Wikipedia:Peer review/A1 in London/archive1

A1 in London

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'm considering taking this to Featured Article status. I think the content, structure and research are OK, so would mainly like attention paid to formatting (particularly of citations) and of prose, as those tend to be the areas that FA reviewers pay most attention. But any general comments are most welcome in how to improve the article.

Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think WP:HWY/ACR would be a better venue to prepare for FAC... out at the roads projects we have 55 FAs (in the US and Canada), so there's an experienced pool of reviewers. That being said, this article has no junction list, which just about every road FA has, and that's a serious problem. --Rs chen 7754 21:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. How does the junction list you mention fit into the FA criteria? If I recall there was some kind of list of junctions on the article, but that was removed either before or during the GA review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the A List criteria? I just looked, and couldn't find it. I'd like to be able to check that the article meets the criteria before nominating it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worthwhile going through the A listing review process. Though I don't think it would be appropriate to go though that at the same time as a Peer Review, so I'll wait until this closes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would fall under "comprehensive", as by precedent Wikipedia through the FAC process has set the comprehensive standard for road articles as having a junction list - since over 50 road article FAs have them, it would reasonably be expected that this one would as well. MOS:RJL is the relevant page, but notably there has been some disagreement on how that is to be implemented in the UK. HWY has no "defined" A-Class standard as we use WP:1.0/A, but informally the standard is "would this have a decent chance of passing at FA?" It's really a chance to have people pick the article apart in a more friendly environment so that it doesn't happen at FAC. --Rs chen 7754 22:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has a Route section which describes the route through London and mentions significant junctions along the way. That appears to me to meet comprehensive. I value your opinion on this as you have taken road articles to FA, but I don't see how not duplicating information in an infobox is failing the FA criteria for comprehensive. What am I misunderstanding? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to the idea of a such an infobox, as I understand that some people find them useful, it's just that I don't see the connection you do. I understand if you say that you have an idealogical preference for such a box, and would encourage their use, but you are not saying that - you are saying this article would actually fail FA because it doesn't have such a boxed list. That baffles me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a duplication of the route description - it provides mileages and locations of exits as well as exit numbers that may not be specified in the route description (and quite frankly should not be, since that would make the route description boring). California State Route 52 has an example. It would fail the comprehensive criterion since having one of those tables is what is expected of a road article at FA. FA does not have subject-specific criteria; all it says is "comprehensive". But editors in each subject area form a consensus as to what "comprehensive" means. I'm asking one of my colleagues to explain it better. --Rs chen 7754 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent exception of Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, which is an article on a system of roads instead an individual road, all recent highway articles that have been promoted at FAC going back to about 2008 have a junction or exit list table of some sort. Failure to include one would be quite a gap in the coverage of the article in terms of content.

The tables are more than just distilling a description of the route of a road into a tabular format. They provide pertinent data on the locations and details of the individual junctions along a roadway. The distances provide the reader with the ability to gauge how closely spaced the junctions are. They condense other details, like access restrictions at specific junctions, specific destinations for each junction, etc, into the table so that the prose route description isn't a tedious and boring wall of words. Otherwise, the prose would end up becoming a bullet point list, even without resorting to bullet points, that rattles off each junction and its appropriate distance point. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what you are saying, the important data you feel is not contained is data by which a reader can make calculations regarding how far apart certain major junctions are. Is that right? And why would the general reader wish to know that? If it's not in a reliable source, then why am I including it? I have read a lot of sources on the route in London, and I don't think I have come upon that information. If I find it, then it could be included in prose, explaining its significance for the reader in the article, otherwise it appears to be data for its own sake, and rather close to simple stats and even original research which by consensus we frown upon. I am not opposed to infoboxes, nor to including important information - it's just that this insistence on this particular infobox, and the reasons given so far, don't make sense to me. This is not a planned motorway with planned exits. This is an ancient evolved route which crosses over other routes, both modern and ancient. What significance or importance are you suggesting can be derived from junction distances, that can't be explained better in prose in the main body of the article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that then the route description basically becomes "Route 2 encounters its first exit, exit 1, at 23.33 km (323.23 mi); that exit provides access to London. Five miles later, exit 2 at 34.4434 km (223.23 mi) leads to Paris" ... which is bad writing and is incredibly tedious. And the information is readily available - in the US we use government documents or GIS information, and if it is not available, then Google Maps can be used (though adjustments to precision need to be made). --Rs chen 7754 09:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear. Sorry. Why would readers wish to know the distance between two junctions? If the distance was in itself important, then a reliable source would contain that information with the reason for it being mentioned, and that should be included in prose in the main body - that is, the reason for mentioning the distance, not just the distance itself.

I am unclear on why information for which there is no reliable source, and which is so trivial that including it in the main body would be considered bad writing, is considered so vital when presented in an infobox.

