Talk:South Circular Road, London/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working I will aim to post a full review this weekend, but for now I have a couple of concerns that was immediately apparent:

When I first glanced at the infobox route map, I was confused, wondering why the South Circular Road circled north around London. I took a moment to realize I was looking at the North Circular Road. The problem is that the North road is red and immediately catches the eye, while the South road is green-on-green and easy to miss. Is it possible to redo the route map to make the South road more prominent?
Also regarding the above, you might want to consider whether the choice of colors in the map presents an WP:ACCESS issue, specifically red-green colorblindness. I'm definitely not an expert on this.

The file, File:London north-south circulars.svg, has been around for about 9 years, is also placed in North Circular Road which passed GA last year, and AFAIK you are the first person to comment on it. That's not to say you don't make a valid point; rather I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it for all these years. In the meantime, I can knock up a map similar to that present in A303 road, but it'll take me an hour or so fiddling with OpenStreetMap to get it right. I do have the slight advantage I guess that I know exactly where the North and South Circulars go and have for years, I guess. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped the map over - have another look. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more later. –Grondemar 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. Here are more of my comments:

I added alt text for a few of the images; please review. I'm concerned about the accessibility of {{ukmotorwaysmall}} since it brings across multiple subimages and has no parameter for alt text. Maybe this could be improved by incorporating {{multiple image}}?

I haven't got a clue about this template. I wonder who does? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the map, it would be nice if it showed the western terminus at Chiswick and the new-build section in Eltham more clearly.

As above, I've put a different map up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Route section is written East-to-West. I know U.S. roads are generally written West-to-East or South-to-North; are U.K. roads usually written in the opposite direction?

It's written going in a clockwise direction, to be consistent with the North Circular which does the same. It's not entirely east-west; it starts going south and finishes going northeast. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that Woolwich Ferry is not considered part of the route? I know in the U.S. there are highways that span across ferries, such as U.S. Route 9.

Transport routes are only allocated numbers if the local council directly pays for their upkeep and maintenance. The Woolwich Ferry is owned and run by Briggs Marine under licence to Transport for London, so it doesn't get one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be getting nit-picky, but a citation could be added to confirm that the A205 designation is 100% co-extensive with the South Circular Road. The Google Maps reference did not seem to use the A205 designation.

Annoyingly it doesn't. However, I would argue you don't need to cite that the sky is blue, and inline citations are not needed for simple observation. If you got off the south end of the Woolwich Ferry, you would be able to see signs marked "South Circular Road A205" throughout its entire length to Chiswick and therefore I do not believe it is "material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged". (You'd probably resolve to take the DLR / tube next time by the time you got to Chiswick, but that's for another conversation....) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Route section, there are several places where you say a section of the South Circular "is" another road name; is the route dual-signed? You may need some additional citations for these concurrencies as well; I'm having trouble verifying them just from reviewing Google Maps.

I think you need to zoom in to a high resolution to have a look; I can pull out an A-Z map and cite them that way if that's easier. Annoyingly, Google Maps appears to have changed large sections of the road to read "South Circular Road" which factually contradicts what's on the ground eg: consider this location where you have a street sign marked "Brownhill Road" and a panelled sign saying "South Circular". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that I will finally be finished with this review by the end of this upcoming weekend. –Grondemar 04:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So "this upcoming weekend" turned into "one month later"; I apologize for that. February proved to be unexpectedly busy for me and I'm only now catching up on wikiwork. I'm considering all of the above issues resolved. I made several other copyedits to the article; please review. I have one final wording concern to be addressed before I can finally pass this review:

In Ringway 2: "However, local Members of Parliament (MPs), including Toby Jessel, MP for Twickenham, complained the cancellation should not be indefinite, as the existing South Circular was completely unacceptable to traffic." I thought cancellations were by definition indefinite, or is this a British English versus U.S. English difference?

Changed to "the project should not be cancelled". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold for a minimum of seven days, or until the last remaining concern is resolved.

Thank you for your patience. –Grondemar 00:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all concerns addressed, I am happy to declare this review

passed. Congratulations! –Grondemar 13:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]