MyWiki:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Dartford Crossing

Dartford Crossing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Dartford Crossing}} Dartford Crossing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: I improved this article to good article status about two years ago. We knew at the time that the automatic charging scheme was going to mean changes, and these were covered, but as the crossing appears in the news pretty much all the time, a moving target is hard to hit. I'd like some ideas of what information is missing in the article, and what we can do to beef it up a bit. Also paging Dr. Blofeld who had a hand in getting it to GA in the first place, and nags me every now and again to give FAC another go. ;-)

Nominated by: Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 02:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Review by Fredddie

I'll look it over. Typically, I go through each section and point out things or ask questions. Bridges are not my strong suit, so there might be more questions than if it were just a road. –Fredddie™ 02:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Infobox and lead I think the infobox is missing some information (though I could be swayed on the last two) That it crosses the River Thames Bridge span and tunnel lengths Something I've seen on American bridge and tunnel articles is something like "Carries: 8 lanes of A282" (see Rock Island Centennial Bridge for an example, nevermind the MOS:ICON vio) Daily traffic I wouldn't mention A282 (though that is the official classification, sources consider it de facto part of the M25 and is mentioned as such on BBC traffic and news sources (random example), but the other information is okay. The problem at the moment is the article is uses {{Infobox building}} as there's no suitable infobox that caters for a crossing that is both a tunnel and a bridge, so I shoehorned that in as a compromise. Under normal circumstances, I'd throw the infobox out per WP:DIB, but there is a major benefit here in that the picture and the map give the reader an instant indication of what and where the crossing is, far better than text. How can we get out of this logjam? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Aha. I meant to check which infobox is there, but I never did. I think we could use {{Infobox}} as a one-off. I'll try something out in a sandbox and ask what you think. –Fredddie™ 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC) The website redirects to another page about Dart Charge. Do you think that's still appropriate to be the "official website"? Highways England changed the website sometime in 2015 (certainly some time after the GA passed), a quick search reveals pretty much the only obvious page on a search is one advising of the charge. I've taken it out for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC) OK. –Fredddie™ 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC) In the lead, it should mention that one direction uses the tunnels and the other uses the bridge. If this wasn't a 2-year-old GA, I'd suggest that as a DYK hook. I can accommodate that, though in the event we went for traffic figure related hooks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Location What is the clearance beneath the bridge? The only reason I ask is because I could see someone mistaking 137m as the clearance and not the tower height. I've dropped that in as a footnote, sourced to the Port of London Authority. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Do any of the alternative route proposals talk about the future of Dartford Crossing? I mean, would the tunnels close for rehabilitation? If there has been no discussion so far, that's fine. There's been no mention and I can't believe that would ever happen, even with the Lower Thames Crossing in place. In 2014, the crossing was closed when I was trying to get from Kent to Suffolk and the gridlock around Dartford and up to the Blackwall Tunnel was unbelievable; I think the delay was about 4-5 hours. A journey from anywhere from East Anglia to Brighton, for instance, would not use the LTC. I saw a report in the paper today that one of the tunnels is being closed between midnight and 5am some time next week, so it'll probably be done piecemeal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Charges Could you explain better how someone pays for the charge without a prepaid account? Paying by text message is somewhat of a novelty here in the US (the Red Cross is the one organization I can think of that accepts payments/donations via text frequently) so I'm left wondering how you do it? Do you just send a message to the number with your number plate? Is there any confirmation after crossing that the transaction was successful? I don't think text message is supported anymore, but as far as I know they replied with an automated message and you gave them a card number, expiry date and security code, and the payment was processed. As I expected / feared, the sources for the old DART-Tag scheme are dead, so I've moved that into the "History" section. Online