Talk:Twyford Down

NPOV

This article needs a major cleanup to achieve NPOV. The article both glorifies the protest and criticises the goverment, without providing adequate counter-arguments. DWaterson 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense - if you think that's glorification or criticism, you ain't seen nothing yet! It's actually very accurately descriptive in very reserved fashion about what happened.

Is neutral something like "while the Nazis exterminated millions of people, they felt they were majorly cleaning up humanity's sustainable future"....!!?!

And when everywhere in the mainstream you read major glorification of governments, and major demonisation of any dissent, I'm glad wikipedia can provide a little balance in the darkness.

- Jah Shocka

I refer you to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial for the guidelines against which this article needs to be judged. I also refer you to Godwin's Law... ;) DWaterson 09:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that this article is now much closer to NPOV than before, except for the fact that it spends 99% of the time discussing the protests. Could someone please add some information about Twyford Down? Otherwise the article might as well be renamed to Twyford Down Protest... Thanks. --Ndufva 12:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article needs splitting into a protest article (which needs more NPOV work in my opinion as it still reads as how wonderful the protesters were and how bad everyone else was and some bits need references eg. Perhaps the most unusual arrest was for criminal damage to a piece of string.) What do others think? Regan123 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello... I've taken the liberty of adding a photo I took of Twyford Down during the M3 construction in 1994. Okay, it's not the best photo ever, but at least it's relevant and historically interesting... and it does give some sense of the scale of the cutting.

As far as the discussion above goes, I agree that neutral POV is extremely important. However, it's also important to remember that Twyford Down no longer really exists: all that exists now is an "absence of Down": a motorway cutting. Thus the motorway construction and the protest are "disproportionately important" in any history of Twyford Down. There is some history about the Down (and what was destroyed) in the book by Barbara Bryant, if someone cares to dig it out and add it. Chris W. Chrisw404 21:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"The link was completed in 1994, but it had been the spark for a whole anti-roads movement that got the UK roads programme slashed three times by a third, resulted in some road schemes being cancelled, and fanned the flames of an ecological direct action movement that had ripples across the globe." - Is that speculation I hear? Road programmes were probably slashed due to penny pinching and NIMBY-ism. There's no proof to show that road protests led to the reduction in road building. Ripple across the globe? Where? France? Nope, lot's of new motorways. Again, facts and NPOV please people! --82.37.68.127 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section about the motorway itself. --82.37.68.127 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I've added a recent photograph of the motorway in the cutting. There is now a gallery as part of the M3 motorway category on Wikimedia Commons called | Twyford Down cutting which contains further photos from 2005-2006. I disagree with Chris W above, there is still a substantial part of Twyford Down left, although its character is completely changed by the M3 cutting. Perhaps most of this article should be moved to a "Twyford Down protest"-type article. Twyford Down itself (whats left of it) is partly nature reserve (managed by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust), with several archaeological sites - including the Dongas hollow ways. --JimChampion 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your remark re User:Chrisw404's comment; of course the majority of Twyford Down still exists, or the road wouldn't run through a cutting, it'd be on level ground! It'd be nice if people who are familiar with the area would provide some more information on the remaining habitat. DWaterson 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well - to the west of the cutting its part of the St Catherine's Hill nature reserve (chalk grassland grazed by sheep - recently the sheep have been free to roam the whole of the nature reserve and dog walkers have been ordered to keep dogs on leads, causing some resentment and protests) and to the east it is part chalk grassland (an annexed part of the nature reserve) and part golf course. BTW, the discussion of Twyford Down cutting on the M3 article is much better from an NPOV angle. --JimChampion 17:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the article some time ago and wanted to do the same here but was worried about walking into a POV issue so left this one alone. I would happy to give it a go to try and make it more neutral but as I didn't live locally and wasn't involved I am worried about leaving out something crucial.Regan123 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Split

Following the discussion I think that much of this article be split into a separate article focussing on the protest. Further, are there any specific reasons why this article is NPOV? --Salix alba (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be against the split on the basis that the information about the protest is a significant part of the history of the place, and conversely, the information about the place sets the protest in partial context. I'd be in favour only if the article was unwieldy and long, which it isn't.

