Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry ring road/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2022 [1].

Coventry ring road edit

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Described as a "roller coaster" and a "Scalextric" by sources over the years, the Coventry ring road is either a marvel of engineering or the world's worst-designed road and a source of urban decay, depending on your point of view. Its multiple lanes, slip roads and short weaving distances make it a bit of a nightmare for drivers new to the area, something I've witnessed first-hand a few times over the years! The article goes into some detail, chronicling the history of the project from its early conception to completion, a mid-project redesign and later remodelling of one of the junctions and the road's reputation. All comments and feedback welcome. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I hope you're well, and thanks for the review above. I have added quite a number of new images since you last looked at it, so perhaps needs another look? I have removed the px size from one of the images, and also added alt texts as suggested. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    New images are fine licensing-wise. The map is missing alt, and another needs editing ("cark park"?). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: done. Although I can't seem to find a way to the main interactive map in the infobox to have an alt. The fact that it's a {{maplink}} seems to prevent that. I note that Interstate 82, another fairly recent road FA, also lacks an alt there. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

  • The article seems somewhat under-illustrated, though the pickings on Commons are surprisingly slim. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another drive by comment edit

  • The "Junctions" section lists the junctions by number and states the roads they intersect with and the names of the following section of the ring road.
On the source given I cannot see the junction numbers. Am I missing something? Or is there another source which could give these? If not, it may be better to replace the numbers with bullet points.
Could it be stated somewhere that the "Beginning[s]" mentioned are clockwise from that junctiion?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: per the request below, I have now overhauled the junctions list to be a table instead. I've also updated the source so that it uses a map that clearly shows the junction numbers, and clarified for each whether the "Ringway Swanswell" etc. names refer to the clockwise or anticlockwise section from that junction.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the coordinates are not just in the Junction column, perhaps in brackets after each junction number, rather than as a big block of footnotes within the article? Which is a little unusual. And if Notes has nothing in it it should be removed. And why the "0.0"s at the bottom of the "mi" and "km" columns? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I initially put them in their own column, per other UK road articles, but Imzadi1979 then refactored it. I personally did prefer it the way I had written it earlier today, which also had the detail about what the name of the road is at each stage, but I'm happy to go with the consensus on what's best.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer it the way you had it before, that looks much more accessible to the uninitiated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since I also agree with that, I have restored the original layout for now. While the general principles are there, it seems to me that on the detail, MOS:RJL doesn't enjoy consensus for UK roads anyway, as most of them that I can see don't follow its suggested layout. Even M5 motorway#Junctions, which is the actual example cited at MOS:RJL, it is formatted completely differently from the recommendation. The layout should be appropriate for the road in question IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RJL is part of the Manual of Style, and the FA criteria require compliance with the MOS. At a bare minimum, the first two columns need to be removed for compliance. The repeat of J1 should actually repeat it at a minimum per how it's done at M-185 (Michigan highway), or the milepost should have been repeated as I did per Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky). Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: what are your thoughts on this? It seems like the name of the road between each junction is a useful piece of information to have here, and roughly corresponds to the "Location" column called for by MOS:RJL, so I'm not sure the benefit to readers of removing it. As for the loop returning to the first junction, I followed the format used at M60 motorway, which avoids listing the same junction twice in a similar way. Happy to be guided by consensus though on both these points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with you, but I confess to having skimmed the relevant policy rather than read it in detail. I am hoping to recuse and do a full review of the article, which will give me context to offer an informed opinion. RL and other Wikipedia are currently conspiring against me, but if I don't start within 5 or 6 days, please give me a nudge. Courtesy ping to Imzadi1979. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Imzadi1979: yeah fair enough, looking forward to that as and when you have the time. I'm away myself over the weekend, so won't be able to get back to this seriously until next week anyway. As for the above, I'm confident we can come to a suitable consensus over it. It's good to use the guidelines where they make sense, which may or may not be the case here, but also WP:5P5 does urge us to use common sense over these things. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it is right now, I am not sure I understand the purpose of the sections column. The footer might violate MOSITALICS but it has been a while since I reviewed that. Also - the miles and km should follow MOS:DTT. --Rschen7754 03:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: OK that's fine, if there's a feeling that the sections columns aren't useful then no biggy, I've removed them. I've also changed the final row to be non-italic. Interested to know what you mean by miles and km columns following MOS:DTT, I can't see anything related to distances in there? I have put a hover-over to clarify what "mi" and "km" mean in that context anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the bottom of MOS:RJL#Standard columns - it has to do with how the mi and km columns are formatted for accessibility. --Rschen7754 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Oh I see, thanks. I've formatted the mi and km columns as suggested then, per the I-275 example. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Imzadi1979 edit

