Wikipedia

Talk:A500 road

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Former good articleA500 road was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 17, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 30, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

.

Rewrite

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have rewritten the article quite a bit, but I believe I have kept all the information in place. What I have removed (This is debatable as some suggest it was because Plan D was used) as I was born and grew up in the area, but have never heard of this. Does anyone have a reference? Regan123 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

GA Status

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. It is well written. In this respect:

 Y(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
 Y(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

 Y(a) provides references to sources used;
 Y(b)cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and
 Y(c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

 Y(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
 Y(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

 Y4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

 Y5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[4]

6. Y Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.


Reviewer: TTalk to me 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.
  2. ^ Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.
  3. ^ It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.
  4. ^ Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A500 road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Community reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A500 road

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted 06:01, 1 May 2017 Bungle

Having looked through some existing GA-class highways articles for inspiration on improving some others, I noticed this article listed as GA but instantly felt it wasn't justified of its status. Primarily, the article is almost entirely sourcing information older than 10 years and much of those references have been broken for several years also. When compared to other GA class articles, such as A303 road and A4232 road, it's quite apparent that this article requires substanstial redevelopment, including an almost entire resourcing and bringing up to date with contemporary developments. Furthermore, it would seem the original GA review was some considerable time ago, and the supposed reassessment that took place was nothing more than a single editor putting their own "rubber stamp" back in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The "rubber stamp" appears to have been done by Eric Corbett, but a search through the article's history shows he did a bit of work on it, so the reassessment may simply be a matter of just doing it without needing to log anything. The sources all look reliable from a first glance, but one thing that leaps out is there doesn't seem to be very much on the politics. I checked the BBC retrospective (the first source I looked at) and it talks about the lack of a decent goods traffic connection hurting the economy of the Potteries, projects being stalled due to lack of Government funds, and there's Michael Heseltine's mugshot in there too, so he must have had a hand in it. Also it gives an opening date of 2 November 1977. None of this is in the article, and I think it ought to be.
A typical problem with these sorts of articles is that it's very easy to write "The B4824 starts at a T junction in Lesser Snoring, it progresses around the farmland to meet the B4912 at a crossroads which it yeilds to, in 1.23454 miles (1.98680 km) it reaches Troll Twittering where it turns left, gosh isn't this exciting" without actually going into detail that non road enthusiasts might find important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. Per Ritchie333's post above, since the article hasn't been updated very much since 2006/2007 would it now fail GA Criteria 3A "It addresses the main aspects of the topic"? If there are major issues about the subject missing from the article - the politics about its construction, delays specifically - then can this article be said to address the main aspects of the topic? Also, it looks like the "Route" section is completely unsourced. And this last bit isn't at all part of the GA Criteria but Trent Vale is Wikilinked now. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Unless someone wishes to go through and fix many of the broken references, up date much of the info to be relevant and ideally sub-section the history as a starting point, then I am of the view it may be better to demote the article from GA and relist once the issues are resolved. If it were to go through a GA nom in it's current state, it would quick fail. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on A500 road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A500 road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A500_road&oldid=1197133704"