payment is being strongly promoted by signs everywhere saying "find us online", so I've dropped that in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC) If I lived nearby, the £20 unlimited crossings option sounds like a bargain. Are there any data that show how many locals use the annual fee options? No worries if there are not. Indeed there is, so I've put it in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Do you think the Charging scheme subsection would fit better in the Charges section instead of the History? As I've reorganised things a bit per the above comments, this might be a bit moot now. The basic idea of the layout (and I think this came up in the GA review), is that the article body starts off with the things readers are most likely to want to know; where is it, how much does it cost, how do you pay, then goes into historical detail afterwards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC) History On a longer section like this, I like to see a two or three sentences summarizing the section to come before the first subheader. There is no policy or guideline behind requiring a section lead; I just think it's a good practice. Can you give me some examples. As far as I can see, Blackwall Tunnel, Vauxhall Bridge and Woolwich Ferry (all GA or FA Thames crossing articles) don't do this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC) I was going to suggest looking at other articles on the ACR page, but seeing as they're inconsistent, I've stricken this one. –Fredddie™ 17:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Should we inflate all the costs to current figures? I think you'd have to use UKNGDPPC, but that hasn't been updated in five years. I've dropped in conversions using {{inflation}} where I think it's appropriate, which hopefully covers it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC) "..., costing £13M." needs a better home. It doesn't flow with the rest of the sentence. I've restructured the sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC) "The towers are about 61 metres (200 ft) high, ..." contradicts the claim that the bridge is 137 metres high in the infobox and the Location section. Unless the 61m height is measured from the deck of the bridge. Either way, that should be clarified. The article was wrong; the height of the bridge deck is 61m which correlates with the maximum clearance at mean spring water tide being slightly below this. The tower height is 137m. I have corrected the text. I think this issue has been excacerbated by sloppy journalism like "Essex Police said the man’s car pulled up on the bridge, which is 137m (450ft) up at its highest point, before he climbed the safety barriers and threatened to jump" which is misleading. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC) So a charge is a clever accounting trick that is definitely not a toll? Charges are not subject to VAT? Pretty much; you don't actually pay a "toll" when using the crossing; it is a congestion charge and uses the same symbol as the London congestion charge. Actually, that fact should probably go in the article somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Traffic In the first paragraph, do you think the exact totals are necessary? Could we reword it to say "Over 1.4 billion vehicles..." and "over 49 million vehicles..." without changing the meaning? I'm OK with the daily figures. Same thing with the financials, could they be rounded to even millions? I think this is a good argument to be made for the lead, certainly, but in the body of the article, if we have precise figures, I think it would be good to mention them. I can easily see a counter-argument the other way, saying "The article says over 1.4 billion figures ... haven't we got the exact figure in a source"? @Dr. Blofeld:, what do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Why do some mph figures use {{Convert}} inline, while some use a footnote? There was an edit war over this a while back, where an argument was made that a 50mph limit is not exactly 80mph and hence misleading (it is illegal to drive at 70.00001mph on a motorway as brilliantly satirised here). However, the more recent improvements have used {{convert}} without any problems, so I am going to assume there's an implicit consensus for that and they're all using the template now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) How many times has the bridge closed due to weather? Lots ;-) While that news search has several duplicate items, I can see at least five closures going back less than a year on the first page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) That should do it. Overall this article is very informative without boring the reader, which is no easy task. Nice work. –Fredddie™ 21:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the review. The only seriously outstanding issue at the moment is the infobox. Did you get a mockup completed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I am satisfied with the replies to my questions and changes to the article. –Fredddie™ 03:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

