Talk:A74 road/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 09:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

---

My review philosophy is to include suggestions for improvements that exceed a strict reading of the GA criteria; however, in most cases this is in the hopes of making the article truly "good". The final decision to list or not list the article will be based on the criteria, but I do recommend at least taking account of the other items as suggested avenues of improvement.

There are three disambiguation links present in the article, but all external links appear to be ok.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • • The prose is pretty good, but there are improvements to be made, as listed below.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • • I have some specific comments on the formatting of the references listed below.
3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • • I have unanswered questions in reading the article. See below for detailed commentary. Also, I would suggest that some format of junction list be added as a "major aspect" of the subject of a roadway is the junctions along it.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   • • All of the photos used in article have appropriate licenses. It's a shame that there isn't a photo of the roadway still numbered as the A74, as that would be a better lead photo for the infobox.

       Captions that aren't full sentences should not have any terminal punctuation.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • • With the exception of the expansion of the "Current route" section into a fuller description of that route and the addition of some type of junction list, most of the comments here are minor formatting and grammatical fixes. I believe that these can be fixed in the standard period, so I'm placing the nomination on hold for seven days to complete updates to the article. Imzadi 1979 → 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've read through all the comments and have some further questions :

Lead and infobox comments

• How long is this road?
  • This Engineering Times source suggests the road as completed by Telford was 18+21+111km ie: 150km or about 93.2 miles. Is that what you were looking for? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• When was the A74 designation applied to it? This could/should be in the infobox, either as the |established= or part of a succinct summary entered into |history= like Interstate 496.
  • I think U.S. Route 91 is a better example - a formerly significant route that has been substantially downgraded. The trouble is, I'm not sure which source to go for - we could choose from 1825 (Telford's route finished), 1921 (designation of road numbers established), 1923 (first map published) or 1936 (rerouting onto the current alleged stub) - what do you suggest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, looking at the US 91 example, the infobox there lists the 1926 commissioning date of the highway designation. In this case, I'd probably suggest listing the date or year that the A74 designation was created given the article's title. As a counterpoint, you may want to consider how M-1 (Michigan highway) is formatted because that case is somewhat similar. What is now M-1 in the Detroit area originated in 1805 as Woodward Avenue before being given the M-10 then US 10 and finally the M-1 designations. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• The lead gives a good summary of the history, but it doesn't give a good summary of the current state of the roadway, which as I will elaborate in the next section of my comments, is quite missing in total from the whole article.

Current route

• For what is supposed to be a 7.1-mile-long (11.4 km) road designation, I would have expected more than three sentences to describe the route of the roadway.
• A good route description for a road, whether the section is formally titled that or not, should describe what the landscape or environment around the road is like. It should also describe the other physical attributes about the subject roadway.
  • Is it urbanized? suburban? rural? If it's rural, is the landscape farms, forests, lakes or deserts? What landmarks are on the route of the road?
  • How many lanes compose the modern remnant of the A74? Are they divided into a dual carriageway or are they a single carriageway?
  • If it runs through towns, does the A74 have any local street names?
  • If appropriate, are there any traffic counts that could be cited to give the reader an idea of how many motorists use the road? This is more optional than the physical attributes of the road and its routing, but still a decent possibiilty to include.
• For 7.1 miles, I guess I would expect to see a good paragraph at least. The level of detail on a route description scales with the length of the overall roadway being described; for shorter roads, more detail is included where with longer highways, the article will gloss over the finer points.
  • There are several problems here. Firstly, what reliable source exists to verify the current route is 7.1 miles? Secondly, there is evidence, albeit currently circumstantial, that since the completion of the M74 extension to the south of Glasgow, that the A74 does not exist at all (which is what I was discussing with FM further up the talk page). Have a look at this Google Streetview Link] - the sign says "City Centre" (with no number). Now look at this link in the other direction, where the sign says "Parkhead A721". No mention of A74. That's why I made a key point of saying "according to contemporary Ordnance Survey mapping" - according to other sources, the road is completely defunct.
  • My sense is that the A74 might no longer exist and map makers haven't caught up. I don't think this section of the road is notable because it does not contain sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and describing any detail is not following due weight. However, I do see merit in describing some of the features the old road used to have, such as the at-grade turnings and bus stops along the Beattock Summit section in the 1960s/70s - just need a source for them. What further action would you suggest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • For former highway designations in Michigan, such as U.S. Route 16 in Michigan, I've followed what has become the more common method to handle this. Namely, the route description details the last official routing of the highway before the designation was retired/deleted/decommissioned/<insert your favorite term here>. That's certainly a concept that could be used here: where was the A74 before the designation was discontinued? How long was it at the time the number was removed from the road network? Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

