678:
few junctions such as
Henleys, Apex and Staples Corners, but in these instances, I would argue their notability is much more geared towards their regular appearance on travel reports due to congestion, and my sense is their appropriate appearances in the article give the reader the appropriate knowledge. Additionally, there is nothing unusual in some other countries regarding taking an historical track and overlaying a full modern highway with the relevant features in it - that simply does not and would not happen in central London, as even in the 1960s, where schemes such as the Archway and Barnet Bypass improvements were unpopular with residents and drew strong criticism. So I'm afraid you're not really comparing like with like. However, if you can find the relevant junction data to add, and you believe it would improve the article and get it through the FAC process, I think we would very much welcome this input.
470:"junction list" makes no sense (unless you want to list every side road on Aldersgate Street and Upper Street, current and past!) For a FAC quality article, you need to cover the entire history of this route from pre-Roman times to the present where relevant and not leave the reader wanting anything else. I will give you a hand in whatever fact checking and accuracy you require, though my time is limited. I would personally recommend dropping a note on
359:
They condense other details, like access restrictions at specific junctions, specific destinations for each junction, etc, into the table so that the prose route description isn't a tedious and boring wall of words. Otherwise, the prose would end up becoming a bullet point list, even without resorting to bullet points, that rattles off each junction and its appropriate distance point.
695:"The problem here is that junctions in other countries are numbered in terms of mileage, while in this specific case, the A1 / A1(M) does not start numbering until junction 1 with the M25 at South Mimms outside of the Greater London boundary." - Plenty of road systems have very bizarre numbering conventions; New York is
739:
sources from
Hansard dated 1989 and 1994, which might imply the project was finally scrapped by New Labour's "Roads to Prosperity" scheme in 1997 - though I know the Conservative government were cancelling schemes before this. I think for a FAC quality article, we need to get the dates exactly right.
677:
I'm afraid you haven't understood what I meant. The problem here is that junctions in other countries are numbered in terms of mileage, while in this specific case, the A1 / A1(M) does not start numbering until junction 1 with the M25 at South Mimms outside of the
Greater London boundary. There are a
446:
I am not, I hasten to add, advocating including the distance from junction to junction either in prose or in the infobox, if is unencyclopedic and/or unsourced; so I am not suggesting that the distances are by default included either in prose or infobox. I am suggesting that a good article summarizes
158:
I'm considering taking this to
Featured Article status. I think the content, structure and research are OK, so would mainly like attention paid to formatting (particularly of citations) and of prose, as those tend to be the areas that FA reviewers pay most attention. But any general comments are most
438:
I wasn't clear. Sorry. Why would readers wish to know the distance between two junctions? If the distance was in itself important, then a reliable source would contain that information with the reason for it being mentioned, and that should be included in prose in the main body - that is, the reason
299:
I am not opposed to the idea of a such an infobox, as I understand that some people find them useful, it's just that I don't see the connection you do. I understand if you say that you have an idealogical preference for such a box, and would encourage their use, but you are not saying that - you are
281:
It has a Route section which describes the route through London and mentions significant junctions along the way. That appears to me to meet comprehensive. I value your opinion on this as you have taken road articles to FA, but I don't see how not duplicating information in an infobox is failing the
358:
The tables are more than just distilling a description of the route of a road into a tabular format. They provide pertinent data on the locations and details of the individual junctions along a roadway. The distances provide the reader with the ability to gauge how closely spaced the junctions are.
355:, which is an article on a system of roads instead an individual road, all recent highway articles that have been promoted at FAC going back to about 2008 have a junction or exit list table of some sort. Failure to include one would be quite a gap in the coverage of the article in terms of content.