I am not, I hasten to add, advocating including the distance from junction to junction either in prose or in the infobox, if is unencyclopedic and/or unsourced; so I am not suggesting that the distances are by default included either in prose or infobox. I am suggesting that a good article summarizes reliable sources, and does not add unnecessary additional detail, especially if unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork ... I'd personally ignore all the above advice, as those who have given it are demonstrating a US-centric bias and don't seem to appreciate that this road in question evolved from a 17th century coaching route, which in turn derives from the Roman network of British roads, and hence a "junction list" makes no sense (unless you want to list every side road on Aldersgate Street and Upper Street, current and past!) For a FAC quality article, you need to cover the entire history of this route from pre-Roman times to the present where relevant and not leave the reader wanting anything else. I will give you a hand in whatever fact checking and accuracy you require, though my time is limited. I would personally recommend dropping a note on Eric Corbett's talk page, as what he doesn't know about getting an article through FAC isn't worth knowing about, and he's been very helpful with me and others in getting articles up to GA / FA standard. Best of luck, in any case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then my "US-centric bias" must be warped because Interstate 96 is the modern descendent of Native Amercian trails that were overlaid with a territorial-era wagon trail used by settlers before Michigan became a state. After that, the road was converted into a state highway, the a US Highway, and then the corridor was repurposed as an Interstate Highway. Maybe U.S. Route 2 in Michigan, which was also a Native American trail converted to a state highway and the US Highway before a section was repurposed as an Interstate Highway just further illustrates that I need to be indoctrinated in this bias again. Both of those roads have FA-quality articles, with junction lists. Imzadi 1979 → 14:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And lest this "junction list = US bias" meme take hold, I should note that D21 road (Croatia) is at ACR with just a list. A1 (Croatia) was brought to FAC with such a list as well. The Aussies use them, based on a look at Mitchell Freeway (recently at ACR) and Kwinana Freeway (currently at ACR). The Canadians use them as well, with Ontario Highway 401 and Don Valley Parkway both FAs with such lists. There's no accusations of original research on the part of the Croatians, Aussies or Canadians to compile them for our readers. Imzadi 1979 → 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a very good analogy. I'm afraid - you're comparing a road in the middle of nowhere to a major coaching route in a large city. I think we need some other points of view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 96 connects the largest and second-largest cities in the state with its capital. If you want something that's a major road within one urban area, you have Capitol Loop in Lansing, Interstate 696 within Detroit's suburbs, and a pair of business loops in the Upper Peninsula: M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) and U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan). All are FAs, and all have junction or exit lists. Imzadi 1979 → 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted. Now, to help us on this article, please could you design an appropriate junction list for this road? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, when I first surveyed the entirety of WP:HWY in March 2010, I found junction lists all over the place, so this "American" bias is demonstrably false: [1] --Rs chen 7754 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you haven't understood what I meant. The problem here is that junctions in other countries are numbered in terms of mileage, while in this specific case, the A1 / A1(M) does not start numbering until junction 1 with the M25 at South Mimms outside of the Greater London boundary. There are a few junctions such as Henleys, Apex and Staples Corners, but in these instances, I would argue their notability is much more geared towards their regular appearance on travel reports due to congestion, and my sense is their appropriate appearances in the article give the reader the appropriate knowledge. Additionally, there is nothing unusual in some other countries regarding taking an historical track and overlaying a full modern highway with the relevant features in it - that simply does not and would not happen in central London, as even in the 1960s, where schemes such as the Archway and Barnet Bypass improvements were unpopular with residents and drew strong criticism. So I'm afraid you're not really comparing like with like. However, if you can find the relevant junction data to add, and you believe it would improve the article and get it through the FAC process, I think we would very much welcome this input. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem here is that junctions in other countries are numbered in terms of mileage, while in this specific case, the A1 / A1(M) does not start numbering until junction 1 with the M25 at South Mimms outside of the Greater London boundary." - Plenty of road systems have very bizarre numbering conventions; New York is not numbered in terms of mileage, for example. Red herring.

"and my sense is their appropriate appearances in the article give the reader the appropriate knowledge" - no, there's still missing information, and the visual format is quite helpful.

"Additionally, there is nothing unusual in some other countries regarding taking an historical track and overlaying a full modern highway with the relevant features in it" - so what? I don't see how that excuses this article from having a junction list.

"However, if you can find the relevant junction data to add, and you believe it would improve the article and get it through the FAC process, I think we would very much welcome this input." - there you go again with the "You MUST work on our articles to gain any right to have any input!" WP:OWN and all that. --Rs chen 7754 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted some factual inaccuracies with the proposed M1 Junction 3 - A1 link over Scratchwood Open Space. The article implied it would connect to Apex Corner, but in fact it was proposed to connect at Stirling Corner, the next roundabout up. I've rejigged this bit of the article and added two sources from Hansard dated 1989 and 1994, which might imply the project was finally scrapped by New Labour's "Roads to Prosperity" scheme in 1997 - though I know the Conservative government were cancelling schemes before this. I think for a FAC quality article, we need to get the dates exactly right. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont)

Thanks for that. I think the weakest part of the article is the section of the route going through Barnet. This is the modern section (1930s onward), and there is less available information on it, added to which there is little to say about that part of the route, other than it exists. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who made a comment. I'll close this now, and discuss with Ritchie333 at what needs to be done before nominating for FA. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]