Talk:A82 road

Untitled comments
Laggan dam is not on the A82 - it is on the A86, see the Laggan Dam page for backup of this fact. 161.12.7.4 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

South-Northeast
South-Northeast? What does it mean? Its not a sense of direction I've come across before. Laurel Bush (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

Comments

 * That image of the Ballachulish ferry should probably be dated (1870 according to the file description).
 * ✅ Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The bridge was originally expected to open in 1975, but, a bearing failure on one of the supports caused delays while the rest of the structure was carefully examined to confirm it was safe. This section doesn't mention when the bridge actually opened though. The article says it opened in 1975 but this is unsourced.
 * ✅ I've got a source that says it opened in December 1975, and this note in the Edinburgh Gazette which proposes a stopping-up order for the ferry on November 5th, which is two days before the note in Hansard, which seems to be a bit contradictory, unless the discussion in parliament is referring to earlier problems and the bridge at that point was just about done. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The History section could do with some filling out and maybe should be the first section in the article. How much was the route used before the road was actually built?  What was its significance during the Glencoe massacre?  The coordinates in the Wikipedia article about the massacre point to a location just off the present road.
 * I feel this would be better documented in Old military roads of Scotland (and the Wade military road in particular runs some significant distance away from the modern A82) though we could add a bit more and link that as a "main" article. There's certainly a good argument as to why a road ended up here in the first place. What do you think? As for other history sections, there's also a diversion around Inverness that needs documenting (the other two sections in "History" came out of some MOT documentation in the National Archives, and filled out with a few book references). Just to throw something else into the mix, note a comment in this Hansard transcript - "Is it conceivable that anybody will desire to go from Inverness to Glasgow?" which suggest the route was allocated in possibly a bit of an ad. hoc manner out of odds and ends. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the A82 is really two roads, WP:SYN prevents you for saying that, but there is nothing to stop you from discussing the function of the road from Glasgow to Glencoe and then from Glencoe to Inverness and leaving the reader to realise that this is really two roads that have been bolted together with a single number.
 * There is no harm in repeating bits from Old military roads of Scotland and putting them into context of the A82, and also looking at the old economic justification of the various parts of the road. Was the road alongside Loch Ness a recent (last 100 years or so) addition, or does it date back into antiquity? Martinvl (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a couple of sources from the military road article, but there's more I can do in this area. The National Library of Scotland's map library will be able to help here. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am guessing here - when did the road first appear along Loch Ness? It might well have been more practical in earlier years to take a boat along the loch rather than having a road?  Purely a thought, maybe the earliest OS maps will show something. Martinvl (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ The history this road pre-dates the first series Ordnance Survey maps in the area. I'd already cited an 1833 atlas of Scotland which shows the road complete, however I've gone one better and found the original government reports on Highland road construction and added specific dates and costs into the article, which should give you a much fuller picture. You are right that boat transport was more important before this time (that's kind of why the Caledonian Canal was built, after all). On a related note, Loch Ness itself could do with a bit of TLC - it's not all about monster spotting! Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, get consistency in units of measure, either use metric first or imperial first. Also, if you are being pedantic, don't write 3 miles (4.8 km), it is either 3.0 miles (4.8 km) or 3 miles (5 km).  BTW, I made a few minor corrections.
 * I'll rejig all the measurements at some point - at the moment they're whatever units the source cite them as. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Units are now imperial first for miles, metric first for metres. This matches both WP:UNIT and my experience in the real world. (Highway engineers design everything in metric these days, miles are an anachronism used by non-techies!) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about gradients on the road or about the highest point that the road reaches. Also, there is no indication of how long each of the five sections are that you describe.
 * That'll probably be because I can't find a source that talks about them (unless you know different). Just about every travel book mentions the heights of nearby mountains off the road, which are what the reader is generally interested in. The various sources talk about the routes between certain sections (eg: Tarbet - Crianlarich, Tyndrum to Glencoe), but no source seems to be interested in the length of the entire route, even Transport Scotland aren't interested in the Glasgow section of the road. I'll keep looking. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OS maps should give you a few spot heights and possibly some steep ascents and descents. If you play around with [www.viamichelin.co.uk this site] you can probably get a number of distances for various sectors.
 * Oh sure I can get it from a map, I was just hoping a source would explicitly say "along 'x', which is the highest point of the A82." There's a spot height of 348m marked on contemporary OS 1:50,000 mapping - aside from Rannoch Moor / Glen Coe, most of it is near sea level. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   09:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great - that is the sort of thing that I expected you to find. Martinvl (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another item that is missing is the economic impact of the road. There are snippets in the various sections, but if this is to be a WP:GA, I would expect to see a section devoted to economic impact of the road and a bit about traffic levels.
 * I should be able to ferret out something for traffic levels ("very low" is a comment some of the news sources I've found have given). Do you have any suggestions for other sources that could be looked at? Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This sort of information can often be found in five and ten year local plans, available from the libraries in the area, but unless the local councils have published this sort of info on the web or you do not have easy access to the libraries, then you might have a problem. Martinvl (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessarily that bad, the majority of the A82 (and all of it before 1996) is a trunk road, so the figures will be in Transport Scotland's libraries as a nationally important route - most of which is online. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   09:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ (I think) I've added an economic benefits section, taken from a few reports, and copyediting other bits from elsewhere. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope that his helps.
 * Martinvl (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Every little helps. Where have I heard that before? Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   21:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Inverness Trunk Road Link project could do with a mention - it would (might?) have substantially altered the route in Inverness. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   09:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hitrans economic appraisal - notes Balloch roundabout to Inverness is 147 miles and Tarbet to Fort William is 68 miles Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   12:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful!
It's a beautiful piece of work Richie, well done! There is something else though which you don't mention about it and which is quite notable, particularly amongst A roads in the UK, its snow defences! The A82 has snow fences (to stop snow from drifting across the road), snow posts/poles (to give snow plough drivers an idea of the course of the road when the snow obscures all other clues) and the last resort: snow gates (to allow the road to be closed when the snow makes it impassable). Perhaps you could add some of your wonderful prose around those, assuming reliable sources can be found to support what I say. Good luck with the article! LatchWits (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a little bit, but I couldn't find a good source that specifically talked about snow marker posts on the A82. I'm not sure they're particularly rare, as several major roads in the Highlands have them, and some less important roads such as the A939 from Cockbridge to Tomintoul was (briefly) infamous for Terry Wogan making a big issue out of the gates closing on his Radio 2 breakfast show some years back. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   14:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit questions
Questions as they pop up:
 * -> The A82 was one of the first trunk roads to be created in 1936,