The issue of neutrality is entirely separate. If we can't get neutrality in the article in its present form, I see no reason why the new article about the protest would be any better. There may be a motivation to "get the NPoV out of the main article" but that would be sweeping the problem under the carpet. (Please note, I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is user Salix alba's motivation, I'm just pointing out a problem. ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Newbury bypass, M11 link road protest are seperate articles on Road protests which (whilst intrinsically linked with places or roads) are about events. Both (in my opinion) need to be less POV but that is for another time. The issue to me is that Twyford Down is a place (however altered) and somewhere where a road protest happened. To create a seperate article is not to say that every reference has to be removed from this article. But I think a seperate article could discuss in more detail what happened and this article can talk about the physical attributes before and after with a brief description of the road construction which has had a far more notable effect on the hill than the protest. Regan123 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be against a split. Twyford Down has found its way into Wikipedia (and modern British political history) because of the protest: the place and the protest have become synonymous. Newbury is a place in its own right; the M11 is a road in its own right -- so separate articles about "Newbury" and "M11 road" (or whatever) are more easily justified. I think a split is only merited if someone fleshes out the history and archaeology of Twyford Down before the road was built. Otherwise an article about Twyford Down (minus the protest) will be of little value. IMHO anyway. Chrisw404 12:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Support subject to finding appropriate refs I don't disagree that we don't want two stubs. The two articles I linked to above are both distinct descriptions of the protests and take nothing away from the descriptions of the two places. As the protest is an event that happened to be on and around the hill and about the construction of a road and its relevance to the UK road building programme, that kind of information should not be tied up in an article about a fairly unique hill. References should and must remain to the protest and the effect of the M3, but why not link them with a See Also. I suppose I am reaching the question: is there information to hand that can be used to flesh out the article about the actual physical hill? Regan123 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

As there is unlikely to be a consensus on a split, I would still like to rewrite the M3 and protest sections to make them a little more neutral and referenced. I did rewrite the section on M3 motorway previously. Whilst I am all for being bold, I appreciate this is a sensitive subject. Would anyone object to me doing so? --Regan123 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, I support if you can make it more NPOV. DWaterson 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Jim's recent, post-construction photos are excellent. I've also just uploaded another "during" photo to Wikimedia commons. Perhaps we could create a small "before", "during", and "after" photo gallery at the bottom of the page? What do you all think? We have "during" and "after" photos; we just need some "before" Chrisw404 09:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

We still have a split tag and a POV tag on here. Ignoring the split for the moment, can people describe what exactly the POV issues are so that we can fix them? Regan123 02:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop the split tag, article is short enough not to need splitting at present. I can't really see anything particulalry POV in the article. --Salix alba (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The only part that seems to me to express an unbalanced point of view now is the section "Outcome": it paints an entirely positive picture of the road. To balance things out, it might be helpful to have a couple of sentences summarizing the negative side, even if all we say is something like "however, many people still felt a priceless landscape had been lost forever". [chrisw404 - not able to sign in just at the moment] 82.152.208.78 12:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We need something sourceable for that I think. Regan123 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One option would be to repeat something like the quote from David Croker that I added (with source) to the bottom of the David_Croker article? Admittedly it is just one person's opinion, but one person who spoke for many... and it is representative. Something short just to balance the final section. chrisw404 82.153.143.20 07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As a local I don't think everyone would accept 'successfully removed a major bottleneck' as a neutral point of view. Even considering only the traffic, the steep hill through the cutting is frequently jammed solid when traffic is heavy (not to mention the huge tailback last time there was any real snow in January 2004 for example), and the M3/A34 junction (not Twyford Down but implicit in the section) is a nightmare for much of the time. And then there is the 'wall of sound' that affects the countryside and villages for miles around and makes the wonderful St Catherine's Hill hellishly noisy. Even the Cathedral was awarded compensation in 2004 for noise pollution [1] Pterre 18:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time it was very much true. Traffic growth since then may have changed things...Regan123 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it was true? I did not live in the area in the 90s, but as long ago as 1999 I remember heading from Southampton to Bracknell on a Sunday afternoon and baling out at J11 and following back roads to avoid the sea of traffic ahead. It's in my conveniently searchable journal, so not a trick of the memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pterre (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, since it's now only this section that's under discussion, I've moved the NPOV tag from the top of the article to the top of the Outcomes section. Waggers 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the noise polution and removed reference to whether the bottle neck is removed or not. Do folk think this is Ok and could we remove the NPOV tag (I'm no longer sure what is suposed to be NPOV anymore)? --Salix alba (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to reference the removal of the bottleneck at the time. I will look for something. As for the NPOV tag it could probably go as the article is in much better condition now. Regan123 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Galliano