History comments

• "Glasgow - Carlisle" should really be rendered "Glasgow–Carlisle" with an en dash (–) and no spaces.
• "In 1935, the road was diverted away from Telford's route to run from Glasgow to Motherwell via Uddingston - it is a portion of this realignment that forms the modern A74 route within Glasgow." That hyphen should be either a spaced en dash (–) or an em dash (—) per MOS:DASH.
• "the London - Carlisle - Glasgow - Inverness trunk road" should have unspaced en dashes for the same reason as the first bullet point above. I know, it's picky stuff...
• "a 4½ mile section" should be updated to include a conversion. Using a {{convert|4+1/2|mi|km|adj=on}} section would produce "a 4+1⁄2-mile (7.2 km) section".
• "Cumberland Gap" looks very odd to me, as a matter of formatting. The quotation marks don't seem appropriate as they appear to be scare quotes. Normally, I would only put a name in italics when there is a use–mention distinction at work; in that case either italics or quotation marks are appropriate, but not both. In this case, I don't think either is needed at all.
  • I have removed all quotes except the first instance in the lead. I thought this was a neologism (it's not the Cumberland Gap), but when I saw an MP refer to the term in a BBC news item, I decided it was well known enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• "When the M6 was complete around Carlisle in 1971[22], a new 4.5 miles (7.2 km) section" needs the adjectival form of the measurement (4.5-mile) instead of the plain version.
  • Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The measurement here is an adjective in this case, describing the word "section". Instead of saying its "a new 4.5 miles section" (conversion omitted), it's rather "a new 4.5-mile section". The conversion needs |adj=on added to it to switch between the forms to make this a compound adjective. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• This is slightly tricky, but in the quotation: "We are very disappointed indeed by this part of the programme revision. This will mean that for now and many years, road users will face a six-mile dual carriageway between an excellent Scottish motorway and before the road widens for the existing M6.", I would insert the conversion in square brackets like "a six-mile [9.6 km] dual carriageway". I'm not sure if {{convert/spell}} supports the options like {{convert}} to use the brackets, so I'd just manually insert the appropriate conversion.
  • I'm not sure this is a good idea. Firstly, this is a direct quotation, and I think what you've suggested violates WP:MOSQUOTE. Secondly, the "six miles" is not as accurate as the 5.8 miles stated earlier in this section to another source (which does have a conversion)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, it doesn't violate the MOS. That guideline refers to Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting, which says

      If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details), and emphasis noted after the quotation as "[emphasis added]" or "[emphasis in the original]".

      That says that we can insert added text so long as it is enclosed in square brackets, and for consistency with the rest of the article, I would recommend inserting the conversion since all other measurements have conversions. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• "On 1 July 1999, following devolution ..." maybe you could wikilink "devolution". I know the meaning of the term, and the significance of the process, but other readers may not.
  • Yes, this is a good idea - I've done with History of Scottish devolution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• "work around 2005-06" another case for an en dash.

Safety and accidents

• I would insert conversions for the various speed limits mentioned in the prose.
  • How do you do this without messing up the nbsp in the text? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Use the {{convert}} template which can handle this. If you use {{convert|60|mph|km/h|abbr=on}} (note the |abbr=on to turn on abbreviations}}, you'll get 60 mph (97 km/h); without the additional parameter it comes out as 60 miles per hour (97 km/h). Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• "10 passengers travelling in the coach were killed, including the driver, and 20 were seriously injured." Can we recast the sentence to avoid starting it with a number in numeral form?

