 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Can somebody please find out if a final decision has been made on the plans und update if required. 82.38.56.54 00:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Done Richard B 21:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Inspector Michael Ellison's report edit
Who is this person? For what agency does he work? What is his authority? It's important to provide context for the reader.
Also, the PDF cited as his report is nearly empty. Suggest either removing it (and therefore the unsourced quote) or improving the citation. John Reid 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have improved the citation. Richard Taylor 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Bias edit
This article is biased heavily against the subject. For example: A tunnel or new road would be an irreversible interference and destruction of a site and monument that we, have no right to damage. This is an opinion and although I tend to share it, that does not make it a fact. Our commitment to neutrality and verifiability excludes such naked statements of opinion. This must be rephrased as a statement of the fact of an opinion held by some person or group -- and must be sourced. John Reid 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
An indication of bias, or at best slipshod writing, is that the two quotes from the public inquiry report, said to represent the inspector's views, are highly selective. The first, saying that sacrifice of archaeological remains etc would more than offset the tunnel benefits, comes not from the inspector at all, but from an objector to the scheme. The second, noting expediency, refers only to the line of the route, not the design, which was the major source of contention. These need to be addressed. 85.211.76.144 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite edit
I have rewritten the article to be more manual of style compliant, add a lot more references and make it more neutral. I hope that this is an improvement. What I would like to do is expand the details on the alternatives and find references where there are none so far. Does anyone know of a good source for the alternative routes (I seem to remember 4 or 5 major proposals for the A303 being moved away or tunnelled)? Regan123 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK I have removed this and the resultant traffic congestion have resulted in The Guardian naming it one of the country's most congested roads as I cannot despite extensive searching find a reference. I have referenced the rest that I can.Regan123 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories edit
Given that the proposal has been completely dropped, most of the categories seen misleading. Maybe a new category for former proposals is needed? --86.157.186.247 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs a Map edit
This really needs a map showing the proximity of the tunnel to Stonehenge. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Progress since 2013 needs adding. edit
There was a 2013 feasibility study into the tunnel, which has developed into a preferred route announcement and consultations still under way which isn't reflected in to the 2013 section. In the context of the article this is highly relevant missing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.180.186 (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Map edit
All of that would be much easier to understand if we had a drawing showing the current situation and the alternatives considered. Wouldn't have to be perfect. JB. --92.193.207.22 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)