|
Despite having covered a lot of this at the talk page already, now I know this page exists, I shall record my complaints here for posterity, as it seems that Ritchie333 is fond of referring back to these reviews to justify his belief his efforts are good, or "Good" to use the official Wikipedia classification. I beg to disagree, and hope people will respond to these extremely specific and well thought out comments in an appropriate manner. Others have been less than diligent in that regard so far, and Ritchie himself, despite trying to convey an attitude of being willing to work with feedback to reach a consensus, has already dismissed half of these complaints as "TL;DR", and has given pretty unbelievable or entirely dismissive answers to the others. Despite his claims, I didn't stumble blindly onto his article and start hacking away at it thoughtlessly. I put lots of thought into it, it's just that he disagrees with the conclusions, and seems to genuinely think others would too, but apparently not enough to explain how or why beyond simply stating that these things were not spotted by anyone before, so they must not be issues at all. This is in stark contrast to the fact the GA reviewer, Crisco, already raised one (History placement), and one of the others (A282 mention in intro) is currently being fought over between Ritchie and others as late as yesterday. So it's quite possible other issues have been seen before as well, just not properly resolved, due to Ritchie's apparent belief he somehow has a veto as the main author. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article has "an appropriate series of headings to break up the content". The headings in this article, as well as their ordering, are entirely inappropriate:
- 1.1. Ritchie has admitted that the only reason "Charging" comes before "History" is because he believes this is the most important part for the article for readers, and they should be able to find it without reading all the other stuff. He seems to have absolutely no appreciation at all that this is not how most Wikipedia articles order their sections, with History coming first, (and I have given examples over there of similar articles which have History first), or of having a narrative ordering of history related sections, if they are spread over multiple sections. This article does neither. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think this article has to follow exactly the ordering of "all Wikipedia articles" or even "all similar Wikipedia articles"? I'd agree that "Charging" is quite an important topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been given no reason why this article should not be consistent. If this article is allowed to be a special flower for unstated (or unremarkable) reasons, then won't that inevitably spell ruin for the Garden of Standardisation? Or is the plan that all articles on Crossings and Bridges will eventually be treated this way? I suspect not. And the placement of the section here is not because it is "quite important", it is because it is the (second) most important, apparently. Or the second most requested. Or something like that, it's hard to follow the logic, because it's not really logic at all, it's blind supposition or the dubious outcome of what is claimed to be some kind of user case testing by Ritchie and his wife. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why assume he has a wife? Any editor is able to suggest improvements, just like you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I have to remind you that it will be a waste of both our time if you're going to keep asking me questions without apparently having read everything he has said to me. He has specifically referred to what he and his partner have found during research as thy go about rewriting God knows how many other articles here, using this research to support his bizarre claim that Wikipedia articles should be structured the way he wants, as opposed the the way that appears to widespread and standard. Perhaps I am wrong to assume they are married, but that hardly seems to be the most pertinent issue at hand. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.2. Despite virtually all of the other sections besides History (both before and after) being about operational aspects (traffic, safety, charges, diversions, etc), there is no over-arching "Operations" heading to bring these all together for the reader. Again, I feel this has only come about because of Ritchie's poor understanding of what an encyclopedia is for - I suspect he sees this article as some kind of motorist FAQ or highways management course material, and the presence of information like History is merely an inconvenience. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what your personal guess of Ritchie's unstated motives has to do with the way this article is structured. These seems just like another sly dig at someone you don't agree with. Having a section called "Operation" sounds quite dull. In fact it sounds like something you might see on a highways management course? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarise yourself with what he has already said. These are not my guesses, he's been open about the reasons why he structured the article this way - namely that the most important information goes at the top, to best serve casual readers, who shouldn't be inconvenienced by having to read further down than necessary. He is of the view that it is Wikipedia's role to serve at the upper end what he believes is the most common reason for readers coming to this article, namely those looking to find out how much the charge is. I don't know how I can make that sound as anything other than a dig - it's his view, and it's clearly based on nothing but his personal view, it's certainly not based on anything I have seen in any Wikipedia documentation (which explicitly says this is not what Wikipedia is for), or indeed how other articles are laid out. It's his personal, view, and he's evidently been insistent about it, because Crisco pointed it out as odd, and that is where he gave that explanation as he defended it. As for dull, I was unaware of the requirement for headings to be exciting. I await your suggestion for alternate names for all the other boring names used in it currently. Boring is good. Boring gives the reader some idea that they are reading an encyclopedia article about a road crossing, which, with the best will in the world, is not going to be the most thrilling thing they will read in their lifetime. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop telling me what to do. I don't think "boring is good", but quite happy for sections headings to be factually accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know. So can we have an opinion on how factually accurate you think the current ones are, based on what is actually in them? Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.3. Traffic congestion is one of the main reasons this crossing gets written about, and yet the section which deals with it is placed right at the bottom. How this fits with Ritchie's model of serving readers with the information they presumably want first, is lost on me. Not that everything related to congestion is even in there - for some inexplicable reason, information about diversionary routes, and even proposals for alternate crossings, is actually presented at the top, although it is placed quite misleadingly in a section called "Location". Other information that is related to the congestion issue, such as the design capacity, is also confusingly placed in "Location", which is not where anyone interested in it would be looking. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's just putting you own opinion on things. There's going to be a general expected structure and order for articles about river crossings, that a reader might expect to see? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If that last line was meant as a question, the obvious answer is yes. And no, that's not just my opinion, if you care to look, you will find lots of evidence out there that the phrase Dartford Crossing and congestion go hand in hand, both in everyday media and government/industry publications. The tariff table? Not so much. This is the difference between objective proof, and simple personal opinion. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we have to follow "everyday media" in an encyclopedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's not exactly what I said, I used everyday media as one end of the spectrum we should consult when making decisions on the relative importance of different sections, but I would hardly disagree with the premise of your reformulation. If your intent however was to suggest that while everyday media might focus on an issue like Congestion as a defining aspect of the crossing, other publications might not, that seems false to me. To prove it, we need only check the very first internet accessible reference used in the article that's not everyday media: [2] (ref. 2). There's a pretty big focus on congestion there. And History. And Construction. And "Operations"!. What's also noteworthy is that very little attention is paid to Charging systems, even though the over-arching theme is technology. It's relegated right to the bottom. As if the author believes it is of least importance. And note too, it doesn't contain information on pricing. As if the author believes there is a more appropriate place people should be going, if that is the sort of information they seek. This is yet more proof that there is a clear difference between how this article has been laid out, and how other people do it. I can't vouch for the reputation of a site like http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/, but its About section seems to indicate its primary purpose is public education. It's an encyclopedia of Dartford, basically. If this article wants to be rated "A-class", it might be worthwhile if people started to examine how that page has been laid out - taking note that the whole website appears to be the product of professional people, historians and the like, producing material that has then been put through an editorial process to produce a consistent offering to the public. Until I got involved in this mess, that is what I assumed Wikipedia was trying to emulate, albeit on a volunteer basis. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck over at the darts, Demolition Man. I'm sure you'll get it up to WP:GA status in no time. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.4. The information about proposals for alternate crossings is placed inside the section for Alternate routes, under the paragraph dealing with current diversionary routes. Again, this shows a clear lack of clarity about where to put what information - there should obviously be a dedicated sub-section for proposed relief crossings. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that obvious? It's just a different way of structuring things. I'm not sure that either is necessarily better. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clearly better. At the very least, it would clear up confusion about what Alternate Routes even means in the context of a heading in this article - Ritchie obviously wants it to refer to both diversionary routes in place right now that are used in times of closure or congestion, as well as what various options have been considered, but not yet built, as far as relief routes goes. Two sections, with clear headings, would give readers clarity and choice about what they read, something Ritchie seems keen to have - why should someone only looking for info on relief crossing have to wade through a paragraph on current diversions? Give them that choice. Have the two sections together in their own over-arching section if it is deemed their relation warrants it, but I suspect it makes more sense to have Diversions in Operations, and leave Relief Proposals to somewhere outside it. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No strong view. I see arguments for both approaches. But why not just present your arguments without using "the R word" all the time. It might help you case? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have explained already, given it is obvious that the layout and content of this article has been strongly influenced by the personal preferences of Ritchie, it's unavoidable. His thoughts and motives for doing the things he does have to be addressed here, otherwise people may be misled into thinking his positions have more support than they do, based on his vague claims that other reviewers have said nothing, so therefore these must be not be serious issues. You don't have a strong view, but he certainly does - my attempted separation of this information in the manner I outlined above, for the reasons I gave, is one of the many changes he summarily reversed, claiming it went against the views of himself and reviewers. And without any specific comment from him on each change, the only thing we have to go on is his generic explanation - that it "mixed up information so the casual reader would have to wade through the entire article to find information most useful". So there you have it, in his view, creating clarity in this specific instance, creating sections where it is immediately obvious what is in them, which is obviously exactly how you help casual readers pick and choose which sections they want, in his view actually mixed up information for casual readers not looking to read the whole thing. It makes no sense whatsoever, and I'm convinced that as soon as other people pluck up the courage to critically examine what he has done at this level of detail, they will see the benefit of my changes, or at the very least be able to come up with a coherent reason why they're not OK, which I would be totally OK with. If they don't, if they stay silent and just allow him a veto over this page for no other reason than he wrote most of it and they want a quiet life or have better things to do with their time than getting into it with him, well, as I've said, that has consequences too. It may bring you and he an element of short term peace by persuading people like me to just go away, but be in no doubt, just because I go away, doesn't mean I lose my voice or power to influence the reputation or standing of Wikipedia as a supposed encyclopedia. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.5. There is information about the crossing's strategic importance, and financial information, in the article, but these are bizarrely tucked away under section headings that have nothing to do with the information. People looking for information like this, which is eminently encyclopedic, have no choice but to read the entire thing, yet Ritchie seems to think people looking for the price table should not be similarly inconvenienced. Again, this is clear evidence that no real thought has gone into what should go where or why. It is frankly amazing that Ritchie is fine with most readers not getting to the end of the article, where they will find extremely important information, such as "The crossing is the busiest in the United Kingdom". It beggars belief that anyone could think this was an appropriate way to break up this content. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to see "The crossing is the busiest in the United Kingdom" in the lead. But you don't specifically say what the other problems are that "beggar belief". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised it isn't there already, in a "Good Article". I thought it was very clear. It beggars belief that someone thinks putting financial information and a description of strategic importance in the sections they are in currently, given the headings give no indication that's where you would find it (Location and Traffic). It beggars belief there is even a section on "Traffic" when somehow it doesn't contain the sections on Congestion (a traffic problem) or Diversionary routes (traffic management), while actually containing stuff like the total income of the crossing (something readers might expect to find in either one of the sections named Charging, given the current article has no heading at all for Finances or suchlike). It's a convoluted and ill-thought out mess, that seems to all stem from the initial problem of not properly grouping information according to subject and position in the overall layout. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead says "it is the busiest estuarial crossing in the United Kingdom"? Ah, more beggars, I see. Perhaps they could help the vagrants? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your point? If the introduction says it's the busiest esturial crossing, and at the bottom it merely says busiest crossing, then clearly someone has screwed up, and either the use of the word esturial there is supposed to be significant (and I can't check, as the esturial version is cited to book), or this is simply a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing (assuming the sentences come from different people), or worse. Whichever possibility is the truth, for such an important and defining claim, this should be a real warning sign to anyone considering raising this article's rating from "Good" to "A-class". The latter rather implies something close to perfection, no? It's arguable this sort of thing means it is not even "Good", but I don't yet have enough experience with this place to know how bad a "Good" article is likely to be, on average. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article should be "well-written, reasonably clear". There are numerous examples that this is not the case here. The text is repetitive, but also disjointed. Information like its geographic positioning is spread across multiple sections (only one east of Greater London, and easternmost road crossing of the Thames). Similarly with information about design capacity - two sentences on this are placed miles away from each other, despite essentially conveying the same info (that it has been exceeded, resulting in congestion). Diversions and closures due to high winds is mentioned in multiple places all over the article (presumably because there is no Operations section where stuff like this would be logically grouped). There are numerous examples of pointless redundancy, which seem to only exist because of Ritchie's confused view of how the article should be laid out. The only reason the Charges section explains that the ANPR system was introduced in April 2016, is because he is assuming most readers won't then get beyond that, to the History section. Which of course has to repeat that fact, because that is precisely what History sections are for. He's not even been consistent with his own logic though - it's clarified in the very first section that the road is not under motorway restrictions, so why is the very last section, congestion, mentioning it in a way that seems like it's meant to be the first time the reader learns of it? If including the introduction, this will be the third time it has been mentioned, which is a complete waste of words. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You think "Diversions and closures due to high winds is mentioned in multiple places all over the article?" I see it mention in just three places, all perfectly well justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Three places is not multiple now? I see no justification for it. The way this information is scattered around all over the place, it's almost like someone is trying to make some point, and indeed in one instance the point being made is rather clear - the bridge was designed to be wind resilient, and yet it is not, therefore diversions due to wind is a feature of the operation of the crossing, which of course contributes to the congestion issue, and has a particular impact on high sided vehicles due to the lack of diversionary routes inside London. As fundamental as conveying that info is to helping a reader learn about the crossing, it's is not information that would end up scattered around in bits and pieces around the article, if the task performed by the writer was grouping related information together so readers are not needlessly confused by their poor writing and muddled sense of organisation. Like an A-class article is supposed to do. I would even say it deserves it's own sub-section, under Operation, but that would obviously be a problem for someone who thinks the lack of pizazz in that name means there cannot be one. Under the current model, Ritchie's and his wife's personal preference, of serving casual readers with their desired info near the top, and leaving the geeky stuff to the bottom, rather than coming across as a fundamental issue, this wind related feature/flaw is relegated to the status of stuff only ubergeeks need to know (ubergeeks supposedly being the only people who take the time to read the whole article, then reconstructing the disparate bits of info about stuff like this inside their short term memory, to produce a coherent whole). Which is ridiculous. And again, I'm not putting words in Ritchie's mouth here, he's talked in these terms to justify the layout ("technical mumbo jumbo" and "we put information that is useful for casual readers first, then put the in-depth stuff at the bottom.". Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it as a problem. But your point seems to be "group all information about diversions and closures due to high winds" in its own sub-section. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. That is the sort of clarity an "A-class" rating calls for, no? Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm not sure where the Highways project stands on this as far as A-class ratings go, but reading Wikipedia's 5P page, which explains what Wikipedia is not, it seems beyond obvious that inclusion of a tariff table is completely inappropriate (in stark contrast to Ritchie's apparent view that this is the most important part of the article). It is not Wikipedia's job to be assisting users of this crossing in this manner, it is not a FAQ or a travel guide. It is sufficient for an encyclopedia to simply note that the charging scheme employs things like vehicle type bands and local user schemes. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a toll table in Second Severn Crossing. Why is it "completely inappropriate"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, the problem with including toll rates on toll roads when there is more than one toll plaza is that they are difficult to maintain and keep current. There are dozens of articles about U.S. highways that include tolls that demonstrate how not to include tolls. It's simply not the case here; it's just a singular charge for the crossing. –Fredddie™ 21:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. We have "flowerguild" and "youthmin" as parameters in Template:infobox church when we can barely keep up with "priest". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relatively simple to include the price of entry to my local cinema (which has a Wikipedia page - not just the chain, but the actual building too). That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it, or in any way meets the definition of an encylopedia. I'm not going to repeat what was already a pretty comprehensive explanation of its inappropriateness for Wikipedia. If it's done on other toll road articles here but only as long as it's ones where it's easy to do, then maybe the entire field of roads is the outlier (but I am unconvinced even of that), because I'm thinking there will be no other class of article here where Wikipedia is turned into some kind of consumer price service/FAQ/guide just because it is possible to put the current price of something into the article about that something. I also note with some amusement that the Tolls section in that article is positioned near the bottom, well below several sections which are clearly intended to serve as a narrative history, just like I described above as the seemingly standard approach, when there is no single History section, but which people are objecting to here. There is definitely a standard layout on Wikipedia and it applies even to this subject area. Those seeking to deny this basic reality should really start thinking about whether this is a sustainable position, as I think it's only going to become more obvious each time someone mentions another article by way of demonstrating support for another issue, as happened here. Also, note the Tolls info is not placed in a single section, it's placed as a sub-section of Finances, and grouped alongside a historical table and governance info, because it is clear someone put some thought into putting that information into encyclopedic context (and arguably the progression of the toll is more encyclopedic than its current level) and grouping related information together, just as an A-class article should do. Unlike this one. I hope people are not now going to go over and mess with that article's layout just to validate the mess of this article, but I note Ritchie has said he's going to do just that on Blackwall Crossing, so maybe that's a thing here. I prefer working to a standardised model and ensuring each thing matches it, but who knows what the Wikipedia process is. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that cinemas and major road crossings are necessarily comparable. Do you want the toll information removed or do you want it in a different place? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So what would you compare it to? Pick any other comparable class of purchasable commodity, and I am quite sure that there will be no present day pricing information in the associated Wikipedia article. Even if we pick an article on Wikipedia that is specifically about a traffic charge, the London congestion charge, where therefore it would be quite ridiculous to argue that the amount of the charge was irrelevant, even then it is not given as much prominence as it is here. It is also included only as part of a thematic section dealing with the entire issue of "Present scheme", in contrast to here, where it is presented as standalone 'this is the current charge' section (i.e., read below if you want to know more about the crossing, which we doubt, but hey, whatever). The tariff table obviously has to go, but I would not be averse to the same info being here if it was presented in the way it is in some other articles, i.e. as part of a documentation of the historical progression of the tolls/charges, either as a table or a graph. And definitely it has to go after History, ideally in an Operations section, being the closest analogy to "Present scheme" (or above, if people agree the entire subject of present operations is more important than History, which I doubt they would). The people coming here only for the current price can then figure it out by going to the relevant section and looking at the last data point in the table/graph. You know, as if this was an encyclopedia whose primary purpose is to impart historical information, not a FAQ aiming to serve up transient 'guide' style info. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article has "a well-written introduction". This article's introduction omits the basic fact that the crossing and its approaches are an A-road (the A282), not a motorway. All it contains on this issue is the sentence "The crossing, despite not being under motorway restrictions, is part of the M25 motorway's route", which is obviously misleading, as readers will understandably be asking themselves how a motorway route cannot be under motorway restrictions. The answer of course is that it's not a section of motorway, and that any and all mentions of it being "part of the M25" elsewhere, are merely imprecise (but perfectly understandable to the layman) explanations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not for the layman, its wording is supposed to be precise on matters of basic and obvious fact like this. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You think the A282 is just like any other A-road here? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see your point. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarion Collar: I would suggest that you focus your comments more on the article, and not the editor - your ideas might be better received if you do so. --Rschen7754 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear you, but that's quite hard to do when so many of the article's problems are tied up with the views of that one editor (who claims to have written most of it) and what he claims other editors think about his work, or rather what they don't take issue with (which in at least one case is false). If he changes his approach and starts defending the article based only on objective reality, rather than framing everything as being about his personal views and what others think of his work, then maybe we can start discussing the article in isolation. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
