Talk:Gloucester Services

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gloucestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gloucestershire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GloucestershireWikipedia:WikiProject GloucestershireTemplate:WikiProject GloucestershireWikiProject Gloucestershire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Construction is Underway (Apr 2013)

"On 6th March 2013, construction work began on the northbound side. Westmorland have said that they hope to have the northbound side open sometime in 2014." Source: http://motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/Gloucestershire_Gateway As I drive past this area twice a day, I can confirm that construction is under way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.24.220.152 (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy up

I've tidied this page up a bit - added the infobox and some neutral news references including the latest planning judgement. I'm not involved with any concerned party, so if you think it meets NPOV, feel free to remove the banner. --Lemoncurd (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits, thanks! Just one thing I'm concerned about is the source you added for the "local food" claim which was requiring citation. The source you've provided is the applicant themselves. This is not a good source - see WP:SELFPUB, especially relevant is point 1. As such, I am removing that reference and putting a citation needed tag there once more. Alex McKee (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The sources for this article are the website of the organisation proposing the construction of these services and are therefore not good sources. It would be better to use the Gloucester Citizen or other local newspapers. In the case of the Citizen this is often cut+paste copies of the press releases anyway but it would still be preferable as per WP:SOURCES Alex McKee (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth looking at this webpage which has already collated various bits of information. NotJohnny (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good source per WP:SOURCES Alex McKee (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

This proposed motorway service area is controversial yet there is currently no mention of this. In order to maintain NPOV we should try to incorporate some material from the opposition organisation, CAMSA. Full disclosure: I am involved with CAMSA myself. Alex McKee (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highways Agency

Yesterday I added a "Highways Agency" section to the article for grouping together some good quality information relating to the actual Highways Agency/DfT guidance. Lemoncurd renamed this heading "Government MSA Strategy". I am not sure that is a very good title. The reason I used "Highways Agency" is because that is the organisation most often cited and the organisation whose advice to Stroud District Council was relied upon greatly by their development control committee in forming their decision to grant permission.

It is also a more precise title than "Government MSA Strategy". It is the HA that is the statutory agency for motorways and trunk roads, it is their policies which are being cited by both the pro- and anti-MSA groups and individuals. I would like to change it back to Highways Agency or some variant thereof (Highways Agency strategy, perhaps). Are there any objections to this? Alex McKee (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's semantics really, but a section title is supposed to encompass what the section discusses. As it mentions input from a government department (the DfT) AND an executive of that department (the HA), I felt that this covered more than just the Highways Agency's input to the backstory, hence the broader title. Feel free to change it back though. --Lemoncurd (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gloucester Services. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]