Talk:Old Kent Road

Old Kent Road has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Old Kent Road is part of the List of London Monopoly locations series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 12, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
May 17, 2017	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

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.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Transport Low‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A call for calm

Can I remind all parties that if there is a disagreement with content, or you think something is factually inaccurate that wasn't picked up at the GA review, please list concerns here, and we can all deal with them. I'm sure we all want the article to look as good as possible and it won't hurt to have more eyes to look at it, but at least four experienced reviewers have combed over it carefully, so it's worth taking those comments on board. For example, consider "The Dun Cow ... was well known for being a gin palace" [1], the original source says "It was known as a famous Victorian 'Gin Palace', boasting eleven drinking rooms". I think "famous" is a bit too strong (if it was that famous, Dun Cow, London wouldn't be a redlink), but "well-known" is a suitable toned down version that shows this wasn't just any old random pub, but one local historical sources chose to document. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly calm, why wouldn't I be? Concerned? Yes. This article needs a thorough copyedit no matter who has combed through it carefully. I'm not aware of changing the meaning of any content but I did remove a pile of unnecessary words. You and your experienced reviewers really need to up the ante when it comes to writing clear, readable English. (The Old Kent Road is a road, is it really?) I've copyedited lots of articles including your very own wordfest Trafalgar Square so lighten up, sometimes the anonymous editors are capable of looking even more objectively than your mates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.29.51 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article went through a good article review with several experienced editors, including myself, Dr. Blofeld, Boson and SilkTork. It's possible, indeed pretty likely, that mistakes were left, but I would be amazed if there were any serious problems left. Perhaps if you are concerned, it would be worthwhile contacting the Good Article review discussion page with your thoughts. Trafalgar Square had a major effort over the Christmas period, with many editors chipping in from IPs to admins, and it looks a lot better. I don't care who wrote what where and when, leave it focused on content. Whether or not to call it "The" Old Kent road is contentious, as official Transport for London sources do not refer to it this way. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is garbled, I am amazed that anyone would think it is reasonably well written as I am struggling to make sense of some sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.20.102 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC) btw I was objecting to Old Kent Road is a road, surely that is obvious, not the definite article.[reply]

Get an account and take it to WP:FAC. Learn how to sign your posts and use edit summaries. Why are you using block 3 of Hutchison 3G UK Ltd? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cheapest Monopoly property

Which is clearer? Saying that this Monopoly property is "the" cheapest or "one of the two" cheapest? OK, so maybe it's the second cheapest? In which case why not say that? Ambiguity is bad mmmkay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.111.92 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say your edit summary did you no favours and thus the edit was treated with disdain. I would tend to suggest that "one of the two" ought to be clarified in so far as it's one of the two in the cheapest set of roads in Monopoly. But do try to start discussions constructively. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Old Kent Road and Whitechapel Road on the stock London Monopoly board cost £60. See List of London Monopoly locations and related references for verification. So it is not the cheapest, it is simply one of the two cheapest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]