• File:Dartford Crossing - geograph.org.uk - 1194694.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
• File:Greater London UK location map 2.svg - CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported, map sources identified
• File:Dartford Crossing Tolls - geograph.org.uk - 169071.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
• File:Dartford crossing approach.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
• File:Dartford Tunnel Ventilation Shaft - geograph.org.uk - 4416.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
• File:Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, Dartford, England - Feb 2009.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported / GFDL 1.2
• File:Queen Elizabeth II Bridge - geograph.org.uk - 122668.jpg - CC-BY-SA 2.0
• File:Dartford Tunnel bus.jpg - PD-UKGov

 Done --Rschen7754 16:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by Kevon kevono

Just an FYI, I'll review this article and comment in American English and will do that very soon. Kevon kevono (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 20:19 (PDT)

Intro and Infobox

1. "It opened in stages: the west tunnel in 1963, the east tunnel in 1980 and the bridge in 1991." This sentence sounds a bit strange. How about: "The Dartford Crossing opened in stages, with the west tunnel of opening in 1963, the east tunnel in 1980, and the bridge in 1991." Also, limit of the pronoun "it"; this overuse "it" is unprofessional and makes the article duller.

   "The west tunnel of opening" sounds gramatically incorrect. @Sagaciousphil: - you're good at fixing my mistakes, what do you think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

   No, "of opening" isn't correct, perhaps just a typo? I've tried giving that paragraph a couple of tweaks - see what you think? But please remember I'm a dopey female who may be getting all this roads stuff wrong! ;-) SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

2. "It has been described as one of the most important road crossings in Britain and suffers from heavy traffic and congestion." This needs evidence. Described by what?

   See quotations in the body (second paragraph of "Location") Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

3. "The crossing had always been tolled..." I'd say "a toll road" instead of "tolled"?

   Technically, the road isn't tolled, also I think the current prose came out of a bit of a recent mild content dispute further down the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

4. "A residents' scheme is available, offering further discounts for people living near the crossing." Does it have a name?

   Just the "Dart Charge local resident discount" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll look the rest later.Kevon kevono (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 14:44 (PDT)

Also, re World War II vs Second World War, this came up at a GA review recently (Talk:Bow Street/GA1) and my feeling is that "World War x" is more consistently used and understood; and is the WP:COMMONNAME for the articles in question. However, I'm not too bothered about which to choose if people feeling strongly one way or another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Why are the dates listed DDMMYY? Should they be MMDDYY? Kevon kevono (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 15:34 (PDT)

   @Kevon kevono: I'd like to offer a piece of advice about reviewing an article written on a British subject in British English. Some words may be used a little differently, but they'll be more correct in this instance because of the variation between American and British English. Spellings will vary a bit as well, and as you indirectly note above, dates are formatted differently between the two countries. The US is somewhat unique in using Month DD, YYYY, format dates, while the UK and much of the rest of the world uses DD Month YYYY. You'll need to respect those variations and not insist on conforming formatting and phrasing to American tastes because this is a British subject. Imzadi 1979 → 22:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

   (ec) Nope, British dates are Day-Month-Year, US dates are Month-Day-Year. It's why computerised dates tend to be YYYYMMDD - as nobody normally puts them that way round, nobody gets confused. Put UK English and US English on a PC and swap between them. (or what Imzadi said) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

   Ok, thanks. Kevon kevono (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC) 15:45 (PDT)

   Also, my other half (the lovely Rhonda) is from the US (even got a reliable source saying it [1]) so I am pretty familiar with the UK / US cultural differences by now, as a jovially hinted above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, the lack of ambiguity is a side benefit of YYYYMMDD. The more fundamental reason is that you can ask which of two dates (so formatted) is the earlier one just by comparing them as integers. EEng 23:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Kevon kevono: Did you have any other comments? --Rschen7754 02:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If you do not, I suggest closing your comments and letting someone with more experience (in copyediting and with the Manual of Style) review this article. Nobody watching this page will consider you or this review a failure. If you're willing to use this as a learning experience, I can point you in the direction of some tutorials that will help with your writing. In turn, you'll become a better reviewer. –Fredddie™ 04:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• As Kevon kevono is inactive and unable to support or oppose, I have collapsed the comments. --Rschen7754 07:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Clarion Collar: Can you please discuss your changes as part of this review? I picked through your changes and the one good one was that the speed limit was mentioned twice, which I've trimmed; everything else mixed up information so the casual reader would have to wade through the entire article to find information most useful, as opposed to just the beginning; this came up in this review and the previous GA review two years ago. Also, do not remove reliably sourced information without consensus, it can be seen as disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Clarion Collar

Collapsing comments from confirmed sockpuppet The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Despite having covered a lot of this at the talk page already, now I know this page exists, I shall record my complaints here for posterity, as it seems that Ritchie333 is fond of referring back to these reviews to justify his belief his efforts are good, or "Good" to use the official Wikipedia classification. I beg to disagree, and hope people will respond to these extremely specific and well thought out comments in an appropriate manner. Others have been less than diligent in that regard so far, and Ritchie himself, despite trying to convey an attitude of being willing to work with feedback to reach a consensus, has already dismissed half of these complaints as "TL;DR", and has given pretty unbelievable or entirely dismissive answers to the others. Despite his claims, I didn't stumble blindly onto his article and start hacking away at it thoughtlessly. I put lots of thought into it, it's just that he disagrees with the conclusions, and seems to genuinely think others would too, but apparently not enough to explain how or why beyond simply stating that these things were not spotted by anyone before, so they must not be issues at all. This is in stark contrast to the fact the GA reviewer, Crisco, already raised one (History placement), and one of the others (A282 mention in intro) is currently being fought over between Ritchie and others as late as yesterday. So it's quite possible other issues have been seen before as well, just not properly resolved, due to Ritchie's apparent belief he somehow has a veto as the main author. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

1. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article has "an appropriate series of headings to break up the content". The headings in this article, as well as their ordering, are entirely inappropriate:

1.1. Ritchie has admitted that the only reason "Charging" comes before "History" is because he believes this is the most important part for the article for readers, and they should be able to find it without reading all the other stuff. He seems to have absolutely no appreciation at all that this is not how most Wikipedia articles order their sections, with History coming first, (and I have given examples over there of similar articles which have History first), or of having a narrative ordering of history related sections, if they are spread over multiple sections. This article does neither. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you think this article has to follow exactly the ordering of "all Wikipedia articles" or even "all similar Wikipedia articles"? I'd agree that "Charging" is quite an important topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been given no reason why this article should not be consistent. If this article is allowed to be a special flower for unstated (or unremarkable) reasons, then won't that inevitably spell ruin for the Garden of Standardisation? Or is the plan that all articles on Crossings and Bridges will eventually be treated this way? I suspect not. And the placement of the section here is not because it is "quite important", it is because it is the (second) most important, apparently. Or the second most requested. Or something like that, it's hard to follow the logic, because it's not really logic at all, it's blind supposition or the dubious outcome of what is claimed to be some kind of user case testing by Ritchie and his wife. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why assume he has a wife? Any editor is able to suggest improvements, just like you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, I have to remind you that it will be a waste of both our time if you're going to keep asking me questions without apparently having read everything he has said to me. He has specifically referred to what he and his partner have found during research as thy go about rewriting God knows how many other articles here, using this research to support his bizarre claim that Wikipedia articles should be structured the way he wants, as opposed the the way that appears to widespread and standard. Perhaps I am wrong to assume they are married, but that hardly seems to be the most pertinent issue at hand. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

1.2. Despite virtually all of the other sections besides History (both before and after) being about operational aspects (traffic, safety, charges, diversions, etc), there is no over-arching "Operations" heading to bring these all together for the reader. Again, I feel this has only come about because of Ritchie's poor understanding of what an encyclopedia is for - I suspect he sees this article as some kind of motorist FAQ or highways management course material, and the presence of information like History is merely an inconvenience. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what your personal guess of Ritchie's unstated motives has to do with the way this article is structured. These seems just like another sly dig at someone you don't agree with. Having a section called "Operation" sounds quite dull. In fact it sounds like something you might see on a highways management course? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with what he has already said. These are not my guesses, he's been open about the reasons why he structured the article this way - namely that the most important information goes at the top, to best serve casual readers, who shouldn't be inconvenienced by having to read further down than necessary. He is of the view that it is Wikipedia's role to serve at the upper end what he believes is the most common reason for readers coming to this article, namely those looking to find out how much the charge is. I don't know how I can make that sound as anything other than a dig - it's his view, and it's clearly based on nothing but his personal view, it's certainly not based on anything I have seen in any Wikipedia documentation (which explicitly says this is not what Wikipedia is for), or indeed how other articles are laid out. It's his personal, view, and he's evidently been insistent about it, because Crisco pointed it out as odd, and that is where he gave that explanation as he defended it. As for dull, I was unaware of the requirement for headings to be exciting. I await your suggestion for alternate names for all the other boring names used in it currently. Boring is good. Boring gives the reader some idea that they are reading an encyclopedia article about a road crossing, which, with the best will in the world, is not going to be the most thrilling thing they will read in their lifetime. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what to do. I don't think "boring is good", but quite happy for sections headings to be factually accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. So can we have an opinion on how factually accurate you think the current ones are, based on what is actually in them? Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

