Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A candidate.svg A-Class Review
A subpage for WikiProject Highways
HWY logo.svg WikiProject Highways
Project resources
Assessment (WP:HWY/A) talk
A-Class Review (WP:HWY/ACR) talk
Project table (WP:HWY/A/P)
Live assessment table (WP:HWY/A/L)
Route markers (WP:HWY/RM) talk
New articles (WP:HWY/NA) talk
Participants (WP:HWY/P) talk
Popular pages (WP:HWY/PP) talk
Precedents   talk
Recognized content (WP:HWY/RC) talk
Road junction lists (MOS:RJL) talk
TFA suggestions (WP:HWY/TFA) talk
related changes — v · d · e

Welcome to the A-Class Review (ACR) page, where Good Articles are judged by our community of editors and may be promoted to A-Class. An A-Class article is defined as one that

Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.

The main goals of ACR are to standardize the quality of all A-Class articles across the Highways WikiProject and its subprojects, and to provide a thorough review process that is similar to FAC without the stress that can come from the FAC process.

If you know of a Good Article that meets this criteria, you can nominate it below. If you are not a significant contributor to the article, you are encouraged to consult a significant contributor prior to nominating. From time to time, current A-Class or Featured Article status are reviewed to ensure that they are still of high quality. Articles that no longer meet the current criteria may be nominated for demotion using the process below.

List-Class articles may also be nominated here, in preparation for the featured list candidate process. However, the A-List designation will not be awarded until 1) 10 nominations have passed the process and 2) of those 10 nominations, all those that have not passed FLC have been judged to meet the A-List standard.

Statistics[edit]

The A-Class review process has a proven track record of helping articles pass at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates:

How does ACR work?[edit]

The WP:Highway ACR process is fairly simple.

  1. An editor nominates an article that he or she feels meets the A-Class criteria. When ACR is busy, editors are urged to have only one open nomination at a time.
  2. The community of editors reviews the article. There is no one way to review an article; some editors specialize in certain aspects of reviewing, such as, but not limited to:
    • Fact checking
    • Judging the reliability of the sources
    • Reference formatting
    • Grammar and prose
    • Image license checks
  3. The nominator addresses the reviewers' concerns by editing the article accordingly.
  4. The reviewers then support or oppose promotion of the article based on how the article progresses. Generally, it takes 3 net supports (that is, three more supports than opposes) for an article to pass ACR.

Procedure[edit]

Initiating a discussion[edit]

Before initiating an A-Class review, please verify the following:

  • The article you wish to nominate is a Good Article.
  • The article has a KML file. If you are nominating a list, KML is encouraged, but not required.
  • You do not already have an open A-Class Review. If you do, please wait until the first review is closed before starting another.

If you can answer yes to all three questions, you may initiate an A-Class review.

  1. Add |ACR=yes to the end of the {{WikiProject Australian Roads}}, {{WikiProject Canada Roads}}, {{WikiProject Highways}}, {{WikiProject Hong Kong Roads}}, {{WikiProject Indian roads}}, {{WikiProject UK Roads}}, or {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}} banner on the article's talk page, and save the edit.
  2. Click the link in the line that reads "Follow this link and fill out the details in the edit window" to preload the nomination page. Fill in the details and save the nomination page.
  3. Add the name of this subpage ({{Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Name of nominated article}}) to the end of the Current discussions section below.
  4. Add a link to the discussion on {{USRD Announcements}}, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/News/Content and other subproject talk pages or announcement templates.
  5. Consider participating in other open discussions to ensure that they are completed in a timely manner.

Participating in discussions[edit]

Everyone is welcome to participate in these discussions. The A-Class criteria should be used as a guideline and not as hard and fast rules. The most important part of each A-Class review is the review of the written prose designed to make sure that the content in the article is clear, complete, and formatted consistently with our MOS and other guidelines. We require two or three editors to perform a prose review for each nomination. Each review takes shape in its own way, but typically, editors will sign up to tackle different parts of the review. Regardless of who signs up for what section, all A-Class reviews must have their sources reviewed for reliability and formatting consistency ("source review") and have all images used in the article checked to see if they possess a free license ("image review"). In addition, a percentage of references may be fact checked (typically called "the spotcheck"), though this is only required once per 12 months or by request.

When reviewing, make any comments in a list format so the nominator can reply to each comment in kind. Keep in mind, various national-level subprojects may have slightly different standards for articles under their scope. They will also use different variations of English. These differences will be respected and applied as appropriate. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s> ) rather than removing it. Nominators should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text. After the nominator addressed all the comments and concerns, the reviewer may support or oppose promotion. This is done by saying "Support" in bold and signing their name (~~~~). If you have exceptionally long comments, use the following code to hide your comments after all of your issues have been resolved.

{{Collapse top|Resolved issues from ~~~~}}
Your comments here.
{{Collapse bottom}}

If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection or it is not based on policy, the objection may be ignored.

Suspending a nomination[edit]

Nominations that have outstanding comments and that have not been edited by the nominator in 30 days will be suspended and the transclusion of the review removed from this page. A nominator may reactivate a suspended nomination at any time. A suspended nomination will be removed from the candidates list automatically with a consensus to not promote at the earlier of 6 months from the suspension date or 1 year from the nomination date.

Closing a discussion[edit]

Consensus must be reached in order to be promoted to A-Class, in that all actionable objections must be addressed.

  • For promotion: Typically, three more substantial support declarations than oppose declarations ("three net supports") are necessary for promotion, along with an image review, a source review, and if necessary, a source spot check. Any reviewer who declared their support may review images and sources in addition to their prose review.
New in 2015: Only two net supports are required for nominators who have had an article go through ACR successfully in the last 12 months, or who have three Featured Articles under WP:HWY.
  • For removal from the candidates list: A-Class article candidates that are not promoted will be removed from the candidates list once a candidate has received a net three opposes that cite standards-based objections. Please remember that the process is not entirely a vote, and articles with majority support can still fail if they don't fully meet the criteria.

When consensus is determined, the discussion can be closed. Discussions should not be closed by a participating reviewer except where the reviewer participated only to clarify points of the discussion to determine consensus, or in the case of a stale nomination or the nominator withdraws.

  1. Remove |ACR=yes from the end of the talk page banner.
  2. If the discussion resulted in a change in the article's quality assessment, then change the assessment as necessary.
  3. Add {{ArticleHistory}} to the talk page of the article, if not already present. Follow the instructions here on how to add the review to the template (see the "WikiProject A-class review" row).
  4. Add {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} to the top and bottom of the discussion subpage, respectively.
  5. Remove {{HWY ACR status}} from the review.
  6. Move the line {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class review/Name of nominated article}} from the list of discussions below to the current archive page.
  7. Remove the article from {{USRD Announcements}} or Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/News/Content or otherwise update the posting on a subproject talk page.
  8. Update the /Statistics page.

Current promotion discussions[edit]

California State Route 54[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – This ACR is open and needs reviewers.

Toolbox

California State Route 54 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: After a long hiatus from ACR, I bring California State Route 54, a freeway in the South Bay region of San Diego County.
Nominated by: Rschen7754 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Review and comments by Kevon kevono

Infobox and Intro

  • The route should take more of the map.
    • I don't understand what you are saying here. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
      • The map is too big and the route takes up little of the area of the map.
        Kevon kevono (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 20:25 (PDT)
        • Uploaded a new map. --Rschen7754 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Should the major intersections section of the infobox should have 2 sections, since SR 54 consists of 2 sections?
  • SR 54 doesn't exactly end on a street, the route more or less is a dead end state-maintenance-wise.
    • Jamacha Road is the continuation of SR 54 north to its original terminus at I-8. --Rschen7754 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Intro is good.

