Talk:M11 link road protest/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 18:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, returning to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you record any actions taken to address the issues with comments and possibly the  Done template. I am not in favour of striking out the text, as it makes it much more difficult to read at a later date, and it forms an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links
  • There are two dead links in the News Articles section of citations. (see external links on the tools menu) They might be available on the wayback machine.
 Done The URLs were just wrong
  • There are six refs that report a 301 error. You might want to check that they still go to where you expect.
Part done The Motorway Archive has a different URL, BBC News appears to be correct. The Waltham Forest reports I'll come back to as I want to re-do the last paragraph in the article (which will happen the next evening I have time).
Background
  • "This would also have included an extension to the current M11 motorway from Ringway 1, the innermost Ringway, to Ringway 2." seems wrong. Presumably the M11 ends at Ringway 2, and so the extension should be "from Ringway 2 to Ringway 1, the innermost Ringway."
 Done This sentence makes no sense. I've rewritten it.
  • "A section of the M11 connecting the North Circular (which had been scheduled to be upgraded to full motorway and form the northern part of Ringway 2) ..." I think this would read a lot better if the bit in brackets was removed and added to the end as a proper sentence.
 Done I've rewritten this
  • same sentence - "North Circular" should be "North Circular road", so readers unfamiliar with north London keep reading, rather than following the link to find out what it is.
 Done
  • Westway and Archway Road could do with some geographical context, so we know why these are relevant to the current discussion.
 Done Added context
  • "By 1974, the GLC announced..." GLC is an abbreviation, so needs to be quoted in full on first occurrence. So: "Greater London Council (GLC)"
 Done "GLC" appears nowhere else in the article, so I have simply fixed the wikilink
  • "Drivers traveling between central and southern areas of London and East Anglia continued to face long stretches of single-carriageway roads through the suburbs of Leyton, Leytonstone and Wanstead and serious traffic congestion had become frequent in these areas" runs on too much, and has too many "and"s. Suggest "Leytonstone and Wanstead, where serious traffic congestion had become frequent." or somesuch. (and "travelling" has 2 l's).
 Done Rewritten and split into two sentences.
  • "... and the M25 as well as many other road schemes." Needs some context. M25 should be wikilinked, as this is the first occurrence. Since it is orbital, did it replace Ringway 1, 2, 3 or 4, or was it outside that?
 Done I've simplified this. The M25 isn't really relevant in the context of this sentence. M25 was a combination of Ringways 3, 4 and some new build, but a full description is off-topic for this article, I think.
  • "A public enquiry was held for the M11 link road..." This sentence runs on too much, and has issues. "but," does not need the comma afterwards. Suggest full stop after "envisaged", and rest to be a new sentence: "This lead Harry Cohen ...", avoiding the "leading to Harry Cohen .. to question", which doesn't quite make sense.
 Done This bit is not in chronological order. The protest from Cohen happened before the public enquiry. I've reworded and simplified everything to reflect this.