  • The junction list should be redone as a table per MOS:RJL.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I polished up the table for better compliance. Imzadi 1979 → 15:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpenStreetMap is user-editable content. It is a mapping service in wiki form, so it fails as a reliable source. There are better source options to use.
    OpenStreetMap refs have been replaced.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 6 has the editor name is First Last order, while the other footnotes consistently use Last, First order.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A KML would be a good addition, and then could be converted easily into a GeoJSON file so that the infobox could have an interactive map.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi 1979 → 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inconsistency in units of measurement. The length is always given in kilometers first, but any other mention of distance is given in miles first. My understanding is that the UK has only partially metricated, and road distances are one of the exceptions, so it would seem to follow that the length of this roadway should be given in miles first as well. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 15:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Yes, that makes sense. I have amended to make it imperial first throughout, which seems the most consistent approach (much as I'd personally prefer it if all measurements went to metric for simplicity!)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "The road's circuit encompasses the old and new Coventry Cathedrals, much of Coventry University and the city's shopping areas" - does it encompass all of the shopping areas? If so, I would put a comma after university to make it clear that "much of" only relates to the uni
  • That's all I got as far as the end of the Route description section - back for more later! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: thanks for the beginning of a review, I had actually been planning to ask if you would be able to do one already, so definitely much appreciated. Re the point above, I was a bit worried that if I add an Oxford comma in the location you mention, I'd probably have to go through and add one everywhere else. SO I have instead reordered the sentence to make it clear that the "much of" applies only to the university.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as immigrants from across the country moved in" - is it possible to be an immigrant from another part of the same country?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The council increased its lobbying of the government for permission and funding to the construct" - there's a stray "the" in there
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cutting the ribbon at a ceremonial ceremony" - last two words are a bit repetitive.......
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "providing a grant of £232,000 (equivalent to £7,700,000 in 2021) as part of total costs of £310,000 (equivalent to £7,700,000 in 2021)" - both 1958 values can't equate to the same 2021 value, surely?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After compulsory were issued by late 1959" - missing word?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "totalling £4.7 million (equivalent to £86,700,000 in 2021).[122] By 1971 this cost had risen to around £5.5 million (equivalent to £82,700,000 in 2021)" - inflated value of the larger value is lower than that of the smaller value.......?
    Well the first figure is inflated from 1968, while the latter is from 1971. Presumably the inflation-adjusted estimate was therefore lower in real terms than it had been earlier. I've removed the 1968 sentence altogether as it doesn't seem like this is a very significant matter overall.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but as of 2020 it is a full-time public car park" - either change to 2022 if this is still the case or change to past tense
    Actually it has now been removed, as part of the work mentioned by Harry below. I've reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

I lived in a Coventry for a while and still have friends and family there. I've long been interested in its post-war reconstruction and I like articles on transport infrastructure in general so this ticks several of my boxes! It's a very well put-together article. A few thoughts:

