Talk:M62 motorway/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 17:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Closing as not ready. Article is still under construction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:

Comments on GA criteria[edit]

Pass

Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

"In popular culture" section is largely unsourced, and is in an inappropriate list format per WP:EMBED, part of criteria 1(b) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some edits I made yesterday under criteria 1(b) for MoS layout issues, have been reverted without discussion. This is not an encouraging start to the GAN. If that continues I will close the review as I don't wish to struggle with minor edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The reverts were not made by the nominator (me). I intend to work with you to improve the article. Rcsprinter¹²³ (spill beans) 19:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks. I haven't really got into a serious review of the article yet as I'm still wondering if the editor who reverted me is someone I can work with. He's claimed he took the article to FA status though his first edits were two years later, and most of his (few) edits to the article over the years have been reverts rather than adding much positive. I like to AGF, but he still hasn't undone his revert, even though I brought it to his attention and explained that a GAN was taking place, and he has simply been fiddling with the article in an unhelpful way, so I am unclear what it is I am reviewing. I'll give it another day or two to see what is happening, and if the revert still hasn't been undone I'll close the review. It can be relisted again, so no worries. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think this edit is unhelpful and stops criteria 3a from being met. I've undone this and had a look for up-to-date sources - this source dated 2013 says the M62 at Hunsworth is one of the five slowest in the UK with an average speed of 34 mph. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you come on board Richie I'll certainly finish the review. Is this article something that you feel can be brought to standard in a reasonable space of time? The nominator is willing to help out, and I'll do the research needed to make suggestions, and do any minor tidying up, so perhaps between the three of us we can bring this road article up to a reasonable standard. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well without wishing to blow my own trumpet, I have turned around articles so they can meet the GA criteria in a matter of days if I know the source material very well and have the time to do it (eg: both You Never Give Me Your Money and The Yes Album were submitted to GA within 72 hours of me starting work on them), so provided somebody else is prepared to take care of copyediting, I ought to be able to pull together the relevant facts. If we can get Dr. Blofeld out of his slumber (who turned around Ipswich Road, Colchester to GA in almost the blink of an eye) we should have even less of a problem. I'll mention that I won't be at all popular spending all Christmas hiding away in the office and I've got other GA reviews active right now (not least North Circular Road) that have to take priority, but if it means we can stop this review failing and get a GA out of it, I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another glance over the article, clean up the obvious fails with the images and layout, and see how much work is needed. It may in the long run be more appropriate to quick fail it now, and folks can work on it at leisure and renominate it at a more convenient time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments[edit]

The article is richly illustrated; however there are ten images and diagrams, not counting the info box and the tables, which are too much for the size of the article, and so they squeeze the text, and overflow into neighbouring sections. This is against WP:LAYIM, which is part of criteria 1(b) "layout" of the GA criteria. Before looking into the copyright status of the images, please reduce to a manageable number, and present them in line with WP:LAYIM. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping in ... I recall suggesting this article should be delisted from being an FA some years back because I didn't think some parts of construction and political history, particularly around Scammonden Reservoir, was detailed enough for an FA to not leave me wanting to look elsewhere. The current version of the article does have this information, and Scammonden's own article could be an acceptable content fork, but I would still recommend checking over this. Certainly, I would suggest to meet criteria 4, the construction history should be strongly weighted towards the Pennines section with its engineering challenges, while the East Yorkshire section towards Hull is fairly un-noteworthy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Richie. The article is not in good shape, and there's an editor who has reverted me, and is now making unhelpful edits. Rather than struggle with both a weak article and a disruptive editor, I may close this GAN, and someone can decide to relist it if they still feel it has a chance of meeting the GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 05:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know and travel the M62 quite frequently and tried to improve this article some time ago but could find little on the eastern section, even less on who actually built it and its years of "improvements" barely warrant a mention. One of my problems was, among the numerous websites about motorways, what could be considered a reliable source. It is also a trivia magnet. I think it falls far short of being broad in its coverage. It is so far off being a good article I don't understand why it was listed. J3Mrs (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered that, and I think it's because the nominator is not a long term contributor to the article, so wasn't fully aware of the issues. However, I have taken on articles in a poor state and brought them to GA standard - if folks are willing and able quite a lot can be done in a short time, as Richie mentions above. But it does require willing, competent, and collegiate contributors AND the availability of accessible reliable sources. Richie meets the requirement for the contributors, but if you're saying that sources are not readily available, this may be best left to be developed at leisure. I'll take a look today and come to a decision. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as not ready[edit]

I am closing this as the article is not ready, and is essentially still under construction. While it is possible to bring the article to GA status in a reasonable period of time, the timing is not appropriate. Contributors willing to bring the article to GA standard can work on the article at their leisure and nominate next year. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]