Jump to content

Talk:M25 motorway/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Lead and infobox
  • Is there a reason that "Motorway" is capitalised in "London Orbital Motorway" or is our redirect incorrectly capitalised?
There's a mis-mash of sources. Gateway 97.8 FM says it's that, the Sunday Times calls it "London Orbital motorway", and ITV calls it "London orbital motorway". Take your pick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link A282 in the lead. I realise you're not linking all items in the lead, preferring to link them on their first occurence outside, but I think for the more technical or intractable concepts, a link in the lead is fine, and this is one such example.
You want me to link to a redirect? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind links to redirects, I object to pipes to redirects. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. Just in this case, the redirect is to Dartford Crossing earlier in the same sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Just thinking about it from our 99% reader perspective. Leave it as it is. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that, should you link "orbital road" to Ring road?
  • Indeed, it would help with "an orbital or ring road " ...
Don't see why not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plan goes from a single ring road to a series of ring roads from one sentence to the next.
Copyedited to avoid this
Agreed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "development appeared near" doubtful. "was constructed"? "was built"?
Copyedited Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in place to tackle this." in place in an attempt to tackle this. Because every Monday I'm sitting in stationary traffic crawling towards the M4, I think "they haven't actually tackled this, have they?"
Rewrote the sentence, slightly shorter now Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, Heathrow is piped to a redirect back to itself.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious, is London really a primary destination of the M25? I've driven all the way round it and never arrived in London... Similarly, Stansted is surely a primary destination for the M11, not the M25?
Good question. There are certainly "London (M25)" signs dotted around the place; I'll have to check. I believe Stansted is signposted from the Park Street roundabout near Brentwood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd be interested to know what RS call these "primary destinations"? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the definitive one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "roughly performs a complete circuit" why not "performs an almost complete circuit..." (pesky A282).
Gone with "The M25 almost completely encircles" - the Dartford Crossing is not the M25 but everyone thinks it is Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, a "primary destination" is anything that appears on one of the signs?
Have a link Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • River Thames and Gravesend are piped to redirects back to themselves.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'd classify Hever Castle as a "grand house". Perhaps "notable buildings" or something?
Gone with "historic buildings" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of an image of that awesome "four-level stack"?
  • "Red kites can often be seen to the north " flying to the north?
Gone with "overhead" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Copped Hall.[10][9] " ref order.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the cut-and-cover tunnels, always a chance to play Out Run with the trucks.
  • "Near Heathrow Airport, the M25 is six lanes wide in each direction" full sentence so needs full stop, check other image captions.
Done, fixed others Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You interchange managed and smart motorways, I'd be consistent for our readers who aren't familiar with either and don't know they mean the same thing.
Gone with "smart motorway" as that appears to be what Highways England and the DfT call it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd link Highways England in the prose.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4x4 " use the multiplication symbol here.
Done and linked to four-wheel drive Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are over 10,000 streetlights on the M25.[22] The M25" "more than" rather than "over", and reword the next to avoid the instant repeat of M25.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "County of London Plan, 1943" is 1943 part of the title? If so it should be in the pipe. If not, it shouldn't be italicised. Same applies to following title.
It's kind of, see File:County of London Plan 1943.jpg. I've put this inside the link
  • " World War II Outer London Defence Ring" sea of blue.
Sky of green. In our yellow. Submarine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "county council" and "Ministry of Transport" appropriately. I doubt our non-UK readers would understand the first, and the latter has a very specific article for the UK.
Didn't know we had an article for that. Anyway, done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M1 motorway" is piped to a redirect.
So it is. Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prevented of being " prevented from...
Duh. Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cuttings and fences intended to reduce noise and over two million trees " I'd comm after noise, and again, I'd say "more than" instead of "over". Also perhaps link cutting.
The whole sentence is a bit big. I've split it and copyedited the result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " east-west road" en-dash for consistency.
  • "6 – 8" unspaced. Plenty more like this afterwards.
