median switching from grass to a barrier and back again that I cannot cite to anything else. The access-date provides a timestamp that can be looked back on in Google Earth should things dramatically change in the future.
The current link is just to dynamically-generated directions between two points. If there is heavy traffic or a closure on the Conestoga Parkway, it may display a completely different route that what you intended. That, combined with Google Maps not working well with most archive sites, means that there's no stable version and thus it has verifiability issues. (The access-date doesn't help in that regards, since the past imagery and route directions are not available on Google Maps. It sounds like Google Earth (which has precisely dated imagery) should be the actual citation - that dated imagery will not change and is verifiable. Also, I will again note that the mileage on the Google Maps link doesn't match that given elsewhere in the article.
Going to continue this at the bottom, since it is the only remaining issue. - Floydian
The change to the speed limit is also discussed in the history section; only the current speed limit is needed here.
Agreed, removed.
CNR should be written out.
Done


### History
I would recommend linking Highway 401 (and any other geographic references not linked since the lede) per MOS:DUPLINK.
Added links to the various highways as well as New Hamburg/St. Jacobs, not gonna relink Kitchener or Waterloo though.
The ring road prior to this point had evolved to a pair... Were these boulevards already built by 1962, or planned? It's not quite clear.
Added that they were proposed (later it elaborates that a part of Henry Strum was built as a temporary two lane road)
Should "expressway" be capitalized in the third paragraph?
Indeed
I recommend using {{inflation}} for the costs.
Done


### Future
The sentence beginning In particular is awkwardly worded and might need to be split in two.
Done


### Exit list
All looks good here.


### See also
I don't see the relevance of this link, since this isn't a 400-series highway.
If it were it would link to it. However, as one of a handful provincial non-400-series freeways in the province, it's a similar topic that doesn't get mentioned in the article itself. I figured this was the perfect kind of WP:SEEALSO usage!


### Other
All images are useful and freely licensed. However, please add alt text.
No issues with sources (other than the Google Maps link discussed above). Checklinks + manual verification indicates no dead links.
Very close to GA quality. Placing on hold for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've dealt with everything I believe, except the Google maps issues. Those are very fair points that you made, and I mostly agree. I can't speak to why it shows a different length (Usually it's pretty damn accurate, but not here). However, it isn't used to cite the length in the infobox or the junction list (and I added the same official length ref to the route description). I added a bunch of in-between points so that it can't force the line off the parkway (barring some temporary major closure). But, as I mentioned this is standard practise across a large number of highway articles (including all of my 80 or so GAs), and may be larger than the scope of this particular review. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I would recommend starting a discussion at the relevant Wikiproject on how to create permanent links. I won't hold up passing as GA on this point, but please do add alt text to the images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Shoot, missed that. I'll get that done ASAP. Thanks for the very thorough review! - Floydian τ ¢ 04:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)