References

• I would suggest, for consistency, that the citations to maps be reformatted using {{cite map}} instead of {{cite web}}. That way, the cartography information can be included. This ties into ...
• The first footnote is to a map hosted by SABRE. Ordinarily, the knee-jerk reaction would be to state that the source needs to be replaced per the policies and guidelines on self-published sources. However, in this case, I see it as a bit like the old oil company maps in the US where the publisher isn't as important as the cartographer. SABRE is the publisher of the map, yes, but the Ordnance Survey is the cartographer, lending the reliability needed to retain the source. This would look something like:
  • A74 (Streetview Overlay) (Map). Cartography by Ordnance Survey. SABRE. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
  • Regarding the OS map cited in footnote 14, the |scale= |series= and |at=Sheet 71 parameters may be of use to help reformat the citation as well.
  • I've swapped these over to use {{cite map}}. I don't think there's any need to credit SABRE in the cite, it's just an easy place to verify the map. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Footnotes 2 and 28 are showing an error for me. I have the optional CSS activated to display additional citation template errors, and this may be one of those additional errors that's currently hidden from most readers and editors. Both footnotes have |accessdate= defined without a corresponding |url=.
• There is an inconsistency over whether authors are listed in "Last, First" or "First Last" order. I would revise them to the same format for consistency. The various citation templates have |authorlink= as an option specify the target of a link while using |first= |last= to input the names.
  • I have gone with Last, First as it's what I generally use in book sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Footnote 10 has "TRUNK ROADS BILL" as the title, and per MOS:CAPS that should be reduced from ALL Caps to either Title Case or Sentence case to match the rest of the foonotes.
  • Interesting one this - the title in the source given was all caps, so I reproduced it verbatim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • MOS:ALLCAPS does say, "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to sentence case or title case. For example, replace the headline 'WAR BEGINS TODAY' with 'War begins today' or 'War Begins Today'." The New York Times regularly makes this change when they archive articles, but not all such archives follow the practice. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Also with footnote 10 and others like it, Hansard should be in italics as the |work= and not the |publisher=. Its current publisher, which isn't really necessary to list, would be Parliament. It's actually a journal, and it would be nice to include the volume and page references to complete the references.
  • I didn't know Hansard had these - AFAIK it's organised by date, then by session name. Can you give me an example? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Several of the footnotes list the National Archives as the publisher, when in fact, it is a republisher. Ideally, we should be referencing the original publication information, not the information for the republisher alone.
• Footnote 25 should put The Herald in italics, and it really should specify the place of publication ( |location= ) as there are at least a half dozen publications by that name alone, two of which are in the UK.
• Footnote 27 lacks the reference to the Hansard.
• Foonotes 32 and 33 duplicate each other, so it should be possible to merge them together.
• The Daily Mail is another case where the publication name has been used as the publisher in the template, which renders it without italics.

Aside from comments mentioned above, I think everything else has been done, if you'd just like to check. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've done another copyedit this morning, and as far as I can see, there are these outstanding issues:

• The description of the route covers the historical course as classified in 1923. I've gone with this because it was the longest tenture of the route (even more so when accounting for it existing as a major road nearly 100 years previously), and, as far as I can tell, every source refers to either this route or an incident along it. I've tried to include landmarks that are directly supported by sources, and what would interest a layman reader, not one who particularly cares about roads. Indeed, the two main areas of importance stemming from the sources, and what the article should focus on, are the historically significant build by Telford and its notorious accident record. (FWIW, from my conversation with friends working in the highways industry and the commercial vehicle trade, their opinion on the A74 has been generally negative, with several of them being able to personally cite a fatal RTA that they witness).
• I've added an old OS map showing the basic original route, and taken a list of destinations from an official Ministry of Transport list.
• I used U.S. Route 16 in Michigan as a general template for the infobox. One of the problems is that road talks about junctions, which just aren't significant or important in the context of this article - the ICE report or the DGNHAS book both discuss bridge spans and toll houses in some depth, but not a single junction with another road is mentioned.
• There's a small neutral point of view problem with describing the route - the MOT and DGNHAS sources describe things from Carlisle to Glasgow, while the ICE source discusses them the other way round. I would imagine whether you describe it as Carlisle - Glasgow or Glasgow - Carlisle depends on whether you're English or Scottish. To compromise on this, I've left the historical route title as "Glasgow - Carlisle Road" but described the route from Carlisle to Glasgow, as appears to be substantiated by the majority of sources. Further advice here would be welcome.
• Regarding the quote, the further question I have here regarding an inline conversion is that the quote refers verbatim as "six", not "6", miles. So adding an inline numeric conversion to km would result in a words / numbers mismatch. How do we handle this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I just got off work here, and I head back in less than eight hours, so I have just enough time at the moment to pop in a couple of quick replies. For the quote, we already get the word–number "mismatch" when we convert things like "six miles (9.7 km)" using {{convert/spell}} as it is now. That's not actually considered an issue.