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The protest campaign in East London
  • "A number of "stunts" were carried out, the most notable being at the home of John MacGregor, the Minister for Transport at that time." This needs expanding, as we have no idea what "stunts" are, and why this one was notable.
 Done What happened here is the paragraph originally contained several "stunts", but was completely unreferenced, and this incident was the only one I could find. On reflection I personally think the Independent Media Center is not a particularly reliable source, and since it contains a negative act against a living person, I think we can be with in our rights to invoke WP:BLP and remove the entire sentence.
  • "In response, the protesters set up the so-called "autonomous republics" such "Wanstonia" in some groups of the houses" Suggest "the so-called" should be just "so-called", and "such as "Wanstonia"".
 Done I've collapsed this and simplified everything. Again, other "micro-nations" were mentioned but only "Wanstonia" was reliably sourced.
The chestnut tree on George Green
  • "because this was a cut and cover tunnel, this would result in the demise of both." Doesn't read well. Suggest expanding, so "however, as it was to be built using cut and cover tunnelling methods, construction would result in the demise of both." or somesuch.
 Done I've replaced this with the more neutral "but because this was a cut and cover tunnel, this required the tree to be cut down". "The demise of both" is factually incorrect as George Green exists today and can be seen on Google Streetview. This was just POV pushing.
  • "...local residents were largely resigned to the road being built.;[26] when outside protesters arrived in September 1993..." runs on too much, and punctuation is wrong. Suggest "...being built.[26] When outside..."
 Done I've reorganised the paragraphs around here so they appear in chronological order, which makes the wording flow better.
  • "Together, everyone pulled down the fencing to save the tree; at this point, as one wrote, "any division between activist and resident dissolved"." It is not clear why removing the fencing saves the tree, and try expanding "as one wrote" to make it flow better.
The problem here is that I don't have a copy of the book source used here. The fact the source appears in a Google Books search, and has cited page numbers, means I assume it was cited correctly, but it makes rewriting / expanding problematic without it.
 Done I've collapsed the sentence down and cited a quote from Moran to resolve this.
  • "causing a further delay,Template:Wall" Something has gone wrong with the formatting here.
I can't see this, has someone else fixed it?
That was a typo from my reference conversion, Demiurge1000 caught it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "solicitors had even argued (successfully) ... but this was unsuccessful." This needs clarifying.
 Done I don't have the book sources, so I've just removed "successfully" and "unsuccessful". Empirically, it was unsuccessful as the road was built.
  • "several hundred police arrived to evict the tree;" Evict?
 Done Replaced with protesters
  • "partly due to a successful "wrenching"". Wrenching needs explanation, as it is used out of context, hence the quotes.
 Done I've got no idea what this means, and given the source doesn't explain it, I've tidied up this whole sentence
  • "The chestnut tree was eventually evicted; an operation that took ten hours to carry out" Again, can a tree be evicted, and the semicolon needs to be a comma.
 Done I've trimmed down this whole area to say simply "In the early morning of 7 December 1993, several hundred police arrived to evict the protesters, which took ten hours to carry out."
  • "The tree was cut down; media attention, however, mushroomed after the event," The semicolons get a bit tedious. Suggest "The tree was cut down, but media attention mushroomed..." or somesuch.
 Done Rewritten to say "Media attention started to increase regarding the protest, with several daily newspapers putting pictures of the tree on their front pages."
  • "just to remove the tree and evict the houses." Evict applies to people, not to houses, so suggest "and evict people/residents/protestors from the houses" or somesuch.
 Done Replaced with a direct quote from the source
Claremont Road
  • "Having befriended the anti-road protestors (who named a watchtower, built 100 feet high from scaffold poles, after her[36]); she said "they're not dirty hippy squatters; they're the grandchildren I never had."" Try rewriting and expanding, as "Having befriended the anti-road protestors;" is not a sentence, so should not be followed by a semicolon, and the nested aside about the watchtower would be better placed at the end.
 Done Rewritten as "She became friends with the anti-road protesters, saying said "they're not dirty hippy squatters, they're the grandchildren I never had." The protesters named a watchtower, built 100 feet high from scaffold poles, after her." Whoever originally wrote this bit seems to have had a thing about putting random semicolons all over the place.
  • "built 100 feet high from scaffold poles". 100 ft needs a metric equivalent. Suggest using {convert}.
 Done I don't think this is a good idea. Since the tower in Claremont Road wasn't designed by a chartered engineer, it's not going to be accurately measured, and putting an accurate {{convert}} is misleading. 100ft is about four times the height of a house - did they really build one that high? I've removed the measurement, as it's not necessary.
  • "one that, by one account," doesn't read well. Try rewording. There is another use of "one" in the next sentence, which could be improved.
 Done Reworded
  • "The police, in full riot gear, and bailiffs carried out the eviction" doesn't read well. Suggest "Bailiffs, accompanied by the police in full riot gear," or somesuch.
 Done Reworded as suggested
  • "was £1,014,060."</ref>" Formatting wrong here.
What is the correct formatting? Realise this was a misplaced ref tag, not a comment on comma separators for money. Somebody else appears to have fixed this.
Ditto. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "protesters could have lodged their objections" Elsewhere, spelled "protestors".
 Done Spell check on Google Chrome suggests "protesters", but a Hansard source is titled "protestors". I have gone with "protesters", as the source could be simply spelled wrong.
Both the e and o variants are valid spellings in British English. Hansard evidently prefers "protestors", but there's no reason for us to change the article usage on that basis. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end
  • "things died down for a little while" is too colloquial. Try rewording.
  • "roads protests" should be "road protests" I think.
  • "A house at 135 Fillebrook Road, near Leytonstone tube station,[43] was the only building left standing in what had been a terrace of houses demolished due to public safety concerns following vandalism earlier in the decade." runs on a bit. Suggest some punctuation or rewording.
 Done Rewritten every sentence relating to these three issues.
  • "demolition like all of the remainder" This should be "all of the others" or somesuch, as the remainder are those that are left.
{[done}} Now says "The house was originally scheduled for demolition at the same time as the others"
  • "DfT" is another abbreviation that needs expanding.
 Done The acronym is only mentioned in one place, so I have replaced it with the full wikilink
  • "the protesters immediately moved in" Not convinced that "immediately" is appropriate.
 Done I've reworded this. Now says "When the guards decided to sleep overnight in their cars that evening, leaving the house unoccupied, the protesters moved in."
  • "and the protest was back on." Again, too colloquial. Suggest rewording.
 Done This isn't necessary, removed.
  • "A 20 foot tower" also needs metric equivalent.
 Done Removed, as per above
  • "Munstonia was finally evicted" Another case of a building being evicted, rather than people.
 Done Replaced with "They were" as the previous sentence is about the protesters
  • "being opened by the Highways Agency Chief Executive" Highways Agency should be wikilinked.
 Done
Consequences of the protest campaign
  • "to stop the building of the M11 link road which on completion the link road was designated as the A12 road." Too many mentions of link road to make sense.
 Done This looks like I've taken several sentences, removed some unsourced stuff, and mashed together what was left. I've reduced this down to simply "The M11 link road protest was ultimately unsuccessful in its aim to stop the building of the link road."
  • "increased by 100%" Suggest "doubled" would be better.
 Done
  • The final paragraph has three tags which need resolving.
This whole paragraph needs reworking with some better sources, which I aim to do by close of play today.
 Done I can't find any better sources, so I've removed this information.

