Talk:Line 2 Bloor–Danforth

"Cawartha"

Among the future expansion plans, the article lists a station named "Cawartha", both in the article text and in one of the diagrams. As far as I know, there is no such street. I'm guessing this is a misspelling of Cawthra Street, which does exist and does cross the proposed subway line. I'd like to get peer approval before I change it though, since I don't know for sure (I'm not an authority on TTC stuff). Anyone? Tronno 06:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think you're right. It makes a lot of sense to me given that there is no "Cawartha Street" (with a "c".) Ground Zero | t 14:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• FYI--Cawthra ROAD is a North-South road in Mississauga, a former concession road in the southern section of the former Toronto Township between Eglinton and Lakeshore.....At Dundas, the intersection was bridged in the 1980s, and the CP tracks (and Milton GO line) is nearby.....

BTW, when the 403 turns west south of Eglinton (from 401/410 southwards), it is the Cawthra Road allowance that proceeds south to Lakeshore. Bacl-presby 17:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Road, sorry... :) I'll go ahead and fix it then. Tronno 17:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And... done. Clear your cache to see the new diagram. Tronno

Expansion potential - Milton GO Station?

It's a bit confusing, but the TTC's RTES actually has "Milton GO Line" in block letters by the stop rather than "Milton GO Station", which isn't even in Mississauga (it's the terminus station in Milton). Since Dixie is also on the Milton GO line, I'm not sure why the TTC didn't call the stop Cooksville, but I've changed the name in this article anyhow to clarify which GO station it actually is. --AHrvojic 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops our mistake, I'll change my map ASAP. --Yllianos 21:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why have the Bloor-Danforth western extensions been added to the Stations Template and the Wikipedia in general? It's listed as a low-priority extension, and one that doesn't have that many fans both in the TTC and Mississauga Transit, so why bother? The Spadina extension should be up there because it looks like it might be completed.

Reverse list/image?

The middle of this page has a list of stages in a table right next to a map of the line. The map (from top to bottom) is from East to West, while the table starts from the West to East. It's rather disorienting. Could either the table be reversed or the image be replaced with one that is vertically flipped (with the proper oriented wording of course)

East Mall Extension Proposal

I recent read Spacing Wire which is talking about the East Mall proposal made by the area. Anyways, maybe just a slight mention of it? I would do it, but I wouldn't know what to say. Here's the sritcle: http://spacing.ca/wire/?cat=8 and the source of the article: http://www.insidetoronto.ca/to/etobicoke/story/3683564p-4258296c.html?loc=etobicoke --Yllianos 15:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bloor–Danforth line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Quality of the article is good.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   See comment section below. Good.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   See comment section below. Good.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comment section below. Good.

   C. No original research:

   See comment section below. Good.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All major aspects of the topic have been covered.

   B. Focused:

   Article remains focused/on-topic throughout.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   See comment section. "Summary" sections for the pictures has been fixed.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are provided and contain suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See comment section below. Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The images that show the possible route extensions should have a better "summary". Also, regarding the infobox picture, I don't see the station going underground on the left. Can you please clarify?

 Done

• "The earliest mention of rapid transit along along this route was in 1910 report that was prepared by an American firm of transit consultants" should be, "The earliest mention of rapid transit along along this route was in a 1910 report that was prepared by an American firm of transit consultants."

 Done

• "In 1980, the line was extended once again, this time to the current termini of Kipling station in the west end and Kennedy station in the east" needs a reference.

 Done

• "The replacement trim tiles were differently-coloured due to the lack of extra green trim tiles" needs a reference.

 Done

• "The second exit program was created after a fire safety audit revealed several at-risk stations with only one means of access and egress from the subway platform level to the street. Some stations with only one entrance/exit are slated to receive a second means of access/egress during major overhauls such as the station modernization programs at Pape and Dufferin stations" needs a reference.

 Done

• "Construction of a second access route at Broadview station was completed in 2008, when the streetcar loop was rebuilt, and work continues on a second entrance at Castle Frank station" needs a reference.

 Done - ref for Broadway, Castle Frank removed.

• The entire "Kipling to Mississauga" section of the article needs a few references.

 Done - though I'm not sure if the list of stations is for the 2001 plans or the Dundas LRT. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reference number 16 also does not work.

 Done

• Reference number 17 does not work.

 Done

More suggestions may be added above as I continue with the review.--Dom497 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the complete list of what needs to be fixed within the article before I pass it. The article will be on hold for 7 days and nothing is changed by then, I will be forced to fail the article. If you have any questions regarding the review please feel free to post them here or on my talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we use information taken from Transit Toronto? It looks well researched and has some citations, which is unlike most blogs. For any information that has no source, it can be removed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya, Transit Toronto can be used.--Dom497 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by another editor (I was going to review it but missed my chance)

Here are some of the issues I think need addressing.

• History : "along along this route" should be "along this route" (despite suggestion above).

 Done

• "In the 1950s, there was a large debate" needs a ref because it was obviously contentious. (Filey, Mike (1996). The TTC Story. Dundurn Press. p. 111. ISBN 1-55002-244-X. includes a good discussion of the issues).

 Done

• "streetcars from Jane Street to Luttrell Avenue" needs expanding, for those who do not live in Toronto. Why is this significant? Did they run broadly parallel to the route? Is Jane Street near Jane station? Is Luttrell Avenue near another station?

 Done

• "it was determined that Toronto's mid-town area was starting to experience growth". The "it was determined that" is redundant and should be removed.

 Done

• "allowed for a reason for a subway ... to be proposed" needs reworking to make it clearer.

 Done

• "service was interlined" needs explanation. What is interlining?

 Done

• "During this opening," needs rewriting. Does it mean while the line was open, or what?

 Done

• "This solved the issue created by the stations from being a part of multiple fare zones" needs rewriting, to make it clearer. Also, ref 11 only supports the sentence before this one, and makes no mention of multiple fare zones (as far as I can see. I have read most of the document, but it is not searchable).

 Done - expanded and extra ref added.

• Stations : "Other surface and train connections are noted below." They are not.

 Done - sentence removed.

• "either by transfer or fare-paid terminal" needs explanation.

 Done - explanation added.

• Designs : "due to an arson lit fire" needs rewriting.

 Done

• I have read and re-read the third para of Designs, and cannot make sense of it. Suggest re-writing the whole para.

 Done

Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Just a note to editors that will be improving the article, please address both my and Bob1960even's suggestions.--Dom497 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A comment by yet another editor

• All the dates in the history section can and should be exact dates, and not just a year. I know I've stumbled upon Toronto Star articles for every opening when I wasn't even trying to. A Toronto Public Library Card will give you access to the back issues of the Star and Globe and Mail via the Books and Research link. Otherwise, I personally wouldn't see this as having broad coverage of the history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done

IMPORTANT: It has been 7 days and there are only a few things left to be fixed. Unfortunately, I can't give extra time and therefore, if all the above suggestions aren't fixed by 4:00 EST, I will have to fail the article. This gives you about 4 and a half hours.--Dom497 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can! "You may put an article "On Hold" for a period of time, generally one week". If there are only a handful of issues and they are actively being resolved, do not fail the article... not sure if this is connected to the GA Drive. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the only thing left on the list is explanation of "either by transfer or fare-paid terminal". I have no idea what it means, so do not know what to do with it. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, because there is only one issue left I'll give you guys a bit more time. :) --Dom497 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now tracked down the meaning of this and updated the article. All issues now addressed, I think. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article.--Dom497 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)