1.3. Traffic congestion is one of the main reasons this crossing gets written about, and yet the section which deals with it is placed right at the bottom. How this fits with Ritchie's model of serving readers with the information they presumably want first, is lost on me. Not that everything related to congestion is even in there - for some inexplicable reason, information about diversionary routes, and even proposals for alternate crossings, is actually presented at the top, although it is placed quite misleadingly in a section called "Location". Other information that is related to the congestion issue, such as the design capacity, is also confusingly placed in "Location", which is not where anyone interested in it would be looking. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's just putting you own opinion on things. There's going to be a general expected structure and order for articles about river crossings, that a reader might expect to see? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If that last line was meant as a question, the obvious answer is yes. And no, that's not just my opinion, if you care to look, you will find lots of evidence out there that the phrase Dartford Crossing and congestion go hand in hand, both in everyday media and government/industry publications. The tariff table? Not so much. This is the difference between objective proof, and simple personal opinion. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have to follow "everyday media" in an encyclopedia article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly what I said, I used everyday media as one end of the spectrum we should consult when making decisions on the relative importance of different sections, but I would hardly disagree with the premise of your reformulation. If your intent however was to suggest that while everyday media might focus on an issue like Congestion as a defining aspect of the crossing, other publications might not, that seems false to me. To prove it, we need only check the very first internet accessible reference used in the article that's not everyday media: [2] (ref. 2). There's a pretty big focus on congestion there. And History. And Construction. And "Operations"!. What's also noteworthy is that very little attention is paid to Charging systems, even though the over-arching theme is technology. It's relegated right to the bottom. As if the author believes it is of least importance. And note too, it doesn't contain information on pricing. As if the author believes there is a more appropriate place people should be going, if that is the sort of information they seek. This is yet more proof that there is a clear difference between how this article has been laid out, and how other people do it. I can't vouch for the reputation of a site like http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/, but its About section seems to indicate its primary purpose is public education. It's an encyclopedia of Dartford, basically. If this article wants to be rated "A-class", it might be worthwhile if people started to examine how that page has been laid out - taking note that the whole website appears to be the product of professional people, historians and the like, producing material that has then been put through an editorial process to produce a consistent offering to the public. Until I got involved in this mess, that is what I assumed Wikipedia was trying to emulate, albeit on a volunteer basis. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Good luck over at the darts, Demolition Man. I'm sure you'll get it up to WP:GA status in no time. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

1.4. The information about proposals for alternate crossings is placed inside the section for Alternate routes, under the paragraph dealing with current diversionary routes. Again, this shows a clear lack of clarity about where to put what information - there should obviously be a dedicated sub-section for proposed relief crossings. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is that obvious? It's just a different way of structuring things. I'm not sure that either is necessarily better. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly better. At the very least, it would clear up confusion about what Alternate Routes even means in the context of a heading in this article - Ritchie obviously wants it to refer to both diversionary routes in place right now that are used in times of closure or congestion, as well as what various options have been considered, but not yet built, as far as relief routes goes. Two sections, with clear headings, would give readers clarity and choice about what they read, something Ritchie seems keen to have - why should someone only looking for info on relief crossing have to wade through a paragraph on current diversions? Give them that choice. Have the two sections together in their own over-arching section if it is deemed their relation warrants it, but I suspect it makes more sense to have Diversions in Operations, and leave Relief Proposals to somewhere outside it. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No strong view. I see arguments for both approaches. But why not just present your arguments without using "the R word" all the time. It might help you case? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have explained already, given it is obvious that the layout and content of this article has been strongly influenced by the personal preferences of Ritchie, it's unavoidable. His thoughts and motives for doing the things he does have to be addressed here, otherwise people may be misled into thinking his positions have more support than they do, based on his vague claims that other reviewers have said nothing, so therefore these must be not be serious issues. You don't have a strong view, but he certainly does - my attempted separation of this information in the manner I outlined above, for the reasons I gave, is one of the many changes he summarily reversed, claiming it went against the views of himself and reviewers. And without any specific comment from him on each change, the only thing we have to go on is his generic explanation - that it "mixed up information so the casual reader would have to wade through the entire article to find information most useful". So there you have it, in his view, creating clarity in this specific instance, creating sections where it is immediately obvious what is in them, which is obviously exactly how you help casual readers pick and choose which sections they want, in his view actually mixed up information for casual readers not looking to read the whole thing. It makes no sense whatsoever, and I'm convinced that as soon as other people pluck up the courage to critically examine what he has done at this level of detail, they will see the benefit of my changes, or at the very least be able to come up with a coherent reason why they're not OK, which I would be totally OK with. If they don't, if they stay silent and just allow him a veto over this page for no other reason than he wrote most of it and they want a quiet life or have better things to do with their time than getting into it with him, well, as I've said, that has consequences too. It may bring you and he an element of short term peace by persuading people like me to just go away, but be in no doubt, just because I go away, doesn't mean I lose my voice or power to influence the reputation or standing of Wikipedia as a supposed encyclopedia. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

