Talk:Preston By-pass

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Preston By-pass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll give this a go.

Couple of obvious issues - I'm not sure this meets the "broad in coverage" part of the criteria as there are two main sources that haven't been used. Firstly, "On Roads" by Joe Moran includes some extra information, including events of the first day of construction, a general postwar "make do and mend" attitude to the work, and the early bad weather closure. Secondly, what you call "Millbank Systems" is the Parliamentary Hansard and, particularly in the pre-BBC Parliament era, a vitally important public resource so we can fact check what MPs actually said in a debate. A quick search shows many, many hits of information. (See M11 link road protest for how this can be effective). Also, if you have a Times subscription (and if you don't, pop into your local library and get one!), you will probably find a lot of first-hand information. (See A303 road as an example).

Specific comments will follow: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• The map looks anachronistic. Grab a copy of Ordnance Survey Seventh Series Sheet 94 (Preston) here (it's 1958, revised 1961, so you can use {{PD-UKGov}} on it) and use a crop of that.  Done
• Some of the other fields in the infobox look wrong. There has never been a 8.25-mile long motorway around Preston run by Highways England.

HE mention has been removed

• This article needs to show that it is worth an article in its own right, M6 motorway is only 10K of prose and hence this can't be considered a content fork for size reasons. To that end, having an infobox that tries to synthesize information from the late 1950s with that in the present day, might be counterproductive. I think perhaps we shouldn't have an infobox at all for the moment.

I'll consider this when I have worked through your other feedback, as I am of the belief the infobox does positively affect the article's initial visual impact and can contain useful core information that may be overlooked easily if absorbed into the prose.

I feel the infobox should remain included, as your suggestion to remove it appears to stem from a sense of preference than being necessary. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is a little too long according to what the manual of style says. For a 9.5K prose article, you want one or two paragraphs. I suggest we revisit this at the end of the review.

I have trimmed it ever so slightly, though I am also concious that the lead should cover the most fundamental aspects of the article, which is essentially what is covered (that being, the delays during construction and the significant reconstruction in the late 20th century)

Okay, I was expecting the article to expand a little (which it has) so the lead length would become less of an issue in that case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article size is now approx 25% larger than at the start of the review, so hopefully the lead size in proportion to the main prose is now more acceptable? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• "The Preston By-pass was Britain's first motorway which was initially conceived and promoted by its engineer, James Drake" - this sounds like this was Jame Drake's first motorway, rather than the first motorway full stop. Also, what qualifies as "first" - motorways were being planned as far back as the 1920s. It was the first one to complete construction, but I'm not sure what else you could definitively say.  Done

Have changed to The Preston By-pass was Britain's first constructed motorway, designed and engineered by Lancashire County Council surveyor James Drake as part of a larger initiative..

• "During the time of planning, there were no legal powers that allowed motorways to be constructed" - the problem is we haven't been told when planning started.  Done
• Bamber Bridge and Broughton, Lancashire could be linked  Done
• There isn't much about the route in the lead. Perhaps mention it crosses the River Ribble at Salmesbury, for one thing  Done
• The lead jumps straight from 1958 to the 1990s. Did nothing important at all happen during the interim period  Done

Have made note of the 3-lane expansion scheme that occured during the mid 1960s

• "During the mid 1990s, the carriageway which now formed part of the M6 motorway, underwent a significant upgrade" - This looks clunky. The whole motorway was upgraded, not just the carriageway (I assume new gantry signs and emergency telephones were installed, for instance)  Done

Planning

• "Before the motorway was constructed, the A6 road through Preston handled all traffic" - I don't think this is correct. For one thing, I'm sure the A59 handled a considerable amount of traffic too, as did the road to Blackpool (can't remember the number off the top of my head). I think you need to mention the conflicts of journeys eg: Greater Manchester - Scotland, Merseyside - Calder Valley, anywhere to Blackpool etc  Semi-done  Done

I have amended "all" to "north-south" as a preliminary measure, given it was the primary means of travelling from the north of Preston to its south; the A59 covered East-West traffic respectively.

Okay, that makes sense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "At this time, the legal powers necessary for motorway construction did not exist, until the introduction of the Special Roads Act in 1949 that provided the legal powers to construct a motorway" - could this be copyedited to avoid saying "legal powers" twice?  Done
• "The motorway was seen as an experiment for future motorway construction with many lessons and techniques learnt that would help towards successful future motorway construction" - again, the term "motorway construction" is mentioned too many times here  Done

Changed to: The motorway was seen as an experiment for the future construction of motorways, with many lessons and techniques learnt that would help towards successful formation of subsequent motorways.

