 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | M13 motorway was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 02 August 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into A13 road (England). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Article Style edit
This article is a bit too wordy for me, which is why I've added the {{essay-entry}} template. See A1 and A66 for good examples of how a roads article should be laid out, and not simply a narrative of all its waypoints, which is not useful for an encyclopedia. See wp:mos. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I had a go at rewriting this! Sunil060902 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, aside from a lack of pics and tables, I don't see how my rewrite is radically different from the A66 entry. Sunil060902 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've put the tag back on for the time being. There is still too much commentary (although structurally sound), how many set of traffic lights are not relevant and so on. Look at M62 motorway and A500 road as examples of good articles. The level of detail needs to be cut down. We have no history of the road - you seem to be an expert on that route, so we could have a referenced construction time line, discussion of any social or economic impact, environmental considerations, connections with the Olympics all per WP:V. Regan123 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- And again it has been removed when there is ridiculous amounts of detail/opinion/POV: there is a so-called TOTSO (turn-off to stay on), yet TfL have slapped a rather harsh 40 mph (64 km/h) speed limit, There is a lane-drop/gain etc. See the links above for a good article and how to write about a road. Regan123 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also see Kansas Turnpike for a featured article which has a nice concise route description. Regan123 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Define "ridiculous amounts of detail" (which is in itself pure POV?) please. And 40 is not a harsh speed limit for a new grade-separated dual carriageway? Once again I point out I'm trying to get the balance right! Sunil060902 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Harsh is subjective, lane drops are too much detail. Read the linked articles (and A1 road (London), remove the detail. My opinion on an article is one thing, opinion in an article is another... Regan123 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Harsh" is a pure point of view. The only time this would be acceptable would be if you had a reliable source for it; in that case, if it served an encyclopaedic purpose you could say "Xxxxx says the speed limit is harsh". Otherwise, the moment you say something is good/bad/better/worse, it's a value judgement and should (and will) be deleted. Wikipedia only has five absolute rules, but neutrality is one of them. — iridescent 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry broke off this discussion last night to go to bed! Anyway, I can link to at least two threads on SABRE where the general consensus is that the speed limit for the East Ham & Barking bypass should be at least 50, given this was the limit before grade-separation. Would that be acceptable? best, Sunil060902 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, because that's opinion of people not fact. SABRE is a bulletin board, not a factual database. I think 40 is too low, but I know of local residents who think it is too high... Therein lies the problem. I should have time to have a go this weekend. Regan123 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've gone and excised "harsh", whilst pointing out that the previous limit was 50. best, Sunil060902 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, because that's opinion of people not fact. SABRE is a bulletin board, not a factual database. I think 40 is too low, but I know of local residents who think it is too high... Therein lies the problem. I should have time to have a go this weekend. Regan123 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry broke off this discussion last night to go to bed! Anyway, I can link to at least two threads on SABRE where the general consensus is that the speed limit for the East Ham & Barking bypass should be at least 50, given this was the limit before grade-separation. Would that be acceptable? best, Sunil060902 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Harsh" is a pure point of view. The only time this would be acceptable would be if you had a reliable source for it; in that case, if it served an encyclopaedic purpose you could say "Xxxxx says the speed limit is harsh". Otherwise, the moment you say something is good/bad/better/worse, it's a value judgement and should (and will) be deleted. Wikipedia only has five absolute rules, but neutrality is one of them. — iridescent 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Harsh is subjective, lane drops are too much detail. Read the linked articles (and A1 road (London), remove the detail. My opinion on an article is one thing, opinion in an article is another... Regan123 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Define "ridiculous amounts of detail" (which is in itself pure POV?) please. And 40 is not a harsh speed limit for a new grade-separated dual carriageway? Once again I point out I'm trying to get the balance right! Sunil060902 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've put the tag back on for the time being. There is still too much commentary (although structurally sound), how many set of traffic lights are not relevant and so on. Look at M62 motorway and A500 road as examples of good articles. The level of detail needs to be cut down. We have no history of the road - you seem to be an expert on that route, so we could have a referenced construction time line, discussion of any social or economic impact, environmental considerations, connections with the Olympics all per WP:V. Regan123 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Collaborative project! edit
Guys, remember this is a collaborative project after all, your input is welcome. I don't own this article after all! Also, suggestions for specific online or print resources would be useful (rather than saying, "this needs more references"). How about using this thread as a kind of "sandbox", and we can come to an agreement as to proceed from there?
