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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Roads, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK roads 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.
I'm looking to nominate this article for FA. Any suggestions are most welcome. SilkTork✔Tea time 16:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks good, but offhand I'd say that proportionally for such a major road, I'd expect the history section to be much longer, and other aspects of the road looked at in more detail like maintenance etc.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Much of the history for specific bits, such as The Angel, Archway and Henley's Corner is embedded in the main part of the article. The "history" section is (IMHO) reserved for just explaining the background of the route overall, and why as a whole it's notable enough for us to write a FA quality article about it. For maintenance, one of the best sources you can get is an Engineering Appreciation, which describes a particular route corridor in depth from a highway engineer's point of view. I've read several of these, but not the one for the A1 inside the GLC. It may well be buried in the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. On a related note, do we have any equivalent of a Wikipedian in Residence in TNA, like we do in the British Library? It would be very useful in this instance. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been browsing the National Archives website. It does appear to be a useful resource for a number of topics. They hold information on turnpike trusts, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be digitised. The plus, though, is that documents can be ordered and consulted at Kew for free. They seem to be on a mission to assist research, and to making the records more accessible to the general public, so an approach to consider a Wikipedian in Residence might be worthwhile. Though it is not directly related to Wikipedia (it's an independent organisation - though does get grant funding from the Foundation), and its reputation has been in question, it would be worth consulting with WikiMedia UK. WikiMedia UK assisted in setting up the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Museum (I was interviewed for that, but gave a poor interview on the day), and they have a lot of experience in liaising with museums. SilkTork✔Tea time 14:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have been regularly visiting TNA for research purposes for some years (much of the information on sites such as CBRD is sourced from these archive documents), and my father has been a regular researcher there for decades, from the days when it was the PRO. In my experience, they are a very helpful organisation and welcome newcomers - many of which are ordinary people trying to trace family history, particularly military service. A digital archive, comparable with Hansard, would be wonderful for research and verification - but because TNA are a Government Executive Agency, this would have to be subscription based. Regardless of its reputation and activities, WMUK is what we have to work with now, and the body that should be liaising with TNA - I have spoken to Jon Davies on a couple of occasions regarding the ability to make archive access easier in order to provide FA quality sources, and through my contacts, I might be able to get things rolling. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. It seems a perfect fit. You could offer to volunteer as a trial. Set up some Wikipedia editing days. And also assist the staff with creating articles on Wikipedia which highlight some of the documents they hold - so that it's a two way thing. SilkTork✔Tea time 15:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I find this whole thing very confusing. Could some kind soul please copy edit A1 in London and fill out the necessary details. I'd like to put in notable points along it like the Angel, Archway, Henleys Corner etc but the documentation isn't obvious and last time I asked someone if they'd do it for me I got a pile of insults back implying I was lazy and wanted to take ownership of the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly sure you are after? Do you want an RJL-type table added to that article? If so, start a section on its talk page listing which points exactly you want and work can start there. The result of the RFC will decide optimal layout of it.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't know what I want. I want a simple list. Other people upthread want something more. If somebody puts in something that they think is useful to an article I actively helped with, I might start to understand their side of the argument and change my vote to neutral / support. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Well get that simple list on the talk page (I don't know what those important points are), and I will have a look later. Bear in mind this layout is designed for major highways, not urban roads, so it may not be perfect for your needs.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Locations mentioned so far are:
Are all junctions with motorways and primary routes of interest? Out to the M25?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The requirements here are a little different to GNG, as its about the significant locations along a notable route. For instance Henlys Corner doesn't exist, so I can only assume isn't notable in its own right (and would fail GNG). I do not know the roads in London well enough to know which locations are significant, so the easiest thing is if you tell me what those locations are, you are more familiar with this topic...--Nilfanion (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)