• "Following the proposals being made public" - what proposals are these?  Acknowledged

I have added a little extra info into the paragraph so that this line may make more sense (the ref also simply refers to "the proposals" also, though notes a large-scale model was erected too which I have noted in the prose).

• "The Tarmac Group (now Carillion) were successful with their bid in 1956 to construct the new motorway, including 19 of its bridges" - this seems to be waffly, why not just simply go for "The Tarmac Group won the construction bid in 1956, including 19 bridges.  Done

Have reworded largely as suggested

Construction

• "The road was constructed to not be a long length of straight road" - why was this an issue? Even today we have very straight Roman Roads such as large portions of the A5, and we seem to cope!  Not done

Reading the opening booklet, this seemed to be a valid concern of the time, with a view that straight roads would be "boring" and increase the likelyhood of accidents. I feel as a genuine concern of the time, it's justified for inclusion, regardless whether the same view is felt in contemporary times.

Okay, might just be worth explaining that in the article, since fast moving motorway traffic was new at the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel the current explanation suffices, given the concerns were due to a belief that drivers would otherwise get bored; I don't see anything definitive that suggests the curved alignment is related to traffic speeds.

• "In total, 3,400,000 tons of earth" - is that imperial tons? If so, consider a metric conversion using {{convert}}. In fact, all of the measurements in this section need metric variants.  Done
• "Chief engineer Drake proposed that the bridges should be painted a variety of different colours" .... this sentence is too long, can it be split up?  Done

Have changed to: 'Chief engineer Drake proposed the bridges be printed different colours to enhance aesthetics and help alleviate driver boredom, contrary to conventional practice of using neutral colours; drivers subsequently reacted favourably to alternately coloured bridges.'

Opening

• "at a cost of £2,960,481 (equivalent to £62,376,169 in 2015)" - the source given does not have this figure  Done

The ref used was not appropriate, so I have moved it, meaning the ref for this section is the same one from page 4 of the opening pdf booklet, which lists 3 figures of £334,431 (Samlesbury Bridge), £193,690 (Higher Walton Bridge) and £2,432,360 for the Motorway and remaining bridges; collectively it calculates to an overall cost of that stated in the article

• " those being the Samlesbury Bridge (£334,431) and the High Walton Bridge (£193,690) respectively" - I can't find these figures in the source given; do you know which page you found them on? Also, why are the bridge names in italics

As above, figures on openening booklet pdf page 4.

 Done regarding removal italics.

• "driver feedback to alternately coloured bridges subsequentally received" - is "subsequentally" a real word?  Done

Operation

• "The motorway was designed to be capable of handling vehicles at speeds of 70 mph (110 km/h), a limit which is unchanged to this day" - the motorway opened with no speed limit at all (as did all Motorways until Barbara Castle introduced a temporary 70mph limit which has never been lifted). Also the fact here is not in the source given ( it says "and got up to 70mph before losing control on the sharp bend") but that is not the same thing).  Done

I have in-line referenced an existing source which notes this information specifically

• "the motorway had to temporarily close to undergo emergency resurfacing work" - the source given also suggests it was impressive it had opened at all, given the weather and conditions, which would be worth mentioning

I am concerned about adding that, as it comes across as opinion rather than encylopaedic fact (if I were to say something was impressive, that would surely be my viewpoint that couldn't be considered hard-fact that it were indeed the case). I have however made other previous amendments around this area of the prose.

Upgrades

• "the lack of hard shoulders at the bridges meant the number of available lanes during engineering works was inadequate to cope with the traffic volumes of the time" - I don't understand this, how does the lack of hard shoulders impede the flow of traffic?  Acknowledged

As is typical with modern day engineering works, hard shoulders may be used as a lane when other lanes are closed; the lack of a hard shoulder at the original bridges meant there would be no continuous utilisation of the hard shoulder for this purpose

• "The substantialness of this upgrade" - is "substantialness" a real word?  Done

Some dictionaries define it, but I have changed to significance

• Do we know when the M61 and other junctions were added, and why?  Done

Have added a paragraph about the M61's connection, but I don't know why we need to specifically state "why" - a connection from one motorway to another is surely self explaining?