    Based on your description of things, I don't see any issue with how you've handled items you've described. Just a personal quirk, but I prefer to use a comma delimited list of locations, or in this case primary destinations, for infoboxes just to keep the length of the box down. Imzadi 1979 → 11:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article, everything seems to be in order to meet the minimum requirements for listing as a GA. I still think some sort of junction list is a "major aspect" of the coverage of an article on an individual roadway, so that is something that should be investigated at some point.

The only quick thing I see that's outside of a literal reading of the criteria is that the various maps are missing titles in their footnotes, which means the bare URLs are exposed. That's rather untidy for formatting when the other footnotes link the titles to the URL. Another piece of untidiness with the footnotes is the repeated wikilinking to the article on the Hansard; it should only be necessary to wikilink the title in the very first footnote that references it. In this case, footnote 14 could retain the link while all of the others would drop the link. Imzadi 1979 → 08:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not the reviewer, but regarding the direction of descriptions: in the US, we tend to describe things from south to north or from west to east, unless there is some overriding reason for not doing so, because that is the direction mileposts typically run. I would suggest following the direction of mileposts/junction numbers, if there's a standard direction they follow in the UK. This makes the numbers increase from the beginning of the article toward the end, which is pleasing to the eye. If there is not a standard for this, it may be worth considering adopting west to east or south to north as an arbitrary convention just for the sake of picking one or the other, with the side effect of matching a wide body of other articles. Ultimately the best thing to do would be to consult with UKRD to establish a consistent rule to apply to all articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Western Australia uses the "running away from Perth" convention as consistently as possible, so that is another idea. Imzadi 1979 → 09:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so what have we got left to do on this?

• I have put titles on the {{cite map}} tags, so things look a bit more readable.
• Directions - in the US, things are described N-S / E-W (federal highways) or S-N / W-E (interstates) because it uses a grid-based numbering system. Convention from the Ministry of Transport (as was) and Department of Transport (as is now) is to describe as radiating from London (for roads starting with 1 - 6 inclusive) or Edinburgh (7 - 9). However, a road can also be politically sensitive if it crosses a border, as to whether you consider it more important to mention England or Scotland first. In sources I consulted, Glasgow - Carlisle and Carlisle - Glasgow appeared in about equal measures, probably depending on which country the author favoured.
• Mileposts - the Milestone Society are the experts to ask. As you may be aware, some mile stones in Britain date back to Roman times. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, I missed the last edit to this page on my watchlist when it was made. I'm still waiting on a yay or nay on a junction list, or some equivalent. (Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive uses a list of the "points of interest" numbered and marked by the National Park Service, for example, in place of a junction list.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I think the longest wait I've had on a GA is about five months. As far as a junction list goes, well my take is it can't have escaped your attention there's a major arbcom case involving infoboxes going on at the moment. With that in mind, I think it's probably best to leave it be for the time being until the decisions of that case have been reached. Somebody else might be able to do a better job on it anyway. Fundamentally, I can see consensus that the GA criteria have been met, so are we in a position to close this down? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between infoboxes and a junction list. The latter, in the case of road articles, is normally considered a "main aspect" of the presentation and information about a road, while the former is a summary of information about a subject in a box in the lead of an article. Resolution of this sticking point, not the unrelated ArbCom case, will be necessary to close this review. Imzadi 1979 → 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the Arbitration Committee can only decide on conduct issues; it cannot decide on content issues; thus waiting on the Infoboxes case to close is not likely to produce a worthwhile result for this reason also. --Rschen7754 18:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A comment, but you have the US situation wrong: all of our articles are described south-to-north or west-to-east. There are no "federal highways" here really other than National Forest roads and some National Park roads; if you meant US Highways, they are just as much under state control as the Interstates and regular state highways, and they're done in the same milepost order as the rest of the highways in this country. (Of course we have some oddballs and exceptions, but they don't disprove the general rule.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)