Route description

  • "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125] north, and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." The second comma I think is a grammar error. I'll be removing it soon.
    • There's nothing wrong with a comma there, but okay. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Of section 1 of SR 54, does SR 54 end here or here? Of section 2 of SR 54, does SR 54 end here or here? Kevon kevono (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 09:37 (PDT) I'm confused.
    • From the article: "As the freeway turns north, it merges with SR 125 north and SR 54 exits at Jamacha Boulevard in La Presa." and "SR 54 then runs concurrently with SR 94 through the unincorporated, but developed, area of Rancho San Diego, following Campo Road about one-half mile (800 m) east." Those should answer your questions. --Rschen7754 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Other than that, RD is good.

History

  • "This portion of freeway opened on September 27, 1963, and the entire project cost $2.25 million (about $37 million in 2015 dollars)" (and other sections) These money comparison facts should be updated to 2016 dollars.
    • Perhaps, but the data has only been released for 2015, not 2016. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Citation 13: Here's a link for the non-link citation: http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa196465calirich#page/n3/mode/2up
  • I fixed a space between "…accomplished in a single year by the county board of supervisors" and citation 26. You can revert it if you want.
  • "The project to convert the HOV lanes to regular mixed traffic lanes was authorized in 2006." Do you mean "The project to remove the HOV lanes was authorized in 2006."? I didn't get what you meant.
    • The HOV lanes would not be HOV lanes anymore. "Remove" is a bit ambiguous, as it could mean that the lanes were removed entirely. --Rschen7754 16:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing the part of SR 54…" Are they still considering? Oct. 2014 is a bit outdated.
    • Haven't heard or found anything. --Rschen7754 04:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Excellent and descriptive prose. You have really good writing skills.

Junction list

Overall

Your writing is exceptionally good. Few grammar mistakes were in the article, and this article is nearly perfect. It wouldn't be long before this article could become an FA.
Kevon kevono (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 16:28 (PDT)
@Kevon kevono: All replied to. --Rschen7754 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You didn't reply to one question about the relinquishing thing.
Kevon kevono (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 20:25 (PDT)
@Kevon kevono: Replied now. --Rschen7754 04:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kevon kevono: Replied again. --Rschen7754 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kevon kevono: Replied again. --Rschen7754 19:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

*Support I now support the ACR nomination. Kevon kevono (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 13:25 (PDT)

  • As Kevon kevono is inactive and unable to support or oppose, I have collapsed the comments. --Rschen7754 07:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I endorse this action. –Fredddie 04:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie[edit]

I will take a look at the article next. –Fredddie 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead
  1. Can we get some better descriptors than "Section 1" and "Section 2"?
    Done. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. I don't feel like the lead is long enough; more the first paragraph than the second.
    Added to lead. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. "the part of the highway east of SR 125 is undivided, ..." Undivided should be an adjective for something more descriptive (i.e. an undivided two/four-lane road)
    I'm not sure the number of lanes can be sourced (if it is even the same the whole length), so I edited accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. "The extension of the freeway west to I-5 was delayed because a flood channel for the Sweetwater River was built with the extension." What?
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. The lead doesn't really talk about the non-freeway part.
    Added to lead. --Rschen7754 05:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
YesY These check out. –Fredddie 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
RD
  1. Watch the ", with <verb>-ing" clauses. See how the sentence changes by removing the with?
    Seems to be resolved already. --Rschen7754 02:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. While I don't expect turn-by-turn or even exit-by-exit coverage, "through Paradise Hills in San Diego" doesn't really tell me about the physical surroundings.
    Added. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. The portion about the CR S17 section is a bit misleading. You talk about it like it is both SR 54 and not SR 54. I realize that's partly because SR 54 is designated for a freeway that wasn't (or hasn't yet been) built. Do you think that section of road should be described in the RD?
    Made the distinction more clear. --Rschen7754 02:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Again with the physical surroundings east of SR 94.
    Added. --Rschen7754 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  5. The last sentence of the RD doesn't do anything for me. How about this?
    "In early 2012, portions of the interchange with I-5 were among the top ten most congested segments of highway in Caltrans District 11, which includes the San Diego metro area."
    Adjusted. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
History
  1. Mini-lead?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. I'm assuming the 'road through Jamacha' is related to SR 54, but the casual reader might not make that assumption. I don't feel like a connection is drawn between that road and to SR 54.
    It is a road that runs through Jamacha that parallels the Sweetwater River from US 80 (I-8) to the Sweetwater Valley, similar to SR 54. I added "around El Cajon", but it's a bit difficult to make the connection more explicit without original research. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. You should summarize the planned route of the South Bay Freeway.
    Added details. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. This sentence, "By 1961, E Street in Chula Vista continued along the Sweetwater River, ...", is this still the case? If not, you should revise the verbs in the second half so it reads in the past tense. You can probably ditch the comma when you do.
    I doubt it still does. I've revised accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Where were the at-grade intersections along the freeway?
    I don't know, but apparently all the intersections were at-grade. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  6. Did SR 54 replace SR 280 entirely? Route 280 is only mentioned once and the 1964 renumbering page doesn't mention either highway.
    I think Rschen7754 meant Legislative Route 280, not State Route 280. SR 54 was signed while it was probably Legislative Route 280. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 21:24 (PDT)
    @Kevon kevono: It is the custom to let the nominator have the chance to resolve issues raised first, because they may disagree with what the reviewer has to say. AS far as Fredddie's question, I would have to look at the article and my sources again. --Rschen7754 05:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    I've been more specific. --Rschen7754 06:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  7. Was flooding a problem in the area prior to the flood channel?
    It's not clear from the sources, likely because the area wasn't developed at the time, though it seems to be more preemptive. I've clarified. --Rschen7754 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  8. "The county hoped to build both projects at the same time to save $4 million..." Run-on sentence.
    Adjusted but it's a bit awkward still, I'm afraid. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  9. The U.S. Congress gave approval for the project.[28] But later that year, it was announced that the target date for completing the system would be extended from 1972 to 1974.[29]→‎Congress approved the project in <month> 1972;[28] later that year, the target date for completing the system would be pushed back two years.[29]
    Adjusted a bit, but see reply to the next one. --Rschen7754 20:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  10. The previous paragraph was just in 1972, so the next one should not start with "By 1971, ..."
    The previous paragraph does mention 1972, but the articles are from 1968. It could be more clear, I suppose. Feel free to add suggestions. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  11. "dismayed at this" Is 'at this' necessary?
    Removed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  12. "Meanwhile, the interchange at I-805 was constructed, ..." was under construction?
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  13. "...due to a lack of funding and a shift in priorities to maintenance from the building of new road.[37]" From should come before to.
    Fixed. --Rschen7754 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  14. You should either abbreviate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or revise so you don't repeat yourself.
    Done. --Rschen7754 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  15. Did the environmental impact report suggest changes to the route? I have to assume no because the next paragraph starts with construction beginning.
    The role of the EIR is implied a few sentences later with the wildlife preserve creation. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  16. Did the I-5 detour signify the beginning of construction? Regardless, this could be worded better.
    It does, as that is the first thing that had to be done on the construction project. I made a slight adjustment but suggestions are welcome. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  17. Is it necessary to name drop the mayor of National City? How about the fire chief?
    I think the mayor is important enough; the fire chief, probably not. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  18. What dispute and with whom?
    Clarified per above. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  19. What is a 'high number of traffic accidents'? Does the source say?
    Added. --Rschen7754 03:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  20. You should use some synonyms for "construction"
    Removed/reworded some instances. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  21. Construction resumed in early November 1989;[53] the halting of construction meant that the project had to be rebid, and one bridge was partially constructed, resulting in it being known as "the bridge to nowhere".[54] This sentence is mostly fragments.
    Reworded. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  22. Shouldn't it be an HOV lane?
    Done. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 21:24 (PDT)
  23. "As of October 2014, Caltrans was considering relinquishing" had considered?
    Done. --Rschen7754 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Overall comments

