Talk:A4232 road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A4232 road article.
Article policies
Good article A4232 road has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Geographical coordinates A4232 road is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Wales may be able to help!

This page needs a lot more work, some of the information is not 100% correct. Seth Whales 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Page now completely updated. Seth Whales 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Junction names

I have not been able to find the official names of the St Fagans Slip Road or the Techniquest Slip Roads, so I have used the "common" names used Seth Whales 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I telephoned Cardiff Council and spoke to a Senior Technician (Transport) who confirmed that the junctions do not have "official" names. Seth Whales 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Way

Southern Way is all A4232, not A4161, as on Google Maps and others. Having travelled along it and took note of the signs. Seth Whales (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs (re GA)

Hi folks. One basic thing that the reviewer is likely to comment on: fill out all the details for the references. Some of them are complete (or reasonably complete), but much of the lats two-thirds need completing. Just a heads up. The JPStalk to me 14:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Next job...more details of references...noted. Thanks, Seth Whales (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Job done (I think??). Seth Whales (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; that'll be one less thing for you to worry about later. I'd consider merging the short Doctor Who and Torchwood paragraphs. The JPStalk to me 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Job done. Seth Whales (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    "which basically involves digging a trench" -- basically is extraneous. Dates could use non-breaking spaces.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I noticed most of the references don't have an author specified. Is this because no specific author can be attributed to every reference? "It has always been intended that the short stretch from the Llanedeyrn Interchange to the Pontprennau Interchange on the A48 (Eastern Avenue) dual carriageway, be used to link the last two link roads of the PDR together." probably needs to be referenced.
  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:
    "It passes a sewerage treatment plant, a scrap metal business and the city's landfill site, which do nothing to impress any visitor to the city." Self-deprecating, possibly, but also NPOV.
  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):
    Lots of high-quality images. Very nice. A map would be tremendously helpful.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

As best as I can tell, this article is close to being a Good Article. —Rob (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review response

Thanks Rob,

Hopefully I have addressed the problems;

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    Removed "basically" and entered non-breaking spaces for dates.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    All the references regarding the South Wales Echo do not have the author specified as they were all supplements in a series called "Cardiff Moving" and so did not list any authors/editors.
    The section "It has always been intended that the short stretch from the Llanedeyrn Interchange to the Pontprennau Interchange on the A48 (Eastern Avenue) dual carriageway, be used to link the last two link roads of the PDR together." I cannot find any reference to it, therefore I have reworded the sentence to "The road between the Llanedeyrn Interchange to the Pontprennau Interchange on the A48 (Eastern Avenue) is also dual carriageway and there are no plans to renumber this section of the A48."...which hopefully is okay without a reference.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    I have removed "which do nothing to impress any visitor to the city."

Please let me know if I have not addressed your points correctly. I have requested a map (above), and I have also looked at other articles for someone who can create one, but Stratosphere is on an "indefinite wikibreak and has no estimated time of return". A map really would be great though. Seth Whales (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be hard without GIS data for England. Which may or may not exist. Looks good now, though. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)