Jump to content

Talk:A1 in London/GA3

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: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've got one other GA review on the go, I'd like to do this one, particularly as I've already advised on sources elsewhere and have actually got a fairly good knowledge of the subject. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks reports 3 dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do a a bit about construction and history off the top of my head :

  • The original source for the allocation of the A1 number in 1921 is buried in a file in National Archives File MT 39/241. I have a camera copy of this document, but I don't know what the copyright status of it is.
If it's a government document and was published, then 50 years is the limit. If it was unpublished, then it is copyrighted until 2040. As the document is able to be checked by anyone requesting a copy, then it can be quoted and used as a source. The government is regarded as a reliable source. Does the document indicate the route? Do you have it on SABRE? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a transcript here. Dated 28th June 1922, it talks about "A commencement of this Scheme was made last year" which the A1 was part of. Regarding the route, a transcript of the published version by HMSO is here, which states "London (Goswell Road, Upper Street, Holloway Road, Archway Road) - Barnet - " etc. Hope that's of use. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful, confirming that it initially went through Barnet. It also matches up with the map you have, indicating that the route actually started at the City boundary at Aldersgate Bars rather than inside the city as it does today. The link to the transcript on SABRE doesn't appear to give details about the document - could you supply a title, author (if possible), publication date, publisher, etc. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a scan of the front cover. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When road numbering started, numbers in the City of London weren't numbered, so the A1 started at the boundary just north of what's now Barbican tube. The earliest map I have it going all the way down Aldersgate Street is dated 1932. Source / OS map here.
I assume you mean "roads in the City of London weren't numbered". I've looked at the linked map, but can't make out where it goes down Aldersgate Street. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a bit difficult to determine the precise route. I have a few more sources - This 1932 map shows the A1 ending on the A40, but it's a fairly low resolution and doesn't specify a specific place. Meanwhile, this 1930s A-Z map of London shows a main road ending on a junction with St Martins Le Grand, Newgate Street and Cheapside. Not a definitive source of exactly where it started, and when, but hopefully it's close enough. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming out of London it diverged at Great North Road / Aylmer Road at East Finchley and than ran on what's now the A1000. (Source : same map)
  • The diversion on the current road layout opened on October 19th, 1927 according to my notes (can't find the source), but it wasn't designated the A1 until about 1953 (likewise). I'll get back to you on that! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We now have sources for the 1954 designation along the 1920s and 1930s built bypasses so I think all the above points have been covered. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Technically, the A1 in London doesn't quite get to Bignell's Corner, as that's in Hertfordshire (can be verified by a contemporary OS map). You can probably say "start in the City of London to just south of Bignell's Corner" and that will resolve the issue.
  • Quick drive-by reply—when I wrote these way-back-when, I was working on the principle that the de facto boundaries of London are the M25 for roads and the Oyster zone for rail, rather than the arbitrary lines of the formal GLA boundary. I think it's a reasonable position, even though technically inaccurate; otherwise, a lot of articles would come to an arbitrary halt in assorted fields in Ockendon and Chessington. "How does this road integrate with the M25 and A406" is one of the first things a non-expert reader will want to know. – iridescent 13:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but for a good article, I think we really have to go with what the source says. If you can dig out a reliable source (perhaps BBC Travel might have an appropriate comment) that states those de facto boundaries, we can put it in. On a related note, several roads, of which the A1 is one, have an arbitrary speed limit change of 50mph to NSL (70mph) at the boundary. (Can we cite Google Street View as a source?) That might well be something that interests a casual reader. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that Bignell's Corner was the limit. Looking at a boundary map, it does appear to be somewhat more south - around Borehamwood - that the A1 leaves London. Indeed, for a while as it passes Borehamwood it actually serves as the boundary between Hertfordshire and London. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Iridescent makes sense when defining the route as within the M25. Though I also see Ritchie's point that it needs to be pointed out that London doesn't extend to Bignell's Corner. I have made a couple of adjustments which I hope make it clearer that the route does leave Greater London, though the article continues until Bignell's Corner. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As discussed above, the stretches of purpose-built new roads were not designated in 1921. This parliamentary archive source suggests they opened in the summer of 1928.