322:
has an example. It would fail the comprehensive criterion since having one of those tables is what is expected of a road article at FA. FA does not have subject-specific criteria; all it says is "comprehensive". But editors in each subject area form a consensus as to what "comprehensive" means. I'm
386:
including it? I have read a lot of sources on the route in London, and I don't think I have come upon that information. If I find it, then it could be included in prose, explaining its significance for the reader in the article, otherwise it appears to be data for its own sake, and rather close to
738:
I've spotted some factual inaccuracies with the proposed M1 Junction 3 - A1 link over
Scratchwood Open Space. The article implied it would connect to Apex Corner, but in fact it was proposed to connect at Stirling Corner, the next roundabout up. I've rejigged this bit of the article and added two
496:
is the modern descendent of Native
Amercian trails that were overlaid with a territorial-era wagon trail used by settlers before Michigan became a state. After that, the road was converted into a state highway, the a US Highway, and then the corridor was repurposed as an Interstate Highway. Maybe
469:
Hi SilkTork ... I'd personally ignore all the above advice, as those who have given it are demonstrating a US-centric bias and don't seem to appreciate that this road in question evolved from a 17th century coaching route, which in turn derives from the Roman network of
British roads, and hence a
412:
The problem is that then the route description basically becomes "Route 2 encounters its first exit, exit 1, at 23.33 km (323.23 mi); that exit provides access to London. Five miles later, exit 2 at 34.4434 km (223.23 mi) leads to Paris" ... which is bad writing and is incredibly tedious. And the
394:
which by consensus we frown upon. I am not opposed to infoboxes, nor to including important information - it's just that this insistence on this particular infobox, and the reasons given so far, don't make sense to me. This is not a planned motorway with planned exits. This is an ancient evolved
385:
Looking at what you are saying, the important data you feel is not contained is data by which a reader can make calculations regarding how far apart certain major junctions are. Is that right? And why would the general reader wish to know that? If it's not in a reliable source, then why am I
501:, which was also a Native American trail converted to a state highway and the US Highway before a section was repurposed as an Interstate Highway just further illustrates that I need to be indoctrinated in this bias again. Both of those roads have FA-quality articles, with junction lists.
708:"However, if you can find the relevant junction data to add, and you believe it would improve the article and get it through the FAC process, I think we would very much welcome this input." - there you go again with the "You MUST work on our articles to gain any right to have any input!"
754:
Thanks for that. I think the weakest part of the article is the section of the route going through Barnet. This is the modern section (1930s onward), and there is less available information on it, added to which there is little to say about that part of the route, other than it exists.
184:
would be a better venue to prepare for FAC... out at the roads projects we have 55 FAs (in the US and Canada), so there's an experienced pool of reviewers. That being said, this article has no junction list, which just about every road FA has, and that's a serious problem.
255:
It would fall under "comprehensive", as by precedent
Knowledge through the FAC process has set the comprehensive standard for road articles as having a junction list - since over 50 road article FAs have them, it would reasonably be expected that this one would as well.
317:
It's more than a duplication of the route description - it provides mileages and locations of exits as well as exit numbers that may not be specified in the route description (and quite frankly should not be, since that would make the route description boring).
705:"Additionally, there is nothing unusual in some other countries regarding taking an historical track and overlaying a full modern highway with the relevant features in it" - so what? I don't see how that excuses this article from having a junction list.
395:
route which crosses over other routes, both modern and ancient. What significance or importance are you suggesting can be derived from junction distances, that can't be explained better in prose in the main body of the article?
202:
Thanks for the advice. How does the junction list you mention fit into the FA criteria? If I recall there was some kind of list of junctions on the article, but that was removed either before or during the GA review.
264:, but informally the standard is "would this have a decent chance of passing at FA?" It's really a chance to have people pick the article apart in a more friendly environment so that it doesn't happen at FAC. --
474:, as what he doesn't know about getting an article through FAC isn't worth knowing about, and he's been very helpful with me and others in getting articles up to GA / FA standard. Best of luck, in any case.
442:
I am unclear on why information for which there is no reliable source, and which is so trivial that including it in the main body would be considered bad writing, is considered so vital when presented in an
237:
I think it would be worthwhile going through the A listing review process. Though I don't think it would be appropriate to go though that at the same time as a Peer Review, so I'll wait until this closes.