Does this mean:


 * ""The A82 was created in 1936 and was one of the first trunk roads,"

or:


 * "The A82 was one of the first of the trunk roads that were created in 1936," Dementia13 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Trunk roads were created in 1936. The A82 already existed as a route number at that point. It was chosen to be part of the original trunk road network. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   08:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Next section:


 * -> The road continues beyond Anniesland Cross as an extension of the Great Western Road, which was constructed between 1922 and 1924,[14] in the late 1920s,[15] 

Looks like something in between got deleted. Constructed when? Dementia13 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, this just evolved. I found source 15 first, put in a vague claim from it, then found source 14 which was much better. "in the late 1920s" should simply be removed. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   08:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Under "Alexandria – Crianlarich", HGVs are mentioned. I don't know what those are, and that acronym should be expanded on first use. Dementia13 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * HGV = Heavy Goods Vehicle. A standard term widely used in the UK, including on some road signs. I agree it should be defined on first use, and suspect some of my copyediting has resulted in the first definition appearing somewhere else by mistake. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   13:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In "Glencoe – Fort William", it is stated that the bridge was expected to be completed in 1975, but was delayed until December. December of what year? If 1975, then it was completed in the expected year and the whole point is moot. Maybe the earlier part needs to say something like "expected...early 1975" or to specify a month. Dementia13 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing to do is to remove "The bridge was expected to open in 1975, though" and add "1975" after "December". That expresses the same sentiments as stated by the sources, without any ambiguity. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   16:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"History ->Route within Glasgow":
 * It proceeded to run westwards...

I think you mean the A82, but the last thing mentioned was the A75, so I'm not sure what "it" refers to. Neither will your other readers be sure. Dementia13 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant trivia. I removed it. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   15:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In the last section, "Maintenance and Improvements":
 * They plan to widen the road to two-lane standard and remove the traffic signals, including a new 180 metres (200 yd) viaduct running parallel to the loch shoreline, followed by a further 180 metres (200 yd) online widening by cutting into the headland along the rock

This doesn't quite make sense. It looks like it should be two sentences. It says "including", but that doesn't match what comes before. Also, the following paragraph about the Criaranlich (sp?) bypass, is that the same project? If so, then two different start dates are given. Dementia13 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the source, it's the same project. I've rewritten this sentence to clarify this - it's a single improvement scheme, part of which is new build, part of which upgrades the existing road. I've put the requirements as to why it's done in a different sentence. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   08:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll check back on the answer to that, but first let me say that I agree with your own assessment of the article. We know when we've done good work, and this is a fine article. Copy-editing an article like this is difficult, because it takes careful thought to make small improvements while preserving well-composed work. In an article like Progressive rock, which had pretty much been an unmaintained public toilet before I got there, it's obvious that most everything has to go. Fewer decisions are necessary, and I have free rein to make dramatic changes in substandard sections. When somebody's taken a lot of care, I have to approach each sentence with an equal amount of care. This article was in position to benefit from a touch-up, but it was probably in the best shape of any I've copy-edited, and I've worked several articles where the copy edit was their last barrier to getting FA status. Good work and good luck. Dementia13 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, for the minute I've taken off the GA nomination. I've been told specifically by Eric that there is no requirement to do GA and peer review first - if you look at the contents of this talk page, I think it's reasonable to conclude that we have done that in all but name. The DYK meant that about 3,500 people have read the article, and a few people jumped in to do minor copyedits, so I think it's had a thorough inspection, if I'm honest. I'll proof-read everything again, check through the reference formatting, and FA nominate it. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   08:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S., Look it over and make sure I didn't introduce any American spellings. You want that to be consistent through the article. Dementia13 (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

GAN?
As the article doesn't meet the FA criteria, should we nominanate it for GA? FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As no one has responded to my comment, I will put forward the nom myself. FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  17:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)