Do you have a script that can sort these out? I use User:GregU/dashes.js all the time but if I run it on these, nothing happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My script (the same) stopped working a long while ago. There may be others out there. In the meantime I have to hand-code it per MOS:DASH. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waltham Cross and Theydon Garnon should be linked.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You convert miles, but avoid converting "2.5 million tonnes of asphalt and involved the removal of 49 million cubic metres "
That's because highway-related terms are all in metric; but road signs still use miles, but use kilometres internally (such as Driver location signs). It reflects what the sources say. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really relevant, certainly not to our readers. Convert everything or nothing. Don't forget 99% of our readers don't know what a "metre" is. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, you're talking about the conversion, not the choice on unit. Ah fine, no worries - done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "98 of those miles" reads very oddly to me. Maybe, "of the 118 miles, 98 miles were..."?
Have you ever heard a northerner say "that London"? Anyway, fixed
  • "15% of UK motorway traffic " avoid starting a sentence with a number.
Any particular reason? I'm struggling to think of a better way of writing that sentence that doesn't waffle. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NUMNOTES. You could say "Of UK motorway traffic, 15%...."? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done (sort of) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You abbreviate SACTRA but it's never used again, any point?
I probably thought I would re-use it somewhere else, but in the event I never did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won a landslide victory in the " is the landslide relevant to the budget cut?
I guess not, even if Labour only had a majority of 1 the cuts in the road budget would have still been proposed in the budget and passed via a Commons vote. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ringway 3 / M16 motorway" vs "A12 road/A1023" be consistent with your slashing. Spaced or not, but consistent.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A control room for the M25 J5-7 Smart Motorways scheme, 2014." not a complete sentence (a fragment) so lose the full stop, and it should be an en-dash between the 5 and 7.
See above, fixed as general sweep through captions
  • And should "Smart Motorways" be capitalised here when it links to the general "smart motorway" article?
No, it's a generic term. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic
  • "an advisory reduced speed " really? I thought the variable speed limit stuff was legally binding?"
Only if the speed limit is lit with a red roundel; if it doesn't have one, it's merely a good idea and not something you can be prosecuted for Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " of London Heathrow Airport between" just drop London here.
  • And don't relink the airport the very next sentence.
Gone with "Heathrow" for the first mention and "nearby" for the second. I'm sure non-Brits know exactly what Heathrow is in this context. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "closed circuit television" you used that earlier, could abbreviate to (arguably the more commonly known) CCTV?
I don't think it's too big a deal; maybe if CCTV was mentioned more in the article it would be worth doing though Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you abbreviated SACTRA but never used it, but reuse "closed circuit television" without abbreviation? MAN ALIVE. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be MAN ALIVE (MA)? ;-) Anyway, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if I intended to use it more than once........ The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidents
  • "Rowe studied journalism while in prison and has since" as he was given life, it may be worth noting that he was released due to the "unsafe" nature of the conviction, hence his career in the BBC.
I've gone with "following release became a journalist" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noye was released in June, so that needs updating.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 miles (19 km) " need to set your adj=on here.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's loads of stuff around the net about horses loose on the M25, suggest that's mentioned too.
Added a bit. I wonder if Montanabw has more definitive sources about the topic generally? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had an advertisement" ->" ran an advertisement"?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
  • " ToCA Race Driver 3 " TOCA.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural references
  • No need to relink Thatcher here.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(e.g., "the world's first circular car park", "the London Orbital Car Park", "the biggest Car Park in Europe")" where are these referenced?
I believe they come from this blog. Is that a suitable source to use, though? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a source for "Britain's biggest car park", can only find blogs for the others. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that would pass an RS analysis. But I'm sure those kind of descriptors are available in reliable sources. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the graffiti was vandalised and then removed" Well something's still written up there, "give helch a break!" I think, so this needs updating.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the Network Rail geezer quote does for the article. It's like you're saying "don't try this at home kids!"
I think it gives the article more of a neutral point of view; in another world they might have said "Give Peas A Chance is a cultural icon and we want to Grade II list it". Perhaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more informative if Network Rail had told us why they have allowed such iconic graffiti to persist for so long. Any chance? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a quote that said NR did think the graffiti was "much-loved". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Junctions and services