One thing that distracted me, and I mentioned it a few times, was the use of -ing. I'm not saying that all of them are wrong, but some of them could be said better with revision. I am going to do some copyediting now of stuff that I didn't think was worth mentioning. I'll ping you when I'm all done. –Fredddie 00:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fredddie: All done or replied to. --Rschen7754 03:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I had been waiting for you to finish up, but I'll look it over in the coming days. –Fredddie 04:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fredddie: Have you had a chance to look at this? --Rschen7754 17:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The long and short answer is no. However, now that I know you're interested, I will look it over soon. –Fredddie 17:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Dough4872[edit]

Comments:

  1. File:California 54.svg - PD-MUTCD-CA
  2. File:California State Route 54 map cropped.svg - cc-by-sa-4.0, GFDL, has sources
  3. File:CA 54 eastern terminus.jpg - cc-by-sa-4.0
  4. File:CaliforniaRoute54a.jpg - PD-user-en
  5. File:SR 54 and SR 94.jpg - GFDL, cc-by-sa-all
  6. Captions look fine. Dough4872 01:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The review has been suspended for being inactive for 30 days and having outstanding comments. It may be reactivated at any time in the next 6 months. --Rschen7754 07:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Reactivating. --Rschen7754 19:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Dartford Crossing[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – This ACR is open and needs reviewers.

Toolbox

Dartford Crossing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: I improved this article to good article status about two years ago. We knew at the time that the automatic charging scheme was going to mean changes, and these were covered, but as the crossing appears in the news pretty much all the time, a moving target is hard to hit. I'd like some ideas of what information is missing in the article, and what we can do to beef it up a bit. Also paging Dr. Blofeld who had a hand in getting it to GA in the first place, and nags me every now and again to give FAC another go. ;-)
Nominated by: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
First comment occurred: 02:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie[edit]

Review by Fredddie
  • I'll look it over. Typically, I go through each section and point out things or ask questions. Bridges are not my strong suit, so there might be more questions than if it were just a road. –Fredddie 02:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Infobox and lead
  • I think the infobox is missing some information (though I could be swayed on the last two)
    • That it crosses the River Thames
    • Bridge span and tunnel lengths
    • Something I've seen on American bridge and tunnel articles is something like "Carries: 8 lanes of A282" (see Rock Island Centennial Bridge for an example, nevermind the MOS:ICON vio)
    • Daily traffic
    I wouldn't mention A282 (though that is the official classification, sources consider it de facto part of the M25 and is mentioned as such on BBC traffic and news sources (random example), but the other information is okay. The problem at the moment is the article is uses {{Infobox building}} as there's no suitable infobox that caters for a crossing that is both a tunnel and a bridge, so I shoehorned that in as a compromise. Under normal circumstances, I'd throw the infobox out per WP:DIB, but there is a major benefit here in that the picture and the map give the reader an instant indication of what and where the crossing is, far better than text. How can we get out of this logjam? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    Aha. I meant to check which infobox is there, but I never did. I think we could use {{Infobox}} as a one-off. I'll try something out in a sandbox and ask what you think. –Fredddie 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The website redirects to another page about Dart Charge. Do you think that's still appropriate to be the "official website"?
    Highways England changed the website sometime in 2015 (certainly some time after the GA passed), a quick search reveals pretty much the only obvious page on a search is one advising of the charge. I've taken it out for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    OK. –Fredddie 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the lead, it should mention that one direction uses the tunnels and the other uses the bridge. If this wasn't a 2-year-old GA, I'd suggest that as a DYK hook.
    I can accommodate that, though in the event we went for traffic figure related hooks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Location
  • What is the clearance beneath the bridge? The only reason I ask is because I could see someone mistaking 137m as the clearance and not the tower height.
    I've dropped that in as a footnote, sourced to the Port of London Authority. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Do any of the alternative route proposals talk about the future of Dartford Crossing? I mean, would the tunnels close for rehabilitation? If there has been no discussion so far, that's fine.
    There's been no mention and I can't believe that would ever happen, even with the Lower Thames Crossing in place. In 2014, the crossing was closed when I was trying to get from Kent to Suffolk and the gridlock around Dartford and up to the Blackwall Tunnel was unbelievable; I think the delay was about 4-5 hours. A journey from anywhere from East Anglia to Brighton, for instance, would not use the LTC. I saw a report in the paper today that one of the tunnels is being closed between midnight and 5am some time next week, so it'll probably be done piecemeal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Charges
  • Could you explain better how someone pays for the charge without a prepaid account? Paying by text message is somewhat of a novelty here in the US (the Red Cross is the one organization I can think of that accepts payments/donations via text frequently) so I'm left wondering how you do it? Do you just send a message to the number with your number plate? Is there any confirmation after crossing that the transaction was successful?
    I don't think text message is supported anymore, but as far as I know they replied with an automated message and you gave them a card number, expiry date and security code, and the payment was processed. As I expected / feared, the sources for the old DART-Tag scheme are dead, so I've moved that into the "History" section. Online payment is being strongly promoted by signs everywhere saying "find us online", so I've dropped that in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If I lived nearby, the £20 unlimited crossings option sounds like a bargain. Are there any data that show how many locals use the annual fee options? No worries if there are not.
    Indeed there is, so I've put it in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you think the Charging scheme subsection would fit better in the Charges section instead of the History?
    As I've reorganised things a bit per the above comments, this might be a bit moot now. The basic idea of the layout (and I think this came up in the GA review), is that the article body starts off with the things readers are most likely to want to know; where is it, how much does it cost, how do you pay, then goes into historical detail afterwards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
History
  • On a longer section like this, I like to see a two or three sentences summarizing the section to come before the first subheader. There is no policy or guideline behind requiring a section lead; I just think it's a good practice.
    Can you give me some examples. As far as I can see, Blackwall Tunnel, Vauxhall Bridge and Woolwich Ferry (all GA or FA Thames crossing articles) don't do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    I was going to suggest looking at other articles on the ACR page, but seeing as they're inconsistent, I've stricken this one. –Fredddie 17:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Should we inflate all the costs to current figures? I think you'd have to use UKNGDPPC, but that hasn't been updated in five years.
    I've dropped in conversions using {{inflation}} where I think it's appropriate, which hopefully covers it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "..., costing £13M." needs a better home. It doesn't flow with the rest of the sentence.
    I've restructured the sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The towers are about 61 metres (200 ft) high, ..." contradicts the claim that the bridge is 137 metres high in the infobox and the Location section. Unless the 61m height is measured from the deck of the bridge. Either way, that should be clarified.
    The article was wrong; the height of the bridge deck is 61m which correlates with the maximum clearance at mean spring water tide being slightly below this. The tower height is 137m. I have corrected the text. I think this issue has been excacerbated by sloppy journalism like "Essex Police said the man’s car pulled up on the bridge, which is 137m (450ft) up at its highest point, before he climbed the safety barriers and threatened to jump" which is misleading. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So a charge is a clever accounting trick that is definitely not a toll? Charges are not subject to VAT?
    Pretty much; you don't actually pay a "toll" when using the crossing; it is a congestion charge and uses the same symbol as the London congestion charge. Actually, that fact should probably go in the article somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Traffic
  • In the first paragraph, do you think the exact totals are necessary? Could we reword it to say "Over 1.4 billion vehicles..." and "over 49 million vehicles..." without changing the meaning? I'm OK with the daily figures.
  • Same thing with the financials, could they be rounded to even millions?
I think this is a good argument to be made for the lead, certainly, but in the body of the article, if we have precise figures, I think it would be good to mention them. I can easily see a counter-argument the other way, saying "The article says over 1.4 billion figures ... haven't we got the exact figure in a source"? @Dr. Blofeld:, what do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Why do some mph figures use {{Convert}} inline, while some use a footnote?
There was an edit war over this a while back, where an argument was made that a 50mph limit is not exactly 80mph and hence misleading (it is illegal to drive at 70.00001mph on a motorway as brilliantly satirised here). However, the more recent improvements have used {{convert}} without any problems, so I am going to assume there's an implicit consensus for that and they're all using the template now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How many times has the bridge closed due to weather?
Lots ;-) While that news search has several duplicate items, I can see at least five closures going back less than a year on the first page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That should do it. Overall this article is very informative without boring the reader, which is no easy task. Nice work. –Fredddie 21:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The only seriously outstanding issue at the moment is the infobox. Did you get a mockup completed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I am satisfied with the replies to my questions and changes to the article. –Fredddie 03:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754[edit]