  • The Butts/Skydome roundabout is currently being redeveloped, I think to relieve traffic into the city centre from the Holyhead Road; I'm sure this has been extensively covered in the local press.
    @HJ Mitchell: I have added some detail on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything in the sources about the unpopularity of the pedestrian subways? The council seem to be closing them or opening them up at every opportunity (eg the network under the Butts roundabout and the walking route to the railway station). There's some detail on this in Gould & Gould (p. 59); it also mentions the impact on Lady Herbert's Garden.
    @HJ Mitchell: I have added some detail on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although havne't mentioned Lady Herbert's garden yet. Will do that anon.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I've added the detail on green spaces mentioned on p.59 of the book.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hinted at but I wonder if you could source a statement that the narrow radius of the ring road has hampered economic development in areas just outside it?
    @HJ Mitchell: I can't find any direct reference to this from looking through sources and news, other than the existing statements that it acts as a "barrier" between the city and the outside. The only direct reference to stifling economic development seems to relate to Birmingham (where they've since removed much of the inner ring), so don't know if we can directly apply that to Coventry.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The culverting of the Sherbourne at the other end is mentioned, but is the culvert that starts just before the ring road in Spon End relevant?
    @HJ Mitchell: OK, I've done some quite extensive searching on this and I can't find any specific mention of the culvert that starts just west of the ring road at Spon End, although some culverting of the river in other areas is mentioned starting as early as 1949. The best information I have is from comparing two OS maps from 1946 and 1954 (at SABRE maps), and in the former the Sherbourne is clearly visible between the now defunct Albion Street and Queen Victoria Road, while in the latter it is not depicted at all despite being shown further upstream and downstream. (The exact location of the culvert appears to be obscured by the "Tech Coll" label for the nearby Coventry technical college in the 1954 map unfortunately). But in any case, all this suggests the culvert was build long before the ring road in that area was built, and it isn't really of much relevance. I have added some detail to the line you mention above stating that most of the river had already been culverted in the 50s and 60s. Let me know if anything further is needed. I'll get on to your other points, particularly tightening and copyediting, shortly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the route description is a bit complex and difficult to follow, and I know the area. Photos and diagrams with good captions would help. Commons can be a treasure trove for photos but they might not be well described or categorised; perhaps try searching for local landmarks/buildings?
    @HJ Mitchell: I have had a look at this, and I'm slightly unsure what I need to improve here. The section has an outline map showing the structure and location of the 9 junctions on the right, which was added during the GA review and is intended to provide context for the descriptions given in the section. Beyond that, I'm not sure where additional photos or diagrams would actually go, as there isn't room to the right of that section, particularly not for nine separate diagrams. Obviously I could reword the section if that's desirable, with less or more detail depending, but not entirely sure what's needed. Pinging other reviewers @The Rambling Man, Gog the Mild, and ChrisTheDude: in case they also have a suggestion or view on how to improve the prose or imagery in that section? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you have some books referenced in full in footnotes and others using sfns and a bibliography. Is there a reason for that?
    Not sure. It may originally have been those that were cited in multiple pages that were put as sfns, but it seems more consistent to have all books thus so I've amended it to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel there's some repetition of the route description in the history and that the word count could be brought down by eliminating some of this.
    I've had a go at this, e.g. by referring to junction numbers in the history rather than giving detailed information about what each junction is.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose could be tighter in places; there's redundancy in places where the same information could be conveyed with fewer words and the prose would flow better, see this edit for an example.
    Prose copyedited as suggested.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prose critiques aren't anything too concerning. They're the same sorts of things I pick up in most FACs I review. I'm happy to discuss anything further, or I'm sure I'll be back to support after just a little bit more polish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HJ Mitchell: I think I've now looked at everything you mentioned here, with the exception of the route description, on which I'm not too sure how to proceed. Adding several extra images to the route description doesn't look feasible with the layout as it is (plus one might need nine such to cover all the junctions), but if you have any alternative advice please let me know. Other than that, hoping you can have a second look at this now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As none of the other reviewers share my concern about the readability of the route description, I'll concede the point. The main thrust of my comments has been amply addressed, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note edit

Just to note that I'm on vacation this week so may not have time to get to the above comments, but I have seen them and will deal with them ASAP hoefully either this week if there's time, or next week when I'm back home. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, open a month and a half and still comments to action so we're looking pretty shaky here unless something changes soon -- can I assume you're back from vacation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: sorry, I am back from vacation and have been going through the whole article doing the "tightening" mentioned in the review above, but rather too slowly. I've now addressed TRM's points below, and will come back later tody and complete the tightening on the final couple of paragraphs before seeing if HJMitchell wants to come back for more. I'm also awaiting a return by ChrisTheDude and I think Gog the Mild had indicated that they might do a review, but not sure if that's still on the cards. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - this one has been a long slog for one reason or another, but it's looking like it might be almost there now. Can you see anything outstanding that needs actioning? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder forComments Support from TRM edit