"On the finished M25's route" is there a need to say "finished" here?

Trimmed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really interesting to me that Junction 1 is strictly speaking not on the M25 and on the A282, should this be noted in the prose?
Okay, except I don't have an actual reliable source for this (all the traffic reports etc. say it's part of the M25 or at least imply it is). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the table is clear that it's not. Without an RS, I'm not clear how we assert it's part of the A282 and not the M25... `The Rambling Man (REJOICE!)
I've cited roads.org.uk, which I think is reliable for this purpose as it's simply reproducing what you can see if you travel towards the Dartford Crossing anticlockwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Some need to be filled out properly, e.g. 59 has no publisher, publication/access date etc. 60 has TOO MUCH SHOUTING, 80 has no dates, nor 83... gotta check 'em all.

That's it for a really quick first pass. I'll put the article on hold while these are addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything's now addressed, can you give things a final check? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far, next up:

  • You seem to swap between using "Junction" and "junction" when describing specific junctions along the route. Is this intentional, and if so, what's the logic? If not, suggest all junctions are made One or the other...
Gone with Junction where it refers to a specific one or set of them, and junction where it talks about the general concept. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only just noticed that the infobox happily declares it part of the E15 and E30 but I see no verifiable evidence to support that nor any such discussion in the prose.
Tweaked Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the infobox says it's maintained by Highways England, but further into the article, the only "maintenance" appears to be noted as being performed by an unlinked "Connect Plus" organisation. Needs clearing up.
Out of date Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Control room image caption is a fragment, no full stop required.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on "London Congestion Charge " doesn't capitalise Congestion or Charge.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table could use row scopes too (on the junction numbers I would suggest) just to make that MOS:ACCESS a little nicer.
I would if I knew how to do that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 assuming you haven't "been disappeared", just wanted to let you know I added a few more comments. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rumours of my wiki-death have been greatly exaggerated; I've addressed everything except for the table issue, which I don't get. I tried changing the scope from "row" to "col" and there was no perceivable difference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference isn't for you, it's for screen readers. I'll take a look. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added row scopes. This stands the article in good stead should FAC be a future consideration as compliance with MOS:ACCESS is required. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the Euroroutes from the infobox but Category:Constituent roads of European route E30 still remains. Is it part of these European routes? If so it should be noted and referenced in the article really, not just removed. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that they were theoretically designed at one stage, but they are not officially recognised by the UK government, and with a Boris Brexit looming, it might not even be factually correct to say that they still are. I've removed them. In any case, This source says "The M4 from south Wales towards London, as well as stretches of the A12 in eastern England are designated elements of this great European highway, but you'll search in vain for any hint of the E30 on the local traffic signs." but does not mention the M25. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While, of course, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, our own European route E30 notes the M25 as part of the E30 (but acknowledges your latter point about an absence of signage). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, especially when the information in question is not cited to anything, and a search doesn't reveal anything beyond stuff that was copied from Wikipedia in the first place, or resulting from hearsay and rumour - let alone anything authoritative such as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions. The main article International E-road network has been tagged for lack of verification for over ten years. Anyway, the removal was reverted by MilborneOne - maybe he's got a source? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, MilborneOne you may have not been aware of this review, but since you are now playing an integral part around the Euroroutes issue, please opine here, and if you think we need a mention of the E30, could you please provide RS to back it up? Or else I guess I'll have to fail the nomination because there's clearly some contention over the overall content. Cheers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A google search will find a number of copies of the EUROPEAN AGREMENT ON MAIN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC ARTERIES (AGR) for example [1] they dont specify any exact routes but the two we believe are related to the M25 are the E30 Bristol-London-Colchester and the E15 Doncaster-London-Folkstone. As the UK government has ignored the signing requirements it presumable cant be bothered to do maps either, this document [2] does admit that the E-road network exists and they are all part of the UK Strategic Road Network but has a statement that they will not be signed in the UK. Also note the E-numbers are a UN thing nothing to do with the EU. Original research but for an E-road to use the UK Strategic Road Network it has no choice but follow the M25 as they are no strategic roads that go through "London" and out the other side. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting it. Neither of those sources appear to support the statement that the M25 belongs to any European Routes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when this issue is resolved. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The M25 is one of few bits of the strategic road network so the E-road has to use the M25 or it would have a big gap in the route. Another user has added a map source for the E-roads following the M25. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I popped down to Waterstones at lunchtime today and there it was in black-and-white (well, green-and-black actually) in the AA road atlas. The E30 is marked on its route from Felixstowe and round the M25 to the M4, and the E15 similarly comes in from the Channel Tunnel and follows round to the A1(M). I've also found sourcing confirming that the E-numbers are technically in use in the UK, but not signed. Hopefully this will resolve this issue, although as Ritchie is now off-the-project for a while, I'm not sure what happens next with this GA. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside, VOTE LEAVE notwithstanding, leaving the European Union should have no effect on this as it's a UNECE scheme, not an EU one, and the E-roads are found in non-EU countries such as Russia. The same misunderstanding has been aired in parliament as it happens...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Amakuru for stepping into the breach here to just see this one over the line. The article exceeds the basic requirements of GA by quite some way, so I'm happy now to promote. Good work everyone, especially Ritchie333. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M25_motorway/GA1&oldid=972482320"