 Done --Rschen7754 16:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Review by Kevon kevono

Just an FYI, I'll review this article and comment in American English and will do that very soon. Kevon kevono (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 20:19 (PDT)

Intro and Infobox

  1. "It opened in stages: the west tunnel in 1963, the east tunnel in 1980 and the bridge in 1991." This sentence sounds a bit strange. How about: "The Dartford Crossing opened in stages, with the west tunnel of opening in 1963, the east tunnel in 1980, and the bridge in 1991." Also, limit of the pronoun "it"; this overuse "it" is unprofessional and makes the article duller.
    "The west tunnel of opening" sounds gramatically incorrect. @Sagaciousphil: - you're good at fixing my mistakes, what do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    No, "of opening" isn't correct, perhaps just a typo? I've tried giving that paragraph a couple of tweaks - see what you think? But please remember I'm a dopey female who may be getting all this roads stuff wrong! ;-) SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. "It has been described as one of the most important road crossings in Britain and suffers from heavy traffic and congestion." This needs evidence. Described by what?
    See quotations in the body (second paragraph of "Location") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. "The crossing had always been tolled..." I'd say "a toll road" instead of "tolled"?
    Technically, the road isn't tolled, also I think the current prose came out of a bit of a recent mild content dispute further down the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. "A residents' scheme is available, offering further discounts for people living near the crossing." Does it have a name?
    Just the "Dart Charge local resident discount" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll look the rest later.Kevon kevono (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 14:44 (PDT)

Also, re World War II vs Second World War, this came up at a GA review recently (Talk:Bow Street/GA1) and my feeling is that "World War x" is more consistently used and understood; and is the WP:COMMONNAME for the articles in question. However, I'm not too bothered about which to choose if people feeling strongly one way or another. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. Why are the dates listed DDMMYY? Should they be MMDDYY? Kevon kevono (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 15:34 (PDT)
    @Kevon kevono: I'd like to offer a piece of advice about reviewing an article written on a British subject in British English. Some words may be used a little differently, but they'll be more correct in this instance because of the variation between American and British English. Spellings will vary a bit as well, and as you indirectly note above, dates are formatted differently between the two countries. The US is somewhat unique in using Month DD, YYYY, format dates, while the UK and much of the rest of the world uses DD Month YYYY. You'll need to respect those variations and not insist on conforming formatting and phrasing to American tastes because this is a British subject. Imzadi 1979  22:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    (ec) Nope, British dates are Day-Month-Year, US dates are Month-Day-Year. It's why computerised dates tend to be YYYYMMDD - as nobody normally puts them that way round, nobody gets confused. Put UK English and US English on a PC and swap between them. (or what Imzadi said) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks. Kevon kevono (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 15:45 (PDT)
    Also, my other half (the lovely Rhonda) is from the US (even got a reliable source saying it [1]) so I am pretty familiar with the UK / US cultural differences by now, as a jovially hinted above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333, the lack of ambiguity is a side benefit of YYYYMMDD. The more fundamental reason is that you can ask which of two dates (so formatted) is the earlier one just by comparing them as integers. EEng 23:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kevon kevono: Did you have any other comments? --Rschen7754 02:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    • If you do not, I suggest closing your comments and letting someone with more experience (in copyediting and with the Manual of Style) review this article. Nobody watching this page will consider you or this review a failure. If you're willing to use this as a learning experience, I can point you in the direction of some tutorials that will help with your writing. In turn, you'll become a better reviewer. –Fredddie 04:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As Kevon kevono is inactive and unable to support or oppose, I have collapsed the comments. --Rschen7754 07:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Clarion Collar: Can you please discuss your changes as part of this review? I picked through your changes and the one good one was that the speed limit was mentioned twice, which I've trimmed; everything else mixed up information so the casual reader would have to wade through the entire article to find information most useful, as opposed to just the beginning; this came up in this review and the previous GA review two years ago. Also, do not remove reliably sourced information without consensus, it can be seen as disruptive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Clarion Collar[edit]

Collapsing comments from confirmed sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Despite having covered a lot of this at the talk page already, now I know this page exists, I shall record my complaints here for posterity, as it seems that Ritchie333 is fond of referring back to these reviews to justify his belief his efforts are good, or "Good" to use the official Wikipedia classification. I beg to disagree, and hope people will respond to these extremely specific and well thought out comments in an appropriate manner. Others have been less than diligent in that regard so far, and Ritchie himself, despite trying to convey an attitude of being willing to work with feedback to reach a consensus, has already dismissed half of these complaints as "TL;DR", and has given pretty unbelievable or entirely dismissive answers to the others. Despite his claims, I didn't stumble blindly onto his article and start hacking away at it thoughtlessly. I put lots of thought into it, it's just that he disagrees with the conclusions, and seems to genuinely think others would too, but apparently not enough to explain how or why beyond simply stating that these things were not spotted by anyone before, so they must not be issues at all. This is in stark contrast to the fact the GA reviewer, Crisco, already raised one (History placement), and one of the others (A282 mention in intro) is currently being fought over between Ritchie and others as late as yesterday. So it's quite possible other issues have been seen before as well, just not properly resolved, due to Ritchie's apparent belief he somehow has a veto as the main author. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

1. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article has "an appropriate series of headings to break up the content". The headings in this article, as well as their ordering, are entirely inappropriate:

1.1. Ritchie has admitted that the only reason "Charging" comes before "History" is because he believes this is the most important part for the article for readers, and they should be able to find it without reading all the other stuff. He seems to have absolutely no appreciation at all that this is not how most Wikipedia articles order their sections, with History coming first, (and I have given examples over there of similar articles which have History first), or of having a narrative ordering of history related sections, if they are spread over multiple sections. This article does neither. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think this article has to follow exactly the ordering of "all Wikipedia articles" or even "all similar Wikipedia articles"? I'd agree that "Charging" is quite an important topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I have been given no reason why this article should not be consistent. If this article is allowed to be a special flower for unstated (or unremarkable) reasons, then won't that inevitably spell ruin for the Garden of Standardisation? Or is the plan that all articles on Crossings and Bridges will eventually be treated this way? I suspect not. And the placement of the section here is not because it is "quite important", it is because it is the (second) most important, apparently. Or the second most requested. Or something like that, it's hard to follow the logic, because it's not really logic at all, it's blind supposition or the dubious outcome of what is claimed to be some kind of user case testing by Ritchie and his wife. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Why assume he has a wife? Any editor is able to suggest improvements, just like you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, I have to remind you that it will be a waste of both our time if you're going to keep asking me questions without apparently having read everything he has said to me. He has specifically referred to what he and his partner have found during research as thy go about rewriting God knows how many other articles here, using this research to support his bizarre claim that Wikipedia articles should be structured the way he wants, as opposed the the way that appears to widespread and standard. Perhaps I am wrong to assume they are married, but that hardly seems to be the most pertinent issue at hand. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
1.2. Despite virtually all of the other sections besides History (both before and after) being about operational aspects (traffic, safety, charges, diversions, etc), there is no over-arching "Operations" heading to bring these all together for the reader. Again, I feel this has only come about because of Ritchie's poor understanding of what an encyclopedia is for - I suspect he sees this article as some kind of motorist FAQ or highways management course material, and the presence of information like History is merely an inconvenience. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what your personal guess of Ritchie's unstated motives has to do with the way this article is structured. These seems just like another sly dig at someone you don't agree with. Having a section called "Operation" sounds quite dull. In fact it sounds like something you might see on a highways management course? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with what he has already said. These are not my guesses, he's been open about the reasons why he structured the article this way - namely that the most important information goes at the top, to best serve casual readers, who shouldn't be inconvenienced by having to read further down than necessary. He is of the view that it is Wikipedia's role to serve at the upper end what he believes is the most common reason for readers coming to this article, namely those looking to find out how much the charge is. I don't know how I can make that sound as anything other than a dig - it's his view, and it's clearly based on nothing but his personal view, it's certainly not based on anything I have seen in any Wikipedia documentation (which explicitly says this is not what Wikipedia is for), or indeed how other articles are laid out. It's his personal, view, and he's evidently been insistent about it, because Crisco pointed it out as odd, and that is where he gave that explanation as he defended it. As for dull, I was unaware of the requirement for headings to be exciting. I await your suggestion for alternate names for all the other boring names used in it currently. Boring is good. Boring gives the reader some idea that they are reading an encyclopedia article about a road crossing, which, with the best will in the world, is not going to be the most thrilling thing they will read in their lifetime. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Please stop telling me what to do. I don't think "boring is good", but quite happy for sections headings to be factually accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Good to know. So can we have an opinion on how factually accurate you think the current ones are, based on what is actually in them? Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
1.3. Traffic congestion is one of the main reasons this crossing gets written about, and yet the section which deals with it is placed right at the bottom. How this fits with Ritchie's model of serving readers with the information they presumably want first, is lost on me. Not that everything related to congestion is even in there - for some inexplicable reason, information about diversionary routes, and even proposals for alternate crossings, is actually presented at the top, although it is placed quite misleadingly in a section called "Location". Other information that is related to the congestion issue, such as the design capacity, is also confusingly placed in "Location", which is not where anyone interested in it would be looking. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that's just putting you own opinion on things. There's going to be a general expected structure and order for articles about river crossings, that a reader might expect to see? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If that last line was meant as a question, the obvious answer is yes. And no, that's not just my opinion, if you care to look, you will find lots of evidence out there that the phrase Dartford Crossing and congestion go hand in hand, both in everyday media and government/industry publications. The tariff table? Not so much. This is the difference between objective proof, and simple personal opinion. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we have to follow "everyday media" in an encyclopedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's not exactly what I said, I used everyday media as one end of the spectrum we should consult when making decisions on the relative importance of different sections, but I would hardly disagree with the premise of your reformulation. If your intent however was to suggest that while everyday media might focus on an issue like Congestion as a defining aspect of the crossing, other publications might not, that seems false to me. To prove it, we need only check the very first internet accessible reference used in the article that's not everyday media: [2] (ref. 2). There's a pretty big focus on congestion there. And History. And Construction. And "Operations"!. What's also noteworthy is that very little attention is paid to Charging systems, even though the over-arching theme is technology. It's relegated right to the bottom. As if the author believes it is of least importance. And note too, it doesn't contain information on pricing. As if the author believes there is a more appropriate place people should be going, if that is the sort of information they seek. This is yet more proof that there is a clear difference between how this article has been laid out, and how other people do it. I can't vouch for the reputation of a site like http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/, but its About section seems to indicate its primary purpose is public education. It's an encyclopedia of Dartford, basically. If this article wants to be rated "A-class", it might be worthwhile if people started to examine how that page has been laid out - taking note that the whole website appears to be the product of professional people, historians and the like, producing material that has then been put through an editorial process to produce a consistent offering to the public. Until I got involved in this mess, that is what I assumed Wikipedia was trying to emulate, albeit on a volunteer basis. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Good luck over at the darts, Demolition Man. I'm sure you'll get it up to WP:GA status in no time. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
1.4. The information about proposals for alternate crossings is placed inside the section for Alternate routes, under the paragraph dealing with current diversionary routes. Again, this shows a clear lack of clarity about where to put what information - there should obviously be a dedicated sub-section for proposed relief crossings. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is that obvious? It's just a different way of structuring things. I'm not sure that either is necessarily better. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It's clearly better. At the very least, it would clear up confusion about what Alternate Routes even means in the context of a heading in this article - Ritchie obviously wants it to refer to both diversionary routes in place right now that are used in times of closure or congestion, as well as what various options have been considered, but not yet built, as far as relief routes goes. Two sections, with clear headings, would give readers clarity and choice about what they read, something Ritchie seems keen to have - why should someone only looking for info on relief crossing have to wade through a paragraph on current diversions? Give them that choice. Have the two sections together in their own over-arching section if it is deemed their relation warrants it, but I suspect it makes more sense to have Diversions in Operations, and leave Relief Proposals to somewhere outside it. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
No strong view. I see arguments for both approaches. But why not just present your arguments without using "the R word" all the time. It might help you case? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
As I have explained already, given it is obvious that the layout and content of this article has been strongly influenced by the personal preferences of Ritchie, it's unavoidable. His thoughts and motives for doing the things he does have to be addressed here, otherwise people may be misled into thinking his positions have more support than they do, based on his vague claims that other reviewers have said nothing, so therefore these must be not be serious issues. You don't have a strong view, but he certainly does - my attempted separation of this information in the manner I outlined above, for the reasons I gave, is one of the many changes he summarily reversed, claiming it went against the views of himself and reviewers. And without any specific comment from him on each change, the only thing we have to go on is his generic explanation - that it "mixed up information so the casual reader would have to wade through the entire article to find information most useful". So there you have it, in his view, creating clarity in this specific instance, creating sections where it is immediately obvious what is in them, which is obviously exactly how you help casual readers pick and choose which sections they want, in his view actually mixed up information for casual readers not looking to read the whole thing. It makes no sense whatsoever, and I'm convinced that as soon as other people pluck up the courage to critically examine what he has done at this level of detail, they will see the benefit of my changes, or at the very least be able to come up with a coherent reason why they're not OK, which I would be totally OK with. If they don't, if they stay silent and just allow him a veto over this page for no other reason than he wrote most of it and they want a quiet life or have better things to do with their time than getting into it with him, well, as I've said, that has consequences too. It may bring you and he an element of short term peace by persuading people like me to just go away, but be in no doubt, just because I go away, doesn't mean I lose my voice or power to influence the reputation or standing of Wikipedia as a supposed encyclopedia. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
1.5. There is information about the crossing's strategic importance, and financial information, in the article, but these are bizarrely tucked away under section headings that have nothing to do with the information. People looking for information like this, which is eminently encyclopedic, have no choice but to read the entire thing, yet Ritchie seems to think people looking for the price table should not be similarly inconvenienced. Again, this is clear evidence that no real thought has gone into what should go where or why. It is frankly amazing that Ritchie is fine with most readers not getting to the end of the article, where they will find extremely important information, such as "The crossing is the busiest in the United Kingdom". It beggars belief that anyone could think this was an appropriate way to break up this content. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see "The crossing is the busiest in the United Kingdom" in the lead. But you don't specifically say what the other problems are that "beggar belief". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised it isn't there already, in a "Good Article". I thought it was very clear. It beggars belief that someone thinks putting financial information and a description of strategic importance in the sections they are in currently, given the headings give no indication that's where you would find it (Location and Traffic). It beggars belief there is even a section on "Traffic" when somehow it doesn't contain the sections on Congestion (a traffic problem) or Diversionary routes (traffic management), while actually containing stuff like the total income of the crossing (something readers might expect to find in either one of the sections named Charging, given the current article has no heading at all for Finances or suchlike). It's a convoluted and ill-thought out mess, that seems to all stem from the initial problem of not properly grouping information according to subject and position in the overall layout. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The lead says "it is the busiest estuarial crossing in the United Kingdom"? Ah, more beggars, I see. Perhaps they could help the vagrants? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
What's your point? If the introduction says it's the busiest esturial crossing, and at the bottom it merely says busiest crossing, then clearly someone has screwed up, and either the use of the word esturial there is supposed to be significant (and I can't check, as the esturial version is cited to book), or this is simply a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing (assuming the sentences come from different people), or worse. Whichever possibility is the truth, for such an important and defining claim, this should be a real warning sign to anyone considering raising this article's rating from "Good" to "A-class". The latter rather implies something close to perfection, no? It's arguable this sort of thing means it is not even "Good", but I don't yet have enough experience with this place to know how bad a "Good" article is likely to be, on average. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

2. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article should be "well-written, reasonably clear". There are numerous examples that this is not the case here. The text is repetitive, but also disjointed. Information like its geographic positioning is spread across multiple sections (only one east of Greater London, and easternmost road crossing of the Thames). Similarly with information about design capacity - two sentences on this are placed miles away from each other, despite essentially conveying the same info (that it has been exceeded, resulting in congestion). Diversions and closures due to high winds is mentioned in multiple places all over the article (presumably because there is no Operations section where stuff like this would be logically grouped). There are numerous examples of pointless redundancy, which seem to only exist because of Ritchie's confused view of how the article should be laid out. The only reason the Charges section explains that the ANPR system was introduced in April 2016, is because he is assuming most readers won't then get beyond that, to the History section. Which of course has to repeat that fact, because that is precisely what History sections are for. He's not even been consistent with his own logic though - it's clarified in the very first section that the road is not under motorway restrictions, so why is the very last section, congestion, mentioning it in a way that seems like it's meant to be the first time the reader learns of it? If including the introduction, this will be the third time it has been mentioned, which is a complete waste of words. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You think "Diversions and closures due to high winds is mentioned in multiple places all over the article?" I see it mention in just three places, all perfectly well justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Three places is not multiple now? I see no justification for it. The way this information is scattered around all over the place, it's almost like someone is trying to make some point, and indeed in one instance the point being made is rather clear - the bridge was designed to be wind resilient, and yet it is not, therefore diversions due to wind is a feature of the operation of the crossing, which of course contributes to the congestion issue, and has a particular impact on high sided vehicles due to the lack of diversionary routes inside London. As fundamental as conveying that info is to helping a reader learn about the crossing, it's is not information that would end up scattered around in bits and pieces around the article, if the task performed by the writer was grouping related information together so readers are not needlessly confused by their poor writing and muddled sense of organisation. Like an A-class article is supposed to do. I would even say it deserves it's own sub-section, under Operation, but that would obviously be a problem for someone who thinks the lack of pizazz in that name means there cannot be one. Under the current model, Ritchie's and his wife's personal preference, of serving casual readers with their desired info near the top, and leaving the geeky stuff to the bottom, rather than coming across as a fundamental issue, this wind related feature/flaw is relegated to the status of stuff only ubergeeks need to know (ubergeeks supposedly being the only people who take the time to read the whole article, then reconstructing the disparate bits of info about stuff like this inside their short term memory, to produce a coherent whole). Which is ridiculous. And again, I'm not putting words in Ritchie's mouth here, he's talked in these terms to justify the layout ("technical mumbo jumbo" and "we put information that is useful for casual readers first, then put the in-depth stuff at the bottom.". Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it as a problem. But your point seems to be "group all information about diversions and closures due to high winds" in its own sub-section. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It is. That is the sort of clarity an "A-class" rating calls for, no? Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

3. I'm not sure where the Highways project stands on this as far as A-class ratings go, but reading Wikipedia's 5P page, which explains what Wikipedia is not, it seems beyond obvious that inclusion of a tariff table is completely inappropriate (in stark contrast to Ritchie's apparent view that this is the most important part of the article). It is not Wikipedia's job to be assisting users of this crossing in this manner, it is not a FAQ or a travel guide. It is sufficient for an encyclopedia to simply note that the charging scheme employs things like vehicle type bands and local user schemes. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a toll table in Second Severn Crossing. Why is it "completely inappropriate"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally, the problem with including toll rates on toll roads when there is more than one toll plaza is that they are difficult to maintain and keep current. There are dozens of articles about U.S. highways that include tolls that demonstrate how not to include tolls. It's simply not the case here; it's just a singular charge for the crossing. –Fredddie 21:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. We have "flowerguild" and "youthmin" as parameters in Template:infobox church when we can barely keep up with "priest". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It's relatively simple to include the price of entry to my local cinema (which has a Wikipedia page - not just the chain, but the actual building too). That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it, or in any way meets the definition of an encylopedia. I'm not going to repeat what was already a pretty comprehensive explanation of its inappropriateness for Wikipedia. If it's done on other toll road articles here but only as long as it's ones where it's easy to do, then maybe the entire field of roads is the outlier (but I am unconvinced even of that), because I'm thinking there will be no other class of article here where Wikipedia is turned into some kind of consumer price service/FAQ/guide just because it is possible to put the current price of something into the article about that something. I also note with some amusement that the Tolls section in that article is positioned near the bottom, well below several sections which are clearly intended to serve as a narrative history, just like I described above as the seemingly standard approach, when there is no single History section, but which people are objecting to here. There is definitely a standard layout on Wikipedia and it applies even to this subject area. Those seeking to deny this basic reality should really start thinking about whether this is a sustainable position, as I think it's only going to become more obvious each time someone mentions another article by way of demonstrating support for another issue, as happened here. Also, note the Tolls info is not placed in a single section, it's placed as a sub-section of Finances, and grouped alongside a historical table and governance info, because it is clear someone put some thought into putting that information into encyclopedic context (and arguably the progression of the toll is more encyclopedic than its current level) and grouping related information together, just as an A-class article should do. Unlike this one. I hope people are not now going to go over and mess with that article's layout just to validate the mess of this article, but I note Ritchie has said he's going to do just that on Blackwall Crossing, so maybe that's a thing here. I prefer working to a standardised model and ensuring each thing matches it, but who knows what the Wikipedia process is. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that cinemas and major road crossings are necessarily comparable. Do you want the toll information removed or do you want it in a different place? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
So what would you compare it to? Pick any other comparable class of purchasable commodity, and I am quite sure that there will be no present day pricing information in the associated Wikipedia article. Even if we pick an article on Wikipedia that is specifically about a traffic charge, the London congestion charge, where therefore it would be quite ridiculous to argue that the amount of the charge was irrelevant, even then it is not given as much prominence as it is here. It is also included only as part of a thematic section dealing with the entire issue of "Present scheme", in contrast to here, where it is presented as standalone 'this is the current charge' section (i.e., read below if you want to know more about the crossing, which we doubt, but hey, whatever). The tariff table obviously has to go, but I would not be averse to the same info being here if it was presented in the way it is in some other articles, i.e. as part of a documentation of the historical progression of the tolls/charges, either as a table or a graph. And definitely it has to go after History, ideally in an Operations section, being the closest analogy to "Present scheme" (or above, if people agree the entire subject of present operations is more important than History, which I doubt they would). The people coming here only for the current price can then figure it out by going to the relevant section and looking at the last data point in the table/graph. You know, as if this was an encyclopedia whose primary purpose is to impart historical information, not a FAQ aiming to serve up transient 'guide' style info. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

4. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article has "a well-written introduction". This article's introduction omits the basic fact that the crossing and its approaches are an A-road (the A282), not a motorway. All it contains on this issue is the sentence "The crossing, despite not being under motorway restrictions, is part of the M25 motorway's route", which is obviously misleading, as readers will understandably be asking themselves how a motorway route cannot be under motorway restrictions. The answer of course is that it's not a section of motorway, and that any and all mentions of it being "part of the M25" elsewhere, are merely imprecise (but perfectly understandable to the layman) explanations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not for the layman, its wording is supposed to be precise on matters of basic and obvious fact like this. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You think the A282 is just like any other A-road here? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Clarion Collar: I would suggest that you focus your comments more on the article, and not the editor - your ideas might be better received if you do so. --Rschen7754 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I hear you, but that's quite hard to do when so many of the article's problems are tied up with the views of that one editor (who claims to have written most of it) and what he claims other editors think about his work, or rather what they don't take issue with (which in at least one case is false). If he changes his approach and starts defending the article based only on objective reality, rather than framing everything as being about his personal views and what others think of his work, then maybe we can start discussing the article in isolation. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754

I will admit that bridges are not my area of expertise, but I am willing to read it and give my feedback.

  • This isn't a source review (I'll leave that to folks more familiar with citation formatting) but eyeballing the citations I think they will need to be more consistent - FAC is pretty strict in this regard. For example, ref 75 has no access date, and ref 65 is missing the newspaper name.
Both fixed. I think if I was going to take this to FAC, I would want to see if using {{harnvb}} or some variant of that might be better, rather than just leaving references clogged up amongst the text, which makes copyediting across them a pain in the tail. @Jennica: - you like formatting and templates, is this anything you might be able to help with? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Everything looks good on a template/formatting standpoint. I have no input. Looks like a job well done. --Jennica / talk 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The proposed Thames Gateway Bridge to the west was given planning permission in December 2004 - by who?
Transport for London; however a more serious problem is the source given did not support that statement and was a dead link. Both now fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • and will most likely be a tunnel - a bit speculative
The problem with government plans is they tend to be a bit vague, especially if Boris Johnson has his fingers in them, but an updated news source shows this is definitely going to be a tunnel, so fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thurrock Council suggest -> The Thurrock Council suggests
Are you sure about that? xxx Council (or xxx Borough Council, or xxx City Council) is pretty standard British English. For example, this new search does not contain "the" in any of the hits. (This discussion might be relevant). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
That sounds fine, but perhaps it should be "suggests" instead of "suggest"? --Rschen7754 02:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That's an ENGVAR quirk. In the UK, groups are considered a they, while in the US, groups are typically an it. –Fredddie 05:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that should be fine then. --Rschen7754 05:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • though construction is unlikely to start before 2026 - should say in whose opinion this is
Highways England - I've copyedited this to make it a little clearer (technically the construction will actually be undertaken by a contractor, it's not like Chris Grayling is going to turn up with hard-hat and shovel, except maybe in a ceremonial context) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Charges are payable between 6am and 10pm and this is indicated on overhead-gantry signs - this is a bit wordy. Also, there should be a (nonbreaking) space between 6 and am, and 10 and pm.
Trimmed and formatted accordingly (isn't there an easy way of identifying when   is in a script or something?) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Charges table: Perhaps the "free" should have the F capitalized?
I think a better question is, should the "free" column be there at all? I've had a look at some other comparable articles, including Tamar Bridge, Severn Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge and Mackinac Bridge and none of them have a "free" column (some put this information in prose; Tamar Bridge explicitly says "There is no charge for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycles". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
If the information is in prose, that's probably fine. --Rschen7754 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

More later. --Rschen7754 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Generally nonbreaking spaces should be used between a number and the associated unit: 60 years, 65,000 vehicles.
Have we got a script anywhere to help do this? It seems like a common enough task. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 2 axle -> two-axle
  • and it took a team of around 56 - do we need "around"? --Rschen7754 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The source says "....supervised a team of about 56 men who constructed the concrete towers", so saying "56" on its own is not necessarily correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • under a charging scheme under powers - repeated "under".
Also a repeat of "charging scheme", I've copyedited this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pre-pay accounts for the crossing were introduced around this time; drivers held a device called a DART-Tag in the vehicle that automatically deducted the charge at payment booths - may want to link to Electronic toll collection somewhere.
I've changed "device" to "electronic device" and linked it there; since the DART-Tag is now discontinued, it would make more sense to clarify it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 10pm and 6am again, and 2-axle.
Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This completes the review. --Rschen7754 05:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support issues resolved. As far as a nbsp script, I would ask around (say, at WT:MOS or WT:FAC) - I usually do it by hand. --Rschen7754 03:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 75 in Iowa[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – This ACR is open and needs reviewers.

Toolbox

U.S. Route 75 in Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: It's been a while since I've been to ACR, so here is an article that I believe has a chance of becoming a Featured Article.
Nominated by:Fredddie 13:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754[edit]

  • I do intend to review this article. I don't know when I'll get around to it, so I don't mind if someone else goes ahead. --Rschen7754 03:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872[edit]

  • I will review this article. Dough4872 01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