Next I will check the references. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • It is nice to see properly formatted refs, with the short form generally linked to a longer form. However, there are several where the linking does not work properly.
  • Ref 20: Boyle 1994
  • Ref 23: Measure 2006
  • Ref 30: BBC News 2007
  • Ref 32: BBC News 1993
  • Ref 36: geffen 2003 - capitalisation?
  • Ref 39: Mckay 1999 - capitalisation?
  • Ref 49: Marshall 2001
  • Ref 52: Shephard, Hayduk and Rofes 2002 - spelling?
  • The second paragraph of Background is unreferenced. Joe Moran "On Roads" (2009) has a suitable ref on p202 if you need one.

The references generally seem to support the facts as presented. There is the issue of the comment on the end of ref 58, which is marked with a "citation needed" tag. I would just remove the comment. I would have preferred the books, in particular, to be in alphabetical order by author, which is how bibliographies normally work, but will not fail the GA if this is not done immediately.

 Done Books should now be in alphabetical order by last name or organisation name.
Broken ref links are evidently slip-ups from when I did the reference conversion. I'll sort those out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mostly missing |ref=harv attributes, plus the typos you spotted. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • The lead seems just a bit short for the length of article. It should introduce the subject, which is does quite well, and summarise the contents, which it does not do quite so well. It could do with a bit more summary of the actual campaign. Another couple of sentences would probably be adequate. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've expanded the lead to include significant bits in the article as it now stands.

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See comments above
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See comments above
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Yes. I have added a comment about the lead. It looks like most of the comments have already been addressed, so well done on that front. I'll check back fairly regularly to see the state of play. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think all the actions are now complete, so have a final check through the article, and if there's anything outstanding on it, let me know and it should hopefully be fixed quickly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the lead slightly for grammar. I agree that all issues have now been addressed. Well done for all the work put in to get the article to its current state, and the speed with which it was accomplished. I am pleased to be able to award it Good Article status. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that was a thorough and comprehensive review from your end, with some close checking on the entire article. A job well done. Thanks also to the other editors who've helped get the article in this state. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M11_link_road_protest/GA1&oldid=1082471957"