Remember, as Michael Winner might say, "Calm down, dear! It's only an Essay!"
best, Sunil060902 10:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sandbox edit
A13 construction dates: thought to divide into pre-1800 (w/out dates) and post-1800 (referenced dates)
| Post-1800 | ||
| Section | built | reference |
| Commercial Road | 1802 | British History Online - 'Pennyfields' |
| East India Dock Road | 1806-1812 | British History Online - 'East India Dock Road: Introduction' |
| Barking Road | c.1812 | British History Online -'The ancient parish of Barking' |
| New Road (Dagenham to Rainham) | c.1810 | British History Online - 'Dagenham: Introduction and Manors' |
| New Road (Rainham to Wennington) | 1924 | British History Online - 'Wennington' |
| Arterial Road | 1925 | British History Online - 'Parishes: Aveley' |
| East Ham & Barking Bypass | 1928 | Barking & Dagenham Local History: Dagenham Post and Barking Register |
| Stanford-le-Hope bypass (original) | c.1929-mid 1930s | absent from 1929 map, present in map dated to mid. 1930s |
| Dualling of East Ham & Barking Bypass | 1959 | British History Online - 'West Ham: Introduction' |
| Pitsea Bypass (A176 to A130) | c.1975-1978 | SABRE website threads, based on contemporary maps |
| Grays bypass (M25 to A128) | 1982 | The Motorway Archive: Mar Dyke (M25 J30) opened at this time, same, or overlapping contract with A13 |
| A128 to A1014 section (off-line dualling) | 1985 | SABRE website threads, based on contemporary maps |
| A1014 to A176 (new Stanford-le-Hope bypass) | 1993 | SABRE website threads, based on contemporary maps |
| Rainham (Marsh Way) to Wennington (Thames Gateway) | 1997 | Barking & Dagenham Local History |
| Wennington to Mar Dyke (Thames Gateway) | 1998 | Barking & Dagenham Local History |
| Dagenham to Rainham (Marsh Way) (Thames Gateway) | 1999 | Barking & Dagenham Local History |
| Grade-separation of East Ham & Barking By-pass | 2004 (works complete) | TfL website/press releases |
TBC!
Sunil060902 14:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Bus Routes edit
I'm not sure that including which buses use the A13 is entirely relevant to the article, apart to make it more wordy than it already is. jenuk1985 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Only one sentence per section! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on A13 road (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211232918/http://www.benaimgroup.com/awards.html to http://www.benaimgroup.com/awards.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115231450/http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net:80/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm to http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716220732/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-01-27/Debate-6.html to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-01-27/Debate-6.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716220751/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-01-27/Debate-7.html to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1995-01-27/Debate-7.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115231450/http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net:80/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm to http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115231450/http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net:80/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm to http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115231450/http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net:80/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm to http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061016163047/http://www.amec.com/news/mediareleasedetails.asp?Pageid=876&MediaID=135&mryear=2000 to http://www.amec.com/news/mediareleasedetails.asp?Pageid=876&MediaID=135&mryear=2000
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/2745.aspx - Added
{{dead link}}tag to https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/strategic_dev/2007/20070328/barking_riverside_report.rtf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115231450/http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net:80/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm to http://www.barkingdagenhamlocalhistory.net/barkingdagenhamnewspaper.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018013318/http://www.tfl.gov.uk:80/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/thamesgateway/2203.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/thamesgateway/2203.aspx
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/strategyandprojects.php?id=2201 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809105010/http://www.highways.gov.uk:80/roads/projects/4156.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4156.aspx
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.braggtopia.com/songs/A13-words.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A13 road (England). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316161535/http://www.knightfrank.com/ResearchReportDirPhase2/11201.pdf to http://www.knightfrank.com/ResearchReportDirPhase2/11201.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606050948/http://www.eera.gov.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAA5ADMAMwB8AHwARgBhAGwAcwBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0 to http://www.eera.gov.uk/GetAsset.aspx?id=fAA5ADMAMwB8AHwARgBhAGwAcwBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Major junctions edit
Hello, please note that I have reduced the amount of major junctions on this article from 32 to 11. If you can, then please try to get below ten. If not, then I will do it in the new year. Roads4117 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Lead edit
First time i have read the page, and befire i make changes i would like to discuss the lead. Does it follow a similar route to the c2c line? Grays loop possibly could be used but that was more the original route, which has since diverged away. In addition it has Tilbury in the route description, but the A13 doesnt actually go there, it connects only to the A1089 and is 4.5 miles away.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)