1.5. There is information about the crossing's strategic importance, and financial information, in the article, but these are bizarrely tucked away under section headings that have nothing to do with the information. People looking for information like this, which is eminently encyclopedic, have no choice but to read the entire thing, yet Ritchie seems to think people looking for the price table should not be similarly inconvenienced. Again, this is clear evidence that no real thought has gone into what should go where or why. It is frankly amazing that Ritchie is fine with most readers not getting to the end of the article, where they will find extremely important information, such as "The crossing is the busiest in the United Kingdom". It beggars belief that anyone could think this was an appropriate way to break up this content. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see "The crossing is the busiest in the United Kingdom" in the lead. But you don't specifically say what the other problems are that "beggar belief". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised it isn't there already, in a "Good Article". I thought it was very clear. It beggars belief that someone thinks putting financial information and a description of strategic importance in the sections they are in currently, given the headings give no indication that's where you would find it (Location and Traffic). It beggars belief there is even a section on "Traffic" when somehow it doesn't contain the sections on Congestion (a traffic problem) or Diversionary routes (traffic management), while actually containing stuff like the total income of the crossing (something readers might expect to find in either one of the sections named Charging, given the current article has no heading at all for Finances or suchlike). It's a convoluted and ill-thought out mess, that seems to all stem from the initial problem of not properly grouping information according to subject and position in the overall layout. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead says "it is the busiest estuarial crossing in the United Kingdom"? Ah, more beggars, I see. Perhaps they could help the vagrants? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What's your point? If the introduction says it's the busiest esturial crossing, and at the bottom it merely says busiest crossing, then clearly someone has screwed up, and either the use of the word esturial there is supposed to be significant (and I can't check, as the esturial version is cited to book), or this is simply a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing (assuming the sentences come from different people), or worse. Whichever possibility is the truth, for such an important and defining claim, this should be a real warning sign to anyone considering raising this article's rating from "Good" to "A-class". The latter rather implies something close to perfection, no? It's arguable this sort of thing means it is not even "Good", but I don't yet have enough experience with this place to know how bad a "Good" article is likely to be, on average. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

2. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article should be "well-written, reasonably clear". There are numerous examples that this is not the case here. The text is repetitive, but also disjointed. Information like its geographic positioning is spread across multiple sections (only one east of Greater London, and easternmost road crossing of the Thames). Similarly with information about design capacity - two sentences on this are placed miles away from each other, despite essentially conveying the same info (that it has been exceeded, resulting in congestion). Diversions and closures due to high winds is mentioned in multiple places all over the article (presumably because there is no Operations section where stuff like this would be logically grouped). There are numerous examples of pointless redundancy, which seem to only exist because of Ritchie's confused view of how the article should be laid out. The only reason the Charges section explains that the ANPR system was introduced in April 2016, is because he is assuming most readers won't then get beyond that, to the History section. Which of course has to repeat that fact, because that is precisely what History sections are for. He's not even been consistent with his own logic though - it's clarified in the very first section that the road is not under motorway restrictions, so why is the very last section, congestion, mentioning it in a way that seems like it's meant to be the first time the reader learns of it? If including the introduction, this will be the third time it has been mentioned, which is a complete waste of words. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You think "Diversions and closures due to high winds is mentioned in multiple places all over the article?" I see it mention in just three places, all perfectly well justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Three places is not multiple now? I see no justification for it. The way this information is scattered around all over the place, it's almost like someone is trying to make some point, and indeed in one instance the point being made is rather clear - the bridge was designed to be wind resilient, and yet it is not, therefore diversions due to wind is a feature of the operation of the crossing, which of course contributes to the congestion issue, and has a particular impact on high sided vehicles due to the lack of diversionary routes inside London. As fundamental as conveying that info is to helping a reader learn about the crossing, it's is not information that would end up scattered around in bits and pieces around the article, if the task performed by the writer was grouping related information together so readers are not needlessly confused by their poor writing and muddled sense of organisation. Like an A-class article is supposed to do. I would even say it deserves it's own sub-section, under Operation, but that would obviously be a problem for someone who thinks the lack of pizazz in that name means there cannot be one. Under the current model, Ritchie's and his wife's personal preference, of serving casual readers with their desired info near the top, and leaving the geeky stuff to the bottom, rather than coming across as a fundamental issue, this wind related feature/flaw is relegated to the status of stuff only ubergeeks need to know (ubergeeks supposedly being the only people who take the time to read the whole article, then reconstructing the disparate bits of info about stuff like this inside their short term memory, to produce a coherent whole). Which is ridiculous. And again, I'm not putting words in Ritchie's mouth here, he's talked in these terms to justify the layout ("technical mumbo jumbo" and "we put information that is useful for casual readers first, then put the in-depth stuff at the bottom.". Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem. But your point seems to be "group all information about diversions and closures due to high winds" in its own sub-section. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is. That is the sort of clarity an "A-class" rating calls for, no? Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