I was thinking more of the reason the M61 was built, which is kind of obvious - to get Greater Manchester traffic up north. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now explicitly stated this to prevent confusion, despite, as you say, it being obvious. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Route

• As I mentioned earlier, the Lancs CC official opening booklet source needs page numbers
• "The route of the original by-pass is included as one of the most congested in the country" - do you mean the bypass was originally one of the most congested roads, or that the route around Preston is still congested?  Done

Changed to: 'The routes around the city of Preston, including the by-pass as part of the modern day M6 motorway, are recognised as being some of the most congested in the country...'

• The list of exits seems to be anachronistic - the original bypass did not have junction numbers. It also only had the start, the end, and the A59 junction in the middle, so there seem to be more rows than there ought to be. Also, are you sure the co-ordinates reflect the locations of junctions as they were originally constructed? (IIRC Salmesbury changed a bit because of the 4-lane widening works)

Another editor has made some changes here, particularly to the junction configuration. Separately, the co-ordinates take the by-pass as it is now; I wouldn't know how to go about getting exact co-ordinates for as it was then, though you'd have to consider whether knowing where the original alignment was would add any benefit (especially as it's geographically in the same position, except for several metres in some parts.. rather negligable). Whilst the article fundamentally covers the history of the motorway itself, largely due to its significance, it is still to this day (for all intents and purposes) the Preston By-pass and thus data for its contemporary formation I believe is equally relevant.

Can you enlarge the route diagram a bit, I wonder? By doing that, the reader can see the strip map against the junction table and work out what's what. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)  Done

I have enlarged the map, which fits ok given the prose has also expanded. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Images

• Although fair-use rationales have been given for opening booklet photographs, you ought to find that as they have been produced by a public body (in this case, Lancashire County Council), they ought to be free per {{PD-UKGov}}  Done
• File:Nearing the junction with the M55 - geograph.org.uk - 1383851.jpg doesn't seem to be particularly useful - as far as the reader is concerned, it's just another bit of motorway. There's no obvious indication of its importance. I'd remove this.  Done
• With File:Preston bypass route.png - why is the A675 important here, given it's never had a junction?  Acknowledged

On the opening booklet, it's mentioned in written form more than once, as well as featuring graphically on the included map, so the road was deemed important enough then to be noteworthy, regardless whether it has any junctions (a configuration unchanged to this day)

External links

• You don't need to externally link the opening booklet - it's already being used as a source  Done

Summary

• I think there's a significant amount of work to do here to make this article meet the GA criteria. Particular problems are a lack of comprehensiveness and the prose, which just tends to be overlong in places (I've trimmed some of it down; see those edits as examples) I'm not going to fail it outright, but I'll see what work can be done in the next few days and then make a decision. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thank you for your comprehensive review of the article, which is considerable in length despite only a modest article size. I am encouraged that you feel there is scope for improvement within the current review and that your concerns can be addressed. I'll seek to analyse your feedback throughout the next 1-3 days and perhaps at that point allow you a clearer indication as to how to progress with the decision. Also, thanks for pointing out a literature source on the bypass, which I could not myself discover despite numerous attempts to uncover further references. I'll be sure to check whether there is additional information that can be utilised. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Many points I believe have now been addressed, with a few still to go. There are some where I have resolved, or continued with a further query that may benefit from your reply and personal thoughts (to determine whether there is still further work needed on them, or if they can be considered self-resolving). Would appreciate if you could offer an opinion on those too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I've gone through and responded to your issues, and also done a bit more of a copyedit to make the prose a bit punchier. I think we're getting closer to GA status now, so well done for sticking with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I feel the article is now at a state now whereby a GA decision may be considered, less minor personal preferences. The points raised I feel have been addressed sufficiently, or in the cases where not, then an explanation has been offered as to why I may have felt a change unjust. I have also made use of multiple hansard references which have been useful in offering some factual data. If you could reread and advise areas you feel may still be lacking then I could look to see whether further expansion is necessary and possible, but if not then a conclusion may be appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I had a read through last night and did a final copyedit. I've just had a look through the recent additions and made one minor fix. I think what we've got does explain the topic well enough and is not in danger of being merged into the M6 now it's 11K of text. I also saw the conversation on the talk page; I think you're right that this article should be focused about the original project and its importance in 20th century transport planning, which is where all the sources point to as well. The current M6 around here is just another boring motorway (sorry, don't like most motorways though the view by the M6 around Tebay looks great). So I'm going to mark the review as passed - well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on Ritchie and for passing this as GA - certainly now it is considerably more befitting than the state I found it in 3 months ago! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Things to add

Some events to add to the history:

• the extension of the M6 southwards from Bamber Bridge (2 July 1963)
• the extension of the M6 northwards from Broughton, including the construction of the UK's first three-level interchange, Broughton Interchange (1 January 1965), replacing a "temporary bend"
• the construction of the M55 westwards from Broughton Roundabout (1975) becoming M55 J1 instead of M6 J32a
• new limited-access junction 30 (Blacow Bridge) with the new M61 (1968)
• redesign of Junction 31 with A59 (Samlesbury Interchange) incorporating 3 bridges across the river instead of one (1990s?)
• the conversion of Junction 29 to accomodate the new M65 extension as well as the existing A6 (1997)
• new limited-access junction 31A (Haighton Interchange) for Fulwood (c.1997)

I don't have reliable sources for all these, so I can't add them. (Unreliable sources: http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk http://www.route6.co.uk http://www.cbrd.co.uk ) -- Dr Greg  talk  22:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I know Chris Marshall personally, but I have personally seen the research papers he has taken from the The National Archives, the London Metropolitan Archives and who knows what else, plus he is personally acknowledged inside Joe Moran's book, and I think in Mike Parker's "Mapping The Roads", plus he's contributed research papers to various radio pieces, so calling him an "unreliable source" is like saying Ben Weinreb is an unreliable source about London. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have said those websites were unreliable sources, but rather that I had no idea whether Wikipedia would accept any of them as a reliable source or not. I'm happy to be corrected. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You have to consider whether some or all of the suggestions above are entirely relevant to be specifically and/or uniquely included as literature on an article specific to the by-pass. I am conscious that the by-pass described in this article is largely historic, in that it has mostly changed beyond recognition, with many contemporary upgrades and changes being synonymous with the motorway for which it forms part of (the M6). I think it's important to make mention to some of the key core upgrades in recent times (such as the expanding to 4-lanes, as that was affecting of the route in its entirety), but many of the suggestions noted above relate to specific new junctions that are regarded solely as being part of the M6, rather than the by-pass (despite this section of route still being, in effect, the by-pass).

The question maybe is what this article should aim to represent (either the historic bypass that has largely been rebuilt, or the route as a whole that can still be regarded as the by-pass, including only mentioning M6 upgrades in this article that relate specifically to the route described in this article). I had taken the view of the former, that it should focus primarily on historic events and operations, but some may have a differing view. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the focus of the article should be the period when the bypass was an isolated section of motorway (and the planning and construction before that). The suggestions I made above would be only a brief section saying what has happened since then, and shouldn't go into much detail. But I don't feel too strongly either way, and wouldn't be offended if the consensus of other editors was to omit some of the more recent history. On the other hand, the current version of article does include a table of junctions that refers to the modern-day motorway. -- Dr Greg  talk  12:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

MOSCAP

I don't think "prime minister" should be capitalised. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom shows it as lower case. John (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The aforementioned article is inconsistent in its usage of capitalisation, so perhaps not a good basis for argument justification. I am inclined to favour "Prime Minister" being capitalised. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine but I don't think MOS:JOBTITLES agrees with you. John (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Quoting MOS:JOBTITLES - "They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title" - is that not what is the case on the edits(s) in question? Maybe the comma before Harold Macmillan is erroneous or simply adding confusion to the matter of appropriate capitalisation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the term isn't used like that. We don't say (or shouldn't) "Prime Minister Theresa May" as we do with "President Donald Trump". Do you see? John (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

My reading of MOS:JOBTITLES is that you should use lower-case "prime minister" when you refer to the abstract concept of the job, but capitalised "Prime Minister" when you refer to a concrete example, i.e. when you are referring to a specific individual (Harold Macmillan in this case). The relevant text from MOS:JOBTITLES is "When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II, When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)" -- Dr Greg  talk  20:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

M6 designation

Was the Preston Bypass given the road number M6 from the outset? All the OS maps I have looked at, from about 1961, show it as M6, but this designation is not mentioned in the booklet commemorating the opening. PhilUK (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@PhilUK: It looks like it may have been numbered M6 prior to opening, if this ref is correct, although i'd be looking at wanting to use a better ref if it's to be included in the article. In saying that, it suggests that the info is a direct quote from a Government department from the era, so should be verifiable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems that 'M6' was being used as the de facto numbering right from the start, but the committee only approved it later. I've found a thread on the SABRE site [1] which gives links to original signs showing 'M6', and claims (without proof) that all the construction contracts called it the M6. PhilUK (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)