Yes, that looks interesting. I must confess I have not researched the outer sections of the road. I was intending to do that after having a short break. It looks likely that when designated, that the A1 went through Barnet until the by-pass was completed at the end of the summer in 1928. This source indicates that the bypass was part of the 1920-4 road improvement programme. I assume (especially from having a question in parliament) that the bypass experienced delays. Of course we can't say that - but it's a likely interpretation, and there may be a source out there to confirm that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, you've found my area of expertise. ;-) You might find the following useful : This 1927 Half Inch Map shows the Barnet Bypass as A5093, A5088 and A5092, while This 1946 One Inch Map shows it as the A555. Only on the Ordnance Survey One Inch Seventh series does it become designated the A1. This source can also be used as it has the dates and background, which states it became part of the A1 in 1954. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! That's very helpful. I'll get around to including that information later this evening. Well done indeed! SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The A1 is one of London's main trunk routes". Today's trunk route doesn't begin until the boundary with Hertfordshire just south of Bignell's Corner. The section inside London was transferred to Transport For London when Ken Livingstone became Mayor in 2000. Source here
Yes. I feel a little embarrassed because the issue regarding which are the main routes north out of London is not yet resolved. I paused editing the article for a while (still more to do!), but thought it would be worth putting in the GA queue as articles can general wait there for a month or more. I did consider what might happen if someone picked up the review quickly, and thought - well, we can edit as we go along! I am dubious that the route is currently a major one north, especially given that we have a reliable source which gives only 5% of volume to through traffic. Much of the route south of the North Circular is single carriage, and in places decidedly local - such as Goswell Road and Upper Street. It may be worth looking at removing or rephrasing that statement until a reliable source can be found. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "less than 5% of its approximate 60,000 vehicles a day" is unsourced
That was my mistake when editing - I put the more detailed comment in the lead, and the general comment in the main body. I've now corrected that. The information comes from a New Scientist article and is sourced. I have put an inline cite in the lead to provide reassurance as the material may be seen to be contentious. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the above points have been dealt with. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
The source quoted is Thomas Codrington talking about the Antonine Itinerary. Both the Itinerary and Codrington are reliable - indeed, are two of the main sources for information about Roman roads in Britain. The cite links to an online version of the Itinerary for the convenience of the reader. As regards the site itself, it's used in over 21,000 articles on Wikipedia, and is listed in texts as a useful resource; however, it's not actually necessary to link to that site, as that is not what is being used, it's Codrington quoting The Antonine Itinerary. Perhaps we can look at tidying up the cite if you still feel it's an issue. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that looks fine. Looks like quote a good site actually. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure the Frank Goddard source is reliable?
Yes, published by Frances Lincoln Publishers - and what is sourced to him is that Ermine Street is also the Old North Road, which is like sourcing that the Sun is hot - it's not a contentious statement, though it's nice for the general reader to have the reassurance of a source they can check. Another source can be found if it's an issue. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Pevsner - he's considered pretty impeccable. I might use some more of that book for some other parts of the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source citing the 1812 turnpike road here doesn't appear to load. As this is a book source, this may not be an issue as (in theory) the original print copy could be used for verification
Luckily that source was right on my desk so I was able to use a sentence from it to find a Google Books page. Google Books uses a more recent version than mine, so the page numbers have changed, but the content is the same. Yes, book sources don't need online links. I like to have them as I find them useful myself, and I know that a number of other readers and editors and reviewers also appreciate a link. As a reviewer I always check some of the sources to see that they support what is in the article, and I'm pleased to see you clearly are; that is appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find an ISBN number for Norman W. Webster's source? It will make verification easier.
Done. There are no online copies, and the book is out of print, but copies can be bought on eBay and Amazon for less than £10. I don't have a copy myself, but have ordered one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Archway Cutting is an interesting topic in itself. There's a lot of material available. From the original cutting to the recent widening disputes; as well as the two bridges, the original Archway bridge and the replacement Hornsey Road bridge. It has just been suggested on my talkpage that an article could be made out of it, and I agree. I think that such detail as you mention might be better placed in such an article rather than this one. Though it is a judgement call, and one that could be considered as part of ongoing development. I don't think that under the GA criteria of "Broad coverage" it would be seen that omitting such information would hinder the GA; however, putting it in might be considered as an infringement of "Focus" - as perhaps being too detailed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the above points have been dealt with. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

