Talk:Twyford Down/GA1

GA Review
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 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 -
 * ✅ 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.
 * ✅ 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.
 * ✅ fixed Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   18:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs 15 & 17 are only partially cited, they are Hansard sources.
 * ✅ 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.
 * ✅ Replaced with an alternative source
 * Ref 32 gives an unexpected error message.
 * ✅ 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.
 * ✅ 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)
 * ✅ 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  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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)

✅ I've basically redone the lead from scratch based on what we have in the article. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Okay, so what's outstanding now to close the review? Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(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  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)