I'm not going to start an "In popular culture" section, but if you wanted to, you could use the fact that "London based acid jazz group" Galliano made a (very nice, in my personal opinion) song called Twyford Down in 1994, which expresses their thoughts about nature conservation and motorways. --BjKa (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the song, but we need a secondary source to demonstrate that the song made any impact (apart from coming #37 in the charts). JFW | T@lk 02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

the dongars a person tied himself to vehicle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.140.213 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination

After having some success with M11 link road protest, it seemed that this article was the next logical candidate to put my research into. I did think about moving the article to "Twyford Down protest" as described above, but there is a small amount that can be written about the down outside of this context - but not much. I think if we left out everything protest-related from this article, you'd get a permastub. Just type "twyford down" into Google and see how many hits aren't about road protesting! So I think we have due weight of importance right here. At least now there is some history in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

{{Infobox Mountain}} seems a bit of a strange choice to me for this article. Are there any objections to using {{Infobox Site of Special Scientific Interest}} instead? WaggersTALK 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've got an objection - it isn't an SSSI! I've removed that claim from the lead as it's not cited by either source next to it. St. Catherine's Hill is an SSSI, but that's another article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't argue with that! It's not a mountain either, but I guess that is the closest match if it doesn't have SSSI status. WaggersTALK 13:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I guess that infobox's been used so we can put the highest point on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends how you define the boundaries of Twyford Down, bearing in mind the effects of the M3. If you look at the Natural England SSSI site ([2]) and search for 'St. Catherine's Hill' this shows that around half of that SSSI is actually on Twyford Down, i.e to the south and east of the Plague Pits valley. Pterre (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Twyford Down/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay, I expected to be at this point more than one week ago, but I'm here now.

This article appears to be reasonably close to being a GA, in so far as it appears to have a reasonable coverage of the topic, its well illustrated and appears to be verifiable, so "quick failing" at this point is inappropriate. I've not checked any of the references, but one reference appears to have a minor formatting problem in that part of it is displayed as a raw web link, and the WP:Lead appears to over "thin". I will be returning to these later.

I'm now going to work my way through the article in more detail starting at the History section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• History -

• A rather short section, but it looks OK; and in general it appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA but I do have some concerns over possible Close Paraphrasing or Wikipedia:Copyright violations in the first paragraph of this section. Most of that paragraph, with the exception of the last two sentences which are referenced by [ref 5], are referenced by [ref 4: Spiritual Places - Twyford Down, which appears to be dated March 9, 2004] and to me the first paragraph is almost a copy and paste of what is on the BBC site. This material was not present in this article on 23 November 2012 so it arguably post-dates the BBC material.