[edit]
  • "and was itself replaced by the London County Council (LCC)" - might "which was itself" be better here?
  • I'm having difficulty finding the relevant part in the New Scientist reference here that states that the A1 widening stopped at the GLC boundary.
Second page (Page 23), first column, fifth new paragraph - starting "One of the reasons...", last sentence. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, worth mentioning also the transfer of control to Transport for London in 2000
Yes. Will do that. Probably tomorrow - I'm going to read through the rest of your comments, then attend to a few other matters before going to bed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to nitpick, but the Parliamentary Archive source you've used to cite the A1 detrunking doesn't actually mention it - it only talks about the detrunking of bridges. So there's a very small bit of original research. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source was provided by you for that purpose - it says: "This figure excludes trunk roads transferring to the Greater London Authority in July 2000 as these will be de-trunked." SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the above points have been dealt with. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Route

[edit]
  • "The A1 is one of London's main northern routes, along with the A10, A5 and A41 roads". This is similar to your comment above that this might be worth removing until a source can be found
Amended. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Midlands" and "Northern England" wikilinked and Scotland not?
Scotland is on wp:datescript as an article to delink per WP:OVERLINK which suggests that "the names of major geographic features and locations" need not be linked. I have put the links back on Scotland, but they are likely to removed again when someone else runs the script. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dead link (tagged at such)
  • This reference cites the presence of the Royal Agricultural Hall, but I can't see it in the source given
  • Can you confirm that the paragraph starting "After reaching the eight-way Highbury Corner interchange...." is entirely cited by the two references given? I did a quick look and the phrases "Walsingham" and "Holloway Road" don't appear in the first source - the article gives the impression they should. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source, used to cite John Nash's 1813 construction of Archway Bridge, is a dead link. I think one of the other British History sources can probably cover this.
  • "Between 1897 and 1900, Nash's bridge was replaced..." the source given notes it opened in 1903
  • The Rio Cinema source states "The Bridge" was a 2005 film, not 2006 as stated in the article. The reference to the film is merely a stub and makes no mention of Hornsey Lane / Suicide Bridge
Yes, it's an awkward source - that has been brought up before. There are two films mentioned in the source which are called The Bridge - the one relating to Archway is a bit further down: "THE BRIDGE UK MiniDV 8mins 8 Director/Producer/Screenplay Johnny Burke E jpb4000@hotmail.com There is a 100 year old woman, a serial killer, in North London. Her name is "Suicide Bridge". High above the Archway Road, throwing a heavy shadow over the passing traffic, she assists the tragic people who come for her help." SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like using quotes in cites, but in this case it does seem appropriate, so I have done that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite that Hornsey Lane Bridge is part of Haringey council, and the road beneath part of Islington
Reworded and cited to a streetmap.co.uk boundary map as I couldn't find anything else. Perhaps someone local can find something a little more authoritative in the council offices or local libraries. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "severe disruption led to the first inquiry being abandoned in 1978". I think there's a slight confusion here. The Hansard source quoted is dated 21 March 1978, but the date on the enquiry being abandoned is given as 12th October 1977.
The source says the inquiry was suspended on 12th October 1977 but that it was being abandoned as of 21 March 1978. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence describing the old A1 route (now A1000) is cited to this reference, which doesn't appear to back up the information in the article. However, the map link I've put elsewhere on this review should be able to cite this - if I can work out exactly how.
I've taken out the oliver.merrington source and put in Christopher Hibbert and Ben Weinreb. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference backing up Lyttelton Road being built in 1931 redirects to a page on conservation areas
* This is still an outstanding issue. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link address appears to have moved since it was used. Updated - and also corrected in line with the source. Again - well done on picking that up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Falloden Way was built between 1914" seems to missing "and 1924", which is the other part cited in the source
  • "Falloden Way is a notoriously dangerous stretch of road" - notorious to whom, exactly? The Hendon and Finchley Times source that cites this returns a 500 error. On closer inspection, I think there are some neutral point of view issues with this paragraph - the only reliable source that works is the the TfL source about Henley's Corner
  • The SABRE regulars will crucify me upside down for this - but this source is self-published on a wiki and hence an unreliable source. Who said it was named after Henley's Garage and what was their source of information? The TfL source can be used to cite the existence of the junction, but that doesn't cite where the name comes from. The paragraph about Finchley Road doesn't really scan right, and I'm not sure where exactly that "late 1820s/early 1830s turnpike road" reference comes from
I put my hands up to using that source. It was temporary until I could find a more reliable source. Much of the information has been in this article before I got involved, and I agree with your comments above. I had intended to gradually work through the article over the next week or so, updating sources, etc. I have been caught with my pants down by the speed with which you picked up this review, and it's certainly taught me a lesson! Anyway - no real harm done, as the main thing is that the article gets improved, and you seem the right person to be doing the review, as your suggestions and information have been very valuable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I think we had the same issue when GA reviewing Van der Graaf Generator, where suddenly long-standing bits of the article weren't up to the standard of new information I'd added. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As most traffic leaves the A1 at this point to join the motorway, the road narrows north of this point" This probably wants a source. On what evidence is "most traffic" based on?
I don't know - and the road remains mainly three lanes so it doesn't actually narrow. This section needs attention. I'll get to it later. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watford Way north of Fiveways Corner being built in 1930 needs a source for that date. Hansard probably has one
  • "and is also very close to the noisy and polluting M1" - violates WP:NPOV
  • "there is very little construction along this stretch of road." - does this refer to development (ie: houses)?
  • "Barnet Way (also known as Barnet Bypass), built in the 1920s" needs a source for that date. I think I've listed the source further up this review
  • You might want to mention that at Apex Corner, there was a proposed, but never built link to the never-completed M1 junction 3. This source from The Guardian could be used
I'll work on the Barnet section, as that is where the bulk of your comments relate, over the next couple of days, using some of the material you have supplied, and then we can have another sweep over the article to see if its OK. Thanks for the close attention you have paid to this review, and I think I agree with pretty much everything you've said. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  • No obvious copyright problems on any of the images in the article
Old maps would be good. Also, a more modern image of Henlys Corner. It has altered since the current image was taken. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an old map and replaced the Henlys corner image. Feel free to rejig. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