413:
information is readily available - in the US we use government documents or GIS information, and if it is not available, then Google Maps can be used (though adjustments to precision need to be made). --
573:
I don't think that's a very good analogy. I'm afraid - you're comparing a road in the middle of nowhere to a major coaching route in a large city. I think we need some other points of view.
702:"and my sense is their appropriate appearances in the article give the reader the appropriate knowledge" - no, there's still missing information, and the visual format is quite helpful.
599:
590:
Interstate 96 connects the largest and second-largest cities in the state with its capital. If you want something that's a major road within one urban area, you have
260:
is the relevant page, but notably there has been some disagreement on how that is to be implemented in the UK. HWY has no "defined" A-Class standard as we use
220:
And where is the A List criteria? I just looked, and couldn't find it. I'd like to be able to check that the article meets the criteria before nominating it.
603:
76:
547:
both FAs with such lists. There's no accusations of original research on the part of the
Croatians, Aussies or Canadians to compile them for our readers.
352:
126:
773:
Thanks to everyone who made a comment. I'll close this now, and discuss with
Ritchie333 at what needs to be done before nominating for FA.
122:
749:
720:
688:
668:
646:
583:
484:
421:
331:
272:
193:
107:
799:
69:
99:
62:
319:
50:
498:
471:
657:
in March 2010, I found junction lists all over the place, so this "American" bias is demonstrably false:
44:
17:
785:
767:
724:
690:
672:
648:
623:
585:
564:
518:
486:
459:
425:
407:
376:
335:
312:
300:
saying this article would actually fail FA because it doesn't have such a boxed list. That baffles me.
294:
276:
250:
232:
215:
197:
174:
747:
717:
686:
665:
644:
614:
581:
555:
509:
482:
418:
367:
328:
269:
190:
540:
782:
764:
544:
524:
456:
404:
387:
309:
291:
247:
229:
212:
171:
181:
115:
532:
447:
reliable sources, and does not add unnecessary additional detail, especially if unsourced.
740:
714:
679:
662:
637:
609:
574:
550:
536:
504:
475:
415:
362:
325:
266:
261:
187:
595:
531:
was brought to FAC with such a list as well. The Aussies use them, based on a look at
793:
775:
757:
709:
654:
493:
449:
397:
302:
284:
240:
222:
205:
164:
591:
528:
391:
92:
598:
within Detroit's suburbs, and a pair of business loops in the Upper Peninsula:
523:
And lest this "junction list = US bias" meme take hold, I should note that
257:
632:
article, please could you design an appropriate junction list for
282:
FA criteria for comprehensive. What am I misunderstanding?
439:
for mentioning the distance, not just the distance itself.
539:(currently at ACR). The Canadians use them as well, with
699:
numbered in terms of mileage, for example. Red herring.
658:
141:
134:
103:
653:
For the record, when I first surveyed the entirety of
606:. All are FAs, and all have junction or exit lists.
323:
asking one of my colleagues to explain it better. --
155:I've listed this article for peer review because…
492:Then my "US-centric bias" must be warped because
628:Your opinion has been noted. Now, to help us on
70:
8:
604:U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan)
600:M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)
150:This peer review discussion has been closed.
77:
63:
32:
353:Michigan State Trunkline Highway System
159:welcome in how to improve the article.
35:
7:
24:
1:
351:With the recent exception of
527:is at ACR with just a list.
