Talk:North Circular Road/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 17:44, 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

Just a quick comment - based on the conversation we had the other day, I wonder if it's worth directing Amortias towards the review so he can get a feel for the typical sort of discussions that take place? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no response to the invitation, and it has been archived a few days ago, so I will proceed with the review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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


Query
  • Images are poor quality. There's an old and faded image of Hanger Lane gyratory (can a more up to date and better quality image be found?); an image of traffic lights which was taken at night with time delay creating an attractive image of blurred lights, but one that doesn't help to explain the caption regrading congestion (no cars are visible) nor that the carriageway reduces from multiple to single as the carriageway lines cannot be seen); an image of the back of a speed camera with some distracting road in the foreground (perhaps crop to focus on the sign and the camera?); and two images of abandoned properties, which are squeezing text and spilling over into the following section (suggest removing one - perhaps keep File:Abandoned Houses - geograph.org.uk - 898956.jpg, though either would do. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that I feel we're stuck with having an image of a point in the road reliable sources consider important (eg: Hanger Lane, Bounds Green) but won't ever be nominated as a Featured Picture, or having no image at all with more text. The Google Streetview images of these two areas easily show an abundance of queued cars, which (AFAIK) mirrors a typical travelling experience, but of course they are incompatible with our free licence. I've dug through Commons (creating a separate "North Circular Road" category in the process) and I can't obviously see anything else on Geograph. I feel like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have the properties in the images truly been "abandoned" by their owners as suggested by the captions, or are these the houses that have been purchased by the authorities to be demolished to allow for road widening that has not yet taken place? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look around, it seems they were compulsory purchased. I've changed the caption to "empty" and expanded the background, with an additional source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meets related MoS criteria apart from the image layout in the Environment and safety section, which is minor, and soon resolved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I originally felt the article met MoS criteria, apart from the minor image quibble, but I'd forgotten my earlier niggling doubt about the size of the sub-sections (which I hadn't noted here), and the size of the Cultural references section (which I noted below). MOS:BODY says: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." If the sub-sections are removed, the section can present as a standard length: /Route with three paragraphs. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that is I think the section is too big. I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle - perhaps two sections with two paragraphs each? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fail

General comments[edit]

I've heard this question asked several times before (see Talk:Woolwich Ferry/GA1, for example), and there doesn't seem to be a clear and obvious consensus one way or the other. What I have concluded is that there is a popular demand for "cultural references" sections which can be seen by watching anonymous or unregistered editors adding to them, and if we have to have them, I would rather have a small section that is properly backed up with reliable sources that specifically ties it into the subject. Otherwise (rather cynically) an IP will come along six months later and add it anyway - without any sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that thinking, but as Eric says in the Talk:Woolwich Ferry/GA1, such sections do attract more trivia from inexperienced editors. Articles tend to go through phases, and the earliest is the putting in of almost random information - almost an offering: "here is something I have heard about, will this be helpful?", and this information will be in form of lists, or short sentences. In addition to titbits of information, editors like to add images they have - some articles become very cluttered with images, and this, oddly, only encourages more images, rather than less! This phase can continue for a long time. However, at some point an experienced editor will spend some time on an article shaping it according to the guidelines we have developed over the years. The more an article becomes developed along accepted guidelines, the less it attracts random images and unsourced information or trivia. If you are concerned about an IP editor adding trivia in six months time, then don't tempt them by having a trivia section - incorporate useful information into the body of the article. The IP will see the information, and be satisfied it is there. If there is something else useful they may want to put in, then let us find it now, and do their work for them! SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Eric also concluded "I'm with you, but it'll have to stay I suppose". From my experience, I can't agree that "The more an article becomes developed along accepted guidelines, the less it attracts random images and unsourced information or trivia" Rather I find it's the popularity and visibility that attracts these sorts of edits (eg: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) which is why high-traffic BLPs tend to be semi-protected quite a lot. Interestingly though, this specific incident, there was no "In popular culture" section at all until this edit by Crookesmoor (some time after the GA nomination was requested)- I don't know where you would add the information about Real Life (Real Lies album) in any case, and I'm reluctant to simply revert a good faith edit just because we don't like "in popular culture" sections. Shall we get a third opinion on this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can do if you wish, though so far we haven't discussed the material itself, we've been talking in general terms about trivia or culture sections. I'm not against cultural connections sections - as shown in Covent_Garden#Culture which I took through GA and FA with that section. Nor am I against short sections where appropriate. My query here starts with a question as to the encyclopaedic value of the titbits in relation to the route. Are they encyclopaedic enough to remain in the article, and if so, would it be best to leave them where they are, or incorporate them into the article as per the general guideline on these things? The question is made more pertinent by the size of the section (and perhaps also by its position at the bottom of the article). My feeling is that the information is more trivia than encyclopedic culture, and that such trivia invites more trivia. When we look closely at the information, we have a song which is not about the route described in the article, but merely uses the name of the road to describe living in the Holloway area of London, a life that goes nowhere - is "circular", hence North Circular. The road they reference in the song is the A1 - they mention "suicide bridge" which goes over the A1 near Holloway. The band who sing the song are barely notable. Graham Young, the serial killer, did the bulk of his killings while he lived in Hemel Hempstead, and was caught on the Isle of Sheppey - he only lived on the North Circular for the early part of his life. The Louis MacNeice mention is much more substantial, as he is an important literary figure, the poem is considered an important one, and it does tell us something about the road itself in the 1930s as well as about MacNeice's reflections. I think it should remain in the article. Though where? Which brings us back to our discussion about trivia/culture sections. A section with just the MacNeice mention gives the poem an undue importance in relation to the road, and also encourages the adding of such trivial things as a song title which happens to use the road name, but which in themselves are not encyclopedic. So, the question is - do we go looking for other cultural references to make the section more robust, do we incorporate reference to the poem elsewhere in the article, or do we decide to exclude it because of the difficulty of including it? That essentially is my thinking, and I don't have an answer, but thought we could talk it through between us. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked up on Graham Young in another source and it does say he only lived on the NCR as a youth and no incidents of note occurred there, which is strange why the source I used gave it prominence. I have no strong feelings about the band since as shown by the diffs I didn't add it. That leaves MacNeice, which could be expanded and combined with the other possibilities further below to give us a slightly bigger "Cultural references" section. How does that grab you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The junction list complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists so is acceptable as is, though I would welcome some sourcing for the information contained in there that is not sourced elsewhere in the article. CBRD is acceptable as that website is cited by other reliable sources, perhaps supported by SABRE. This is not a GA issue, so can be ignored. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look (certainly additional context for Brent Cross and Bounds Green would be useful). I have been wary of citing CBRD as Chris Marshall is a personal friend (and hence could be considered a conflict of interest citing it), but the website has been used in several commercially published sources (eg: [6], [7]) and the radio, so I have no reason to believe anything he writes about is factually incorrect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your hesitation, though I have used several sources written by friends. If you were personally involved in CBRD that would be a different matter, but simply knowing the author is not considered a problem. I trust you! ;-) SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead defines the road as a bypass, though it is more generally considered a ring road, and one of the London Ringways. Might it be useful to say something like "The North Circular Road ... is a 25.7-mile-long (41.4 km) bypass and northern ring road of Central London in England"? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting one this. The problem with "ring road" is finding a reliable source that calls it that. Our article on London Ringways is largely unsourced (and we can't rely on the prose) while The London Encyclopedia doesn't use either "by-pass" or "ring road". I'll have a look round. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read of it being considered the middle ring road, as here, and historically as the principal ring road, as here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't argue with that! "Ring-road" it is then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History sections usually come first in articles, but I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways#Structure_of_articles, and the indication there is that route description does come first. I find that odd, as the current route would have been arrived at via history - few routes appear overnight, and even if built in one go would have undergone planning which may have seen various proposed routes. There must be very few projects which recommend placing the History section in the middle of the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I wanted to do here is start off by describing where the road is and mention terms (such as junction names, areas of congestion) the reader will recognise. A search for sources suggests that to the average reader, the North Circular is best known for traffic and accident reports. So I would expect a layman reader to want to find basic geography first, and only the more enthusiastic reader would delve deeper into the history. I'm not particularly averse to what order sections go in, but that's the basic thought process I went through. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a GA issue, just something worth noting. As the most appropriate WikiProject suggests putting the route first, then stick with that. Though it may be worth having a discussion at the project to see how others feel about the section ordering. Sometimes somebody writes a guideline, and then everyone follows it without querying it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a corollary of WP:IAR is that you should always be able to explain the reason for any policy or guideline and why it improves the encyclopedia. Even though the project suggests it, I can think of other reasons that would make sense to non-regulars. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that can go in, but on a similar note, Mark Dixon's first burger van was on the North Circular, and (I didn't know this but I should have!) Keith Moon's first ever gig with The Who on 2 May 1964 was at a pub on the North Circular. [8] (that sounds like a good DYK nomination if this review ends up being listed). Combined with the MacNeice poem, that could give us enough "meat" for the "Cultural references" section. A common problem with these are a lack of sourcing saying where on the North Circular these events occurred, and I suspect the Who's one at least has been lost to the midst of time. Any thoughts on that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the work. This is a useful guide to the road. I think there's room for development of the article, but there's enough here to meet the GA criteria of broad coverage, and the layout meets relevant guidelines. You are a very productive contributor Richie, and an assert to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Circular_Road/GA1&oldid=1077619895"