• I've had a look but I don't think it's an exact copy. For instance, the BBC source says "people walking their animals into market", while we say "herding animals into the local markets". BBC says "A fort was constructed in the 3rd century BC, and a Norman chapel was built in the 12th century AD.", we say "A fort was constructed on the hill in the 3rd century, while a Norman chapel was subsequently built in the 12th". It's obviously the same information, but it's not a word for word copy. Do you have any key problem phrases in mind? In the meantime, I've rejigged the wording of these phrases. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Its looking better, but I'll make a final decision later on. Pyrotec (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm happy with this. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The M3 motorway extension
  • Untitled first subsection -

 Done Added "background" as a subsection title Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

...stopping for now. Pyrotec (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Pyrotec (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph, I'm having trouble verifying ref 11, but there is an article in the Times (The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Jan 31, 1940; pg. 5; Issue 48527) entitled Winchester by-pass open tomorrow, so I suspect that the reference needs adjusting.

•  Done That's it. I don't have access to the Times archive anymore, so I had to go off rather woolly notes from some years back, and hope the GA reviewer would spot it and help me fix it - which is exactly what you've done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Similarly, ref 12 aught to be: "A By-Pass Road At Winchester." Times [London, England] 25 Sept. 1929: 9. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.

 Done fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Refs 15 & 17 are only partially cited, they are Hansard sources.

 Done fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I added a clarifying phrase to indicate where Bar Hill is and I added a link to Compton and Shawford for those of us who don't know where these places are.
• Otherwise, this subsection is compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Protest -

• This subsection appears compliant.

• • Outcome -

• Generally OK, but there are a few broken web links:

• Ref 29 leads to the New Statesman, but gives a not found error.

 Done Replaced with an alternative source

• Ref 32 gives an unexpected error message.

 Done Replaced with a URL that archives the original news article

• Ref 37 leads to the Campaign for Better Transport web site, but gives a not found error message.

 Done Updated the URL to point to the current page that cites this

• The M3 motorway extension / Background (revised) -

• Because of problems with the Lead, I've decided to revisit this subsection.
• I don't think the Winchester / Twyford Down - M3 relationship is covered here. A {{main}} or {{see also}} link to M3 motorway (Great Britain) might help, but that article is not GA-status and lacks details. So, such a link is obviously not mandatory for GA-status.
• Looking at M3 motorway (Great Britain), its a wikipedia article so it can't be used as a reliable-source/reference, the M3 stopped (I think), or perhaps linked to the A33, at Popham in 1971. So traffic came down the A33 (which was upgraded to take this traffic) and went onto the Winchester bypass.

The M3 was complete to Popham by June 1971 (source here). I also have a 1968 OS One Inch Sheet 168 (Winchester), which shows the M3 under construction to Popham. I'll look into this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• There were two public enquiries, the first in 1971 and the second 1976-77, and it was identified that the Winchester "water meadows" bit was going to be difficult, so it was "ignored" for the time being.

What's your source for this information? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I used wikipedia's "M3" article to check first, but you later refer to "the Motorway Archive" - there is a comparable printed version called "The Motorway Acheivement", published for the Motorway Archive Trust, originally by Thomas Telford Ltd (imprint of the Insitution of Civil Engineers) but now being reissued by Phillimore & Co. I've had The Midlands volume for some time, the relevant volume for the M3 is this one. Note: I should have access to a copy by perhaps Weds-Sat of this week. I found on google, discussions in Hansard on the '76 enquiry here which also refers back to the '71 enquiry. There's also a "Gruandian" (sorry about that - I couldn't resist) obituary for Steven Ward here. Pyrotec (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also this which refers to a '85-87 Public Enquiry. Pyrotec (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Since, I've provided a few "leads", I have to make it clear that whether you use any or none of them is entirely your decision. There is potentially a COI of here. But, I do need to come a decision on WP:WIAGA clauses 3(a) & (b), well all of them in the end, and I believe that since the decisions on the placing of the route were made during and after the (now three?) Public Enquiries, this "information" aught to be given in the article. Pyrotec (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• The M3 was extended southwards to Bar End in 1985; and the southern portion from the M27 was built northwards, to Eastleigh(?) or Compton(?). So Twyford Down is about filling the gap in the two halves of the M3.