816:
786:16:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
768:07:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
725:20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
691:20:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
673:19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
649:14:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
624:14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
586:14:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
565:14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
519:14:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
487:13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
460:13:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
426:09:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
408:09:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
377:20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
336:20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
320:California State Route 52
313:12:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
295:12:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
277:22:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
251:18:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
233:13:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
216:13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
198:21:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
175:20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
499:U.S. Route 2 in Michigan
472:Eric Corbett's talk page
800:June 2013 peer reviews
535:(recently at ACR) and
18:Knowledge:Peer review
180:Personally, I think
541:Ontario Highway 401
545:Don Valley Parkway
525:D21 road (Croatia)
392:original research
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
807:
778:
760:
745:
712:and all that. --
684:
642:
622:
619:
612:
579:
563:
560:
553:
533:Mitchell Freeway
517:
514:
507:
480:
452:
400:
375:
372:
365:
305:
287:
243:
225:
208:
167:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
815:
814:
810:
809:
808:
806:
805:
804:
790:
789:
776:
758:
741:
680:
638:
618:
615:
610:
607:
575:
559:
556:
551:
548:
537:Kwinana Freeway
513:
510:
505:
502:
476:
450:
398:
371:
368:
363:
360:
303:
285:
241:
223:
206:
165:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
813:
811:
803:
802:
792:
791:
771:
770:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
706:
703:
700:
651:
616:
596:Interstate 696
588:
568:
567:
557:
521:
511:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
444:
440:
431:
430:
429:
428:
381:
369:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
235:
218:
152:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
812:
801:
798:
797:
795:
788:
787:
784:
783:
780:
779:
769:
766:
765:
762:
761:
753:
752:
751:
750:
748:
746:
744:
726:
723:
722:
719:
716:
711:
707:
704:
701:
698:
694:
693:
692:
689:
687:
685:
683:
676:
675:
674:
671:
670:
667:
664:
659:
656:
652:
650:
647:
645:
643:
641:
635:
631:
627:
626:
625:
621:
620:
613:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
587:
584:
582:
580:
578:
572:
571:
570:
569:
566:
562:
561:
554:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
520:
516:
515:
508:
500:
495:
494:Interstate 96
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
483:
481:
479:
473:
461:
458:
457:
454:
453:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
427:
424:
423:
420:
417:
411:
410:
409:
406:
405:
402:
401:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
379:
378:
374:
373:
366:
356:
354:
337:
334:
333:
330:
327:
321:
316:
315:
314:
311:
310:
307:
306:
298:
297:
296:
293:
292:
289:
288:
280:
279:
278:
275:
274:
271:
268:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
249:
248:
245:
244:
236:
234:
231:
230:
227:
226:
219:
217:
214:
213:
210:
209:
201:
200:
199:
196:
195:
192:
189:
183:
179:
178:
177:
176:
173:
172:
169:
168:
160:
156:
153:
151:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
781:
774:
772:
763:
756:
742:
737:
713:
696:
681:
661:
639:
633:
629:
608:
594:in Lansing,
592:Capitol Loop
576:
549:
529:A1 (Croatia)
503:
477:
468:
455:
448:
414:
403:
396:
388:simple stats
380:
361:
357:
350:
324:
308:
301:
290:
283:
265:
246:
239:
228:
221:
211:
204:
186:
170:
163:
161:
157:
154:
149:
148:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
28:A1 in London
27:
611:Imzadi 1979
552:Imzadi 1979
506:Imzadi 1979
364:Imzadi 1979
104:visual edit
743:Ritchie333
682:Ritchie333
640:Ritchie333
577:Ritchie333
478:Ritchie333
182:WP:HWY/ACR
390:and even
794:Category
777:SilkTork
759:SilkTork
451:SilkTork
443:infobox.
399:SilkTork
304:SilkTork
286:SilkTork
262:WP:1.0/A
242:SilkTork
224:SilkTork
207:SilkTork
166:SilkTork
162:Thanks,
258:MOS:RJL
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
710:WP:OWN
655:WP:HWY
636:road?
136:Watch
16:<
721:7754
718:chen
669:7754
666:chen
634:this
630:this
602:and
543:and
422:7754
419:chen
332:7754
329:chen
273:7754
270:chen
194:7754
191:chen
123:edit
100:edit
697:not
796::
715:Rs
663:Rs
660:--
416:Rs
326:Rs
267:Rs
188:Rs
185:--
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
617:→
558:→
512:→
370:→
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.