[edit]
  • Would we be able to expand this section, to include individual schemes?
Yes, the intention and hope is that the section would be developed. Do you feel it requires more material to meet "Broad coverage"? SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. It does seem a bit brief. I'll have a trawl through Hansard and my collection of National Archive documents and see if I've got anything relating to this bit of the A1 as it changed over the years. I know there's bits and bobs in the main draft where it's important, such as Archway and the Barnet Bypass development, but I think we could still expand this section further so as well as a good account of what goes on around the road, the reader can see how it developed at a glance. If that makes sense! --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review Box

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Spelling / grammar checked. No obvious copyvios. Relevant MOS guidelines adhered to.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See comments. Also a few Hansard references have no "accessdate" on them
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I think that's it for the time being, so I'm putting the article on hold pending changes. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I've done all the above. I've certainly welcomed and admired your attention to detail, and checking of sources - you can do a GA review on any of my nominations in future. It's refreshing to have someone who does take care to read the sources carefully, and offers new sources and suggestions. You may be surprised to learn that a good number of GA reviews merely look at the prose, and never check the actual research. I've always held to the view that an encyclopaedia entry is about the information, and what readers want most of all is reliable facts, so it is the facts that need checking on a GA review. There is a phrase that was sometimes used (and I would pounce on those who used it) that I hope never to see again in a GA Review: "Sources accepted on good faith". No! If you aint gonna check the sources don't bother to do the review. So, thank you for being so thorough! SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. There are just one or two minor things I think need doing before I'm happy to pass the review. I completely agree with your opinion about what a GA review should be about. Most reviews I've done take up to a week, but I always put importance on verifiability and copyvios above everything else. I think one of the fundamental problems in Wikipedia is that experts pour scorn on it for factual errors, and since a GA is supposed to be a mark of quality on an article, we have to make absolutely sure what's in it can be backed up if the accuracy is criticised. I'm less worried about MOS issues. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think all the issues are now accounted for, so I am happy to pass this article. Well done. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work. An excellent review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A1_in_London/GA3&oldid=1089871042"