All the M3 opening dates can be found on this Motorway Archive page - the Motorway Archive is part of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation so it looks reliable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll accept it as a WP:RS. Good you've found it, I'm familiar with the site since its used on the M5 article, and I found this, however their M5 "articles" appear to have much more detail than the equivalent M3 articles. Pyrotec (talk)

 Done I've put in information about the 1971, 76 and 85 enquiries, using a mixture of the sources you've supplied. I've also used the Bryant book source for some other information elsewhere. Hopefully that makes this section now complete, but if not, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a new first paragraph based on Baldwin & Baldwin and made some superficial changes (moving wikilinks and commas to front of citations) to the existing texts. If you are happy with my new paragraph, then I'll consider this section compliant with WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had to change one error - the first section of M3 to open was in 1971 from J3 (Lightwater) - J8 (Popham), as cited by the Motorway Archive source, and also by OS One Inch Seventh Series Sheet 169 (Aldershot), which shows the M3 terminating on the A322 west of London. The completed M3 to J1 at Sunbury never appeared on One Inch maps as the OS went metric in 1974. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I did not read all the details, so I missed the staggered opening; but the sources are the "same": Sir Peter Baldwin is founder and chairman of the Motorway Archive Trust and Robert Baldwin is the Honorary Secretary. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, as per WP:Lead.
• I don't consider the current Lead to be compliant, but its quite short so that it should not take much effort to fix.
• In particular:

• The lead "teases" by giving information that does not appear in the article:firstly, The down's 142-metre (466 ft) summit, known as Deacon Hill,..; and secondly, the whole of the information in final paragraph of the lead is absent from the body of the article.
• The lead does not adequately summarise the article (see below). Its three paragraphs long, which is within the recommended limits, but there is little in the way of detail.

...Stopping for now (to watch the 6 O'clock news). 18:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Only the middle paragraph summarises some of the material included in the body of the article but whole subsections are not covered. For instance:

• There is a relationship between Winchester - the water meadows - St Catherine's Hill running through the body of the article, which is ignored. Once they were all linked; the 1930s bypass separated St Catherine's Hill from the other two; the water meadows were very "important" and that considerably delayed the "missing bit" of the M3; Twyford Down was also very "important" and that led to protests; the motorway extension joined all three back to together and allowed the bypass to be grassed over, but it divided all three from the rest of the Downs; some of the grassed-over bypass was later "pinched" for a park and rid scheme. I believe that these relationships aught to be in the lead in summarised from.

• A bit more detail is needed on the "benefits", but addressing the comment immediately above may be all that is needed here, and more detail is needed on the protest actions as a whole (its suggested that this fed through into later motorway schemes/protests).

I think probably the best thing for the lead is a) take out the bits not mentioned in the article (as referred to above) and b) blow it up and start over. I tend to get the article complete first, then spin through it, writing out the lead again as I go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes indeed: that's one of the reasons why I review the lead (mostly) after I've reviewed the body of the article. I also have to look at the start to find out what the article is about, but sometimes the article does not match the lead. Not the case here, but if one was mostly "protest" and one was mostly engineering/geology/politics, or vica versa, the "mismatch" would become visible/obvious. Pyrotec (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've basically redone the lead from scratch based on what we have in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm putting the review "On Hold". I'm happy to clarify any points that need clarifying, but when those points above had been addressed I would expect to be awarding the article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just a quick note, real life has intervened recently, but I should hopefully be able to complete all the actions within the next day or two. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update. Pyrotec (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Final summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Okay, so what's outstanding now to close the review? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not too much. I was waiting for agreement on my newly-added paragraph and I'm still to check the Lead for compliance with WP:WIAGA clause 1 (b). Pyrotec (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that all looks good. I'll await further comments about the lead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I slightly tweaked the grammar of the lead and joined a few split sentences. I'm now happy with the Lead.

• I'm awarding this article GA-status. Good work in getting the article up to standard during January and February of this year, and during the processes of the review; and Congratulations on getting the article up to this stage. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough, diligent and helpful GA review. It's nice to see another article whose talk page starts with angry comments about NPOV, and ends up passing GA. Thanks also for the suggestions of sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)