Talk:A500 road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

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. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Cheshire Portal This article is supported by the Cheshire WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as low-Priority on the priority scale.

	A500 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.
May 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

.

[edit] Rewrite

I have rewritten the article quite a bit, but I believe I have kept all the information in place. What I have removed (This is debatable as some suggest it was because Plan D was used) as I was born and grew up in the area, but have never heard of this. Does anyone have a reference? Regan123 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status

1. It is well written. In this respect:

Y(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and

Y(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

Y(a) provides references to sources used;

Y(b)cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;^[2][3] and

Y(c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

Y(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

Y(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

Y4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Y5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.^[4]

6.Y Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly.

Reviewer: T_{Talk to me} 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)