  1. When mentioning the state line termini in the infobox, you should mention what state line it is located at.
    This doesn't apply since I didn't (and typically don't) mention the state endpoints in the infobox
  2. In the first paragraph of the lead, you should mention what state the route comes in from the south and leaves to the north to give more geographical context.
  3. "Immediately upon landing in Iowa,", the word "landing" sounds awkward here, I would use "entering" instead.
    I used the verb land because the road already entered Iowa on the bridge.
  4. "US 75 enters Iowa on the Sergeant Floyd Memorial Bridge, which also carries I-129 and US 20, over the Missouri River.", you should mention the route enters Iowa from Nebraska.
  5. Again, would use "entering" instead of "landing".
    Again, I think it's fine.
  6. "an interchange with Iowa 3 helps direct more traffic to the downtown area.", "more" seems superfluous here and should be removed.
    The previous interchange was with the Le Mars business route; it's implied that the business route directs traffic to downtown.
  7. You should add a little more detail about the physical surroundings to the route description. Specifically, you should mention what kind of development the highway passes in Sioux City and what the surroundings are like in the rural areas. Also you should mention where the road leaves Sioux City and heads into rural areas.
    There's really nothing to describe. Northwestern Iowa gives the rest of the state a bad reputation of being flat cornfields.
    All that needs to be added here is that when the route leaves Sioux City is that it heads into farmland. Maybe add just one sentence that says "Upon leaving Sioux City, US 75 passes through farmland for most of the remainder of its route." or something similar. I think ignoring this leaves out a piece of the route description as the reader may be curious what the areas US 75 passes through in northwestern Iowa are like and some readers may be unfamiliar with the geography of Iowa and cannot assume it passes through farmland on the stretches outside of cities. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    no Disagree
    I would disagree here too. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. In the route description, you should add a web mapping source such as Google Maps or Bing Maps to supplement the Iowa DOT map as I doubt the Iowa DOT map can source some of the information in the route description.
    Like what, specifically?
    For example, in the sentence "In Hinton, the highway and railroads separate the residential western half of the town from the eastern half's grain elevator operation.", I don't think the Iowa DOT map can back up the claim that the road separates residential areas from the grain elevators. Usually, I would use both an official DOT map and a web mapping source to source the whole route description in order to accurately be able to back up all the claims presented in the route description as neither can do it alone. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Cited only this example to Google Maps. Otherwise, it would just appear like I lazily tacked on Google Maps refs. –Fredddie 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  9. In the last paragraph of the route description, I doubt the Google Maps of the state line section change is supposed to be the source for the sentences before the state line.
    Did you click the link? You can clearly see a pavement change and a MnDOT sign. Spin the view around 180 degrees and there's an Iowa welcome sign.
    I understand that the three sentences starting with the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." can be backed up with the Google Maps ref of the state line, but its the sentences before that in the same paragraph that can't be backed up by that reference, such as "North of US 18, US 75 continues on its due-north course.", which describes a section of road well south of the state line. Again, refer to my comment above on how you should use both a DOT map and a web mapping source to source the entire route description in order to avoid these issues. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    Reworded to avoid this. –Fredddie 02:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would add a reference to the Iowa DOT map after the sentence "The road continues north toward the Minnesota state line still on a northerly path." as not to imply the Minnesota map is citing that information about the portion of the road south of the state line. Dough487210th 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  10. I noticed the History has a lot of short subsections. May want to merge or eliminate the subsections.
    Nope. Each subsection is a separate topic. Some things have more to talk about than others.
  11. Is it necessary to spell out U.S. Highway 75 in the History given that you defined it in the lead?
    You could have fixed that one.
  12. "At Court Street, they diverged; US 20 and Iowa 141 continued west along 4th and US 75 turned north onto Court", should add "Street" after 4th and Court.
    If I do that, I'll have said Street four times in two sentences.
  13. Is it possible for the inflation conversions be updated for 2016?
    This is handled automatically by the template.
  14. Again, don't need to spell out Interstate 29 since you defined the abbreviation in the lead.
    You could have fixed that one, too.
  15. What year did US 30 Alternate replace US 30? I would add a specific year as opposed to saying "years ago".
    I don't think this detail is important, US 75 is the subject of the article, not US 30 Alternate.
    I think it may help in order to provide a little historical context. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    no Disagree
    If you're not going to give the year, I would remove "years ago" - without the number it's redundant, and also "US 30 years ago" could be confusing. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Got it. –Fredddie 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  16. "and onto the abandoned US 73 corridor", I would use "former" over "abandoned" as the highway wasn't actually abandoned.
    I think it's fine.
    I still think the word choice here is poor as a reader may think the former US 73 was abandoned to the point where cars were no longer allowed to drive on it and it was no longer being maintained. Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    no Disagree
    I do think "former" is better than "abandoned" here. --Rschen7754 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Abandonment is the meaning that I wanted to convey, so I've rephrased that part of the sentence. –Fredddie 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  17. "Now a much shorter highway,", I would add "within Iowa" after that to specify that the length was shorter in Iowa as the actual total length of US 75 didn't change much with the shift into Nebraska.
  18. Why was the highway north of Sioux City growing? Dough4872 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    Read the rest of the paragraph.
    Any specific reasons why US 75 was improved to a four-lane divided highway north of Sioux City? Dough4872 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    YesY I still need to answer this one. –Fredddie 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    I finally answered this better.
  • I've either corrected the issue or disputed it above. –Fredddie 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Fredddie and Dough4872: I'm finding it hard to follow what's happening here. Does this need further input to resolve a disagreement, or is this simply inactive? --Rschen7754 22:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • A little of both. I've marked the ones on which I'd like some extra input with. –Fredddie 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I have everything covered. –Fredddie 20:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Issues 8 and 9, both regarding sourcing in the route description, still need to be addressed. Dough4872 21:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: --Rschen7754 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
One more reply above and we should be good. Dough487210th 04:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fredddie: --Rschen7754 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872 and Rschen7754: I don't know what I'm supposed to look over. I thought I had it all figured out the last time. –Fredddie 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fredddie: Issue 9 still needs to be addressed, see my last comment there. Dough4872 23:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Washington State Route 522[edit]

Symbol wait old.png – This ACR is open and needs reviewers.

Toolbox

Washington State Route 522 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Fresh off a DYK appearance and GA promotion, this is my first ACR nomination since 2008, and really my first attempt at modernizing my road article style by heavily populating it with articles from newspaper archives. I'm aiming to take this one all the way to FA.
Nominated by: SounderBruce 22:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Review by Rschen7754
Preliminary checks
  • RJL should use unnum=yes to add the note that exits are unnumbered (as many are in WA).
    • Fixed.
  • At-grade intersection - doesn't seem necessary here; when it's not a freeway, at-grade is the expected norm and interchanges are what are marked in the notes.
    • Fixed.

More later. --Rschen7754 03:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Reference 59 has an extra }.
    • Fixed.
RD
  • SR 522 enters the city of Bothell while following a narrow valley formed by the Sammamish River, turning ... what turns? the highway or the river? --Rschen7754 03:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Reworded.
History
  • Non-Indian settlements - can you be more specific?
    • Changed to Logging settlements.
  • 50 participating automobiles - why participating?
    • Removed.
  • The 8.2 mi-long (13.2 km) Bothell–Monroe... segment?
    • Fixed.
  • Inflation should be using US-NGDPPC since this is construction costs and the values are calculated differently.
    • Fixed.
      • Inflation-fn and Inflation-year need to be updated too, since the data usually lags behind normal inflation by a year or so. --Rschen7754 05:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Fixed the rest of the templates. SounderBruce 05:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You already mentioned WSDOT in the RD and abbreviated it. I would shorten it to WSDOT here and remove the duplicate link.
    • Done.

Otherwise should be good to go. --Rschen7754 06:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I believe I've fixed all of the things you've pointed out. SounderBruce 04:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Replied to one issue above - the rest are okay. --Rschen7754 05:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support issues resolved. --Rschen7754 05:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872[edit]

I will review this article. Dough4872 02:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Suspended nominations[edit]

Current demotion discussions[edit]

  • A formal notice should be placed on the talk page of the original nominator (at ACR/FAC), and on the appropriate WikiProject talk page, to make sure appropriate editors are informed.
  • In order to keep the article at A-Class or FA-Class, three net Keep votes are required, but a spotcheck and image review are not necessarily required.
  • In order to demote the article from A-Class or FA-Class, three net Demote votes are required, and must cite specific criteria or standards in which the article is deficient. Note that in order to demote an article from FA-Class, a review at FAR is required. In that scenario, if the article is kept at FAR, the article will remain at FA-Class; if the article is demoted, the article will revert to GA-Class, if it retains that status; if not, the article will revert to B-Class (or lower, if necessary). It will not retain any A-Class status that it previously had.
  • After 30 days of no edits to the review page, such a review will be considered inactive. A formal notice should be left on WT:HWY, the original nominator's talk page, the appropriate task force or national project talk pages, and on the talk page of all people who have commented on the review, in order to encourage people to make changes to the article and/or make keep or demote declarations. If no attempts are made to continue working on the article within 7 days, the review will be closed as keep by default.


Archives[edit]

2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017