3. I'm not sure where the Highways project stands on this as far as A-class ratings go, but reading Wikipedia's 5P page, which explains what Wikipedia is not, it seems beyond obvious that inclusion of a tariff table is completely inappropriate (in stark contrast to Ritchie's apparent view that this is the most important part of the article). It is not Wikipedia's job to be assisting users of this crossing in this manner, it is not a FAQ or a travel guide. It is sufficient for an encyclopedia to simply note that the charging scheme employs things like vehicle type bands and local user schemes. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a toll table in Second Severn Crossing. Why is it "completely inappropriate"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the problem with including toll rates on toll roads when there is more than one toll plaza is that they are difficult to maintain and keep current. There are dozens of articles about U.S. highways that include tolls that demonstrate how not to include tolls. It's simply not the case here; it's just a singular charge for the crossing. –Fredddie™ 21:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We have "flowerguild" and "youthmin" as parameters in Template:infobox church when we can barely keep up with "priest". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It's relatively simple to include the price of entry to my local cinema (which has a Wikipedia page - not just the chain, but the actual building too). That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it, or in any way meets the definition of an encylopedia. I'm not going to repeat what was already a pretty comprehensive explanation of its inappropriateness for Wikipedia. If it's done on other toll road articles here but only as long as it's ones where it's easy to do, then maybe the entire field of roads is the outlier (but I am unconvinced even of that), because I'm thinking there will be no other class of article here where Wikipedia is turned into some kind of consumer price service/FAQ/guide just because it is possible to put the current price of something into the article about that something. I also note with some amusement that the Tolls section in that article is positioned near the bottom, well below several sections which are clearly intended to serve as a narrative history, just like I described above as the seemingly standard approach, when there is no single History section, but which people are objecting to here. There is definitely a standard layout on Wikipedia and it applies even to this subject area. Those seeking to deny this basic reality should really start thinking about whether this is a sustainable position, as I think it's only going to become more obvious each time someone mentions another article by way of demonstrating support for another issue, as happened here. Also, note the Tolls info is not placed in a single section, it's placed as a sub-section of Finances, and grouped alongside a historical table and governance info, because it is clear someone put some thought into putting that information into encyclopedic context (and arguably the progression of the toll is more encyclopedic than its current level) and grouping related information together, just as an A-class article should do. Unlike this one. I hope people are not now going to go over and mess with that article's layout just to validate the mess of this article, but I note Ritchie has said he's going to do just that on Blackwall Crossing, so maybe that's a thing here. I prefer working to a standardised model and ensuring each thing matches it, but who knows what the Wikipedia process is. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that cinemas and major road crossings are necessarily comparable. Do you want the toll information removed or do you want it in a different place? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

So what would you compare it to? Pick any other comparable class of purchasable commodity, and I am quite sure that there will be no present day pricing information in the associated Wikipedia article. Even if we pick an article on Wikipedia that is specifically about a traffic charge, the London congestion charge, where therefore it would be quite ridiculous to argue that the amount of the charge was irrelevant, even then it is not given as much prominence as it is here. It is also included only as part of a thematic section dealing with the entire issue of "Present scheme", in contrast to here, where it is presented as standalone 'this is the current charge' section (i.e., read below if you want to know more about the crossing, which we doubt, but hey, whatever). The tariff table obviously has to go, but I would not be averse to the same info being here if it was presented in the way it is in some other articles, i.e. as part of a documentation of the historical progression of the tolls/charges, either as a table or a graph. And definitely it has to go after History, ideally in an Operations section, being the closest analogy to "Present scheme" (or above, if people agree the entire subject of present operations is more important than History, which I doubt they would). The people coming here only for the current price can then figure it out by