  • "The city architect began work" seems a bit odd to not name him.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after large areas" maybe "in which" rather than "after"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "configuration with at such" not quite right.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "driving on it has been likened to both a Scalextric track and a roller coaster." pedant warning, "driving on it" is an "experience" while "Scalextric track" is an object, as is a roller coaster. Tweak perhaps?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea of the cost of it all for the lead?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "southern by-pass" is by-pass really hyphenated?
    Removed hyphen.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "young team of architects" or do you mean "a team of young architects"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "architects produced" missing word?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after the first series of bombings..." you just said the Coventry Blitz, how many "series of bombings" were there?
    I've removed "series of" and made bombing singular. Now it is one of the series.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "east of the Council House" could add an image of this, big section with no pictures.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "construction on the road itself began" maybe just reinforce "the Coventry ring road" here?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency with "medieval" or "mediaeval" please.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for Minister of Transport?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "use of grade-separated junctions to replace" didn't you already link this?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "firm G. R. Yeomans" any reason you think they need a redlink?
    Perhaps not. Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which opened in July 1965 and carries traffic through to the inner-circulatory" maybe needs some anchoring to today, maybe "and, as of 2022, carries"? I dunno, just reads a bit odd with the history/present.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would tensioning benefit from a link to reinforced concrete?
    The more specific link there seems to be Prestressed_concrete#Post-tensioned_concrete, so I've included that...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by mid-1965.[103] By November" By By boring.
    Reworded the first.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just suddenly realised no link to flyover.
    Added in the Route description section.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concrete.[119][107]" ref order.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "than £4 million was " inflate?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for the Lord Mayor of Cov?
    Linked in stage one.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his speech Berry congratulated", he congratulated, no need to repeat Berry, and I'd put a comma after "speech".
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between Coventry railway station to the" overlinked.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "generally regard the road" regard or regarded? Do they *keep* considering it a success?
    They probably still do, but I've changed to past tense anyway. The 2009 mention in the next sentence gives a clue anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also commented that driving on the road was reminiscent of a Scalextric slot-car toy.[172]" presumably you mean reminiscent of driving a toy car?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at everything for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy that my concerns have been addressed, so glad to support this candidate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from LEEV: passed edit

I don't do source reviews often, but I'll take a look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, the article uses "footnotes", "notes" and "references". This doesn't seem normal, when we have a notes section for traditional references. Presumably references should be "citations" or "bibliography". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: calling the main reference section "Notes" and the bibliography for short refs "References" seems to be a fairly standard terminology on Wikipedia. MOS:REFERENCES has an image with an article with such "Notes" and "References" section, although admittedly I haven't seen one which also has "Footnotes" before. In Kigali I had "Notes" as one section and "References" as another, with a "Bibliography" subsection so I've followed that here too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm, the citations that are in book form don't have ISBNs because they are technical documents? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is a bit tricky... what I've done is that journal articles, whose citations refer to individual pages within a wide page range, are included in the bibliography, as are standalone article with lots of pages such as the Urban Initiatives masterplan document and the "Coventry Planned: The Architecture of the Plan for Coventry, 1940–1978" article, which is hosted by Coventry city council but not published in a journal as such. I guess I could just merge those into one reference (I have seen journal citations in the past where individual page numbers aren't supplied, but it seems like if we can provide the reader more info maybe we should?) or else move those entries up into the main references section but just list them separately... Or leave as is. Happy to follow your guidance on this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Institution of Highway Engineers notable enough for WP:REDLINK? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we already have an article for it at Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation. It just changed its name since that ref was published. I've made a redirect.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we have a section for general citations, I'd rather any book sources were in there, rather than in the general list section, so #1. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had differentiated between maps and books in this instance, but I've moved the two map refs down now, as you suggest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two YouTube links to someone called "whovianlover", why is this reliable? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm another difficult one. The video probably isn't reliable in itself as it was effectively a school media project, but there are two possible mitigating circumstances - (1) the article now only uses the video as a reference for directly attributed comments by a city council spokesman and Brian Redknap, the city engineer at the time (I have removed an earlier use as it wasn't necessary, the other ref providing the samew info); and (2) as the article mentions, the video was produced in collaboration with the Coventry Transport Museum. If you're not happy with the youtube link, I could even remove that and just leave it as a citation to the production itself, bearing in mind the above mitigating circumstances?
  • Why can we trust the Forbes contributer? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have to confess I wasn't aware of the distinction between Forbes and Forbes contributors, until I looked it up just now. I had assumed when writing this that Forbes pages were always reliable. However, I do note that the entry at WP:FORBESCON allows such pages if the author is acknowledged as a subject-matter expert. This author, Carlton Reid, has written extensively for the Guardian on matters pertaining to cycling and cycle lanes, and is also a multiple published author, e.g. [2][3][4] Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks
  1. 21 - checks out
  2. 30 - "a year later" and opens in October the following year, do good enough. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 43 - checks out.

I'm happy with the spot checks, just some comments above on formatting and ISBNs and suchlike. Drop me a ping ping when done. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: thanks for your review, and I've replied to all your comments above. Please let me know what you think. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I have a copy of Gould and Gould (2015). I found it to be used faithfully and had no concerns over plagiarism or close paraphrasing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp edit

  • What makes the roads.org.uk external link appropriate for inclusion? It appear to me to be just a roadfan site. Steelkamp (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Steelkamp (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I included it because it's an interesting and well-researched piece on the subject of this article, which may be of interest to readers seeking more information. I also think it's a bit unfair to call roads.org.uk a "fansite". Its author, Chris Marshall, is cited in quite a few reliable sources as an expert on the subject of UK roads, for example the Independent, BBC Sounds and this published book on the London Ringways, which cites Marshall's research extensively. I'll remove it if there's consensus it's not appropriate, but would be interested to hear other opinions.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough if the author is quoted in reliable sources as an expert. Steelkamp (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Upper and Lower Precincts" have precincts in lowercase? Steelkamp (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, "Upper Precinct" and "Lower Precinct" are the actual names of the streets, and would therefore qualify as proper names? They seem to be generally capitalised in sources...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But lowercase should be used for plurals of generic terms. MOS gives the following example at MOS:GEOUNITS: Incorrect (generic plural): The Cities of Calgary and Edmonton are in Alberta. Correct (generic plural): The cities of Calgary and Edmonton are in Alberta. Steelkamp (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelkamp: but as I said above, they're not generic terms, they're proper names. It's not a generic lower precinct, it's the Lower Precinct. So it would be inaccurate to make it lowercase. To get around the disagreement, I've separated them out so it now reads "... Upper Precinct, Lower Precinct, West Orchards and Cathedral Lanes ...". Does that work for you?  — Amakuru (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that works. We can agree to disagree. Steelkamp (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The section between junctions 4 and 5 features the ring road's only concave section, with the result that clockwise traffic bears left rather than right as on the rest of the circuit." Is this important enough for inclusion? Seems to me to be just minor trivia. Steelkamp (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compass directions should be consistent as to if they are hyphenated or separate words. Article mostly separates the words, but "south-eastern", "south-east", "north-east" and "south-western" are hyphenated, and "southeastern" is a single word. Steelkamp (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In general the style is to use "north east" if it's used as a noun (which matches the usual British English usage) but then to use "north-east" if it's an adjective, per MOS:HYPHEN as a compound modifier. i.e. "He moved from the south-west corner to the north east". There were some cases such as the "southeastern" you mention, that weren't following the pattern, so I've corrected those. Hope that's OK?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Steelkamp (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much of the city's road network was narrow medieval streets." Should that be "were" instead of "was"? Steelkamp (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have thought it's correct as is - the subject of the sentence is "the city's road network", which is a singular entity? Anyway, I've rephrased it slightly, so it now says "much of the city's road network consisted of narrow medieval streets".  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coventry City Council could be linked the first time it is mentioned in the body. Steelkamp (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "agree a blueprint". Should this be "agree on a blueprint"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Broadgate? Steelkamp (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have defined it in the article as "the city's historic hub"... How's that?  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good. Steelkamp (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Pirelli General Cable Works contractors laid nine tons (9,100 kg)" be long tons? Steelkamp (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I suppose it should, the MOS says to do that, even though I'm not sure it's a term that will be familiar to too many people! Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steel prices had increased following the increase in steel prices between stages three four". This should be reworded. Steelkamp (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I have responded to the points you've raised so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp: I've looked at your two points from today. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Coventry_ring_road/archive1&oldid=1112954664"