Talk:A13 road
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
[edit] Article Style
This article is a bit too wordy for me, which is why I've added the {{essay-entry}} template. See A1 and A66 for good examples of how a roads article should be laid out, and not simply a narrative of all its waypoints, which is not useful for an encyclopedia. See wp:mos. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I had a go at rewriting this! Sunil060902 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, aside from a lack of pics and tables, I don't see how my rewrite is radically different from the A66 entry. Sunil060902 13:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've put the tag back on for the time being. There is still too much commentary (although structurally sound), how many set of traffic lights are not relevant and so on. Look at M62 motorway and A500 road as examples of good articles. The level of detail needs to be cut down. We have no history of the road - you seem to be an expert on that route, so we could have a referenced construction time line, discussion of any social or economic impact, environmental considerations, connections with the Olympics all per WP:V. Regan123 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- And again it has been removed when there is ridiculous amounts of detail/opinion/POV: there is a so-called TOTSO (turn-off to stay on), yet TfL have slapped a rather harsh 40 mph (64 km/h) speed limit, There is a lane-drop/gain etc. See the links above for a good article and how to write about a road. Regan123 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also see Kansas Turnpike for a featured article which has a nice concise route description. Regan123 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Define "ridiculous amounts of detail" (which is in itself pure POV?) please. And 40 is not a harsh speed limit for a new grade-separated dual carriageway? Once again I point out I'm trying to get the balance right! Sunil060902 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Harsh is subjective, lane drops are too much detail. Read the linked articles (and A1 road (London), remove the detail. My opinion on an article is one thing, opinion in an article is another... Regan123 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Harsh" is a pure point of view. The only time this would be acceptable would be if you had a reliable source for it; in that case, if it served an encyclopaedic purpose you could say "Xxxxx says the speed limit is harsh". Otherwise, the moment you say something is good/bad/better/worse, it's a value judgement and should (and will) be deleted. Wikipedia only has five absolute rules, but neutrality is one of them. — iridescent 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry broke off this discussion last night to go to bed! Anyway, I can link to at least two threads on SABRE where the general consensus is that the speed limit for the East Ham & Barking bypass should be at least 50, given this was the limit before grade-separation. Would that be acceptable? best, Sunil060902 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, because that's opinion of people not fact. SABRE is a bulletin board, not a factual database. I think 40 is too low, but I know of local residents who think it is too high... Therein lies the problem. I should have time to have a go this weekend. Regan123 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've gone and excised "harsh", whilst pointing out that the previous limit was 50. best, Sunil060902 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, because that's opinion of people not fact. SABRE is a bulletin board, not a factual database. I think 40 is too low, but I know of local residents who think it is too high... Therein lies the problem. I should have time to have a go this weekend. Regan123 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry broke off this discussion last night to go to bed! Anyway, I can link to at least two threads on SABRE where the general consensus is that the speed limit for the East Ham & Barking bypass should be at least 50, given this was the limit before grade-separation. Would that be acceptable? best, Sunil060902 10:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Harsh" is a pure point of view. The only time this would be acceptable would be if you had a reliable source for it; in that case, if it served an encyclopaedic purpose you could say "Xxxxx says the speed limit is harsh". Otherwise, the moment you say something is good/bad/better/worse, it's a value judgement and should (and will) be deleted. Wikipedia only has five absolute rules, but neutrality is one of them. — iridescent 01:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Harsh is subjective, lane drops are too much detail. Read the linked articles (and A1 road (London), remove the detail. My opinion on an article is one thing, opinion in an article is another... Regan123 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Define "ridiculous amounts of detail" (which is in itself pure POV?) please. And 40 is not a harsh speed limit for a new grade-separated dual carriageway? Once again I point out I'm trying to get the balance right! Sunil060902 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've put the tag back on for the time being. There is still too much commentary (although structurally sound), how many set of traffic lights are not relevant and so on. Look at M62 motorway and A500 road as examples of good articles. The level of detail needs to be cut down. We have no history of the road - you seem to be an expert on that route, so we could have a referenced construction time line, discussion of any social or economic impact, environmental considerations, connections with the Olympics all per WP:V. Regan123 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Collaborative project!
Guys, remember this is a collaborative project after all, your input is welcome. I don't own this article after all! Also, suggestions for specific online or print resources would be useful (rather than saying, "this needs more references"). How about using this thread as a kind of "sandbox", and we can come to an agreement as to proceed from there?
Remember, as Michael Winner might say, "Calm down, dear! It's only an Essay!"
best, Sunil060902 10:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sandbox
A13 construction dates: thought to divide into pre-1800 (w/out dates) and post-1800 (referenced dates)
| Post-1800 | ||
| Section | built | reference |
| Commercial Road | 1802 | British History Online - 'Pennyfields' |
| East India Dock Road | 1806-1812 | British History Online - 'East India Dock Road: Introduction' |
| Barking Road | c.1812 | British History Online -'The ancient parish of Barking' |
| New Road (Dagenham to Rainham) | c.1810 | British History Online - 'Dagenham: Introduction and Manors' |
| New Road (Rainham to Wennington) | 1924 | British History Online - 'Wennington' |
| Arterial Road | 1925 | British History Online - 'Parishes: Aveley' |
| East Ham & Barking Bypass | 1928 | Barking & Dagenham Local History: Dagenham Post and Barking Register |
| Stanford-le-Hope bypass (original) | c.1929-mid 1930s | absent from 1929 map, present in map dated to mid. 1930s |
| Dualling of East Ham & Barking Bypass | 1959 | British History Online - 'West Ham: Introduction' |
| Pitsea Bypass (A176 to A130) | c.1975-1978 | SABRE website threads, based on contemporary maps |
| Grays bypass (M25 to A128) | 1982 | The Motorway Archive: Mar Dyke (M25 J30) opened at this time, same, or overlapping contract with A13 |
| A128 to A1014 section (off-line dualling) | 1985 | SABRE website threads, based on contemporary maps |
| A1014 to A176 (new Stanford-le-Hope bypass) | 1993 | SABRE website threads, based on contemporary maps |
| Rainham (Marsh Way) to Wennington (Thames Gateway) | 1997 | Barking & Dagenham Local History |
| Wennington to Mar Dyke (Thames Gateway) | 1998 | Barking & Dagenham Local History |
| Dagenham to Rainham (Marsh Way) (Thames Gateway) | 1999 | Barking & Dagenham Local History |
| Grade-separation of East Ham & Barking By-pass | 2004 (works complete) | TfL website/press releases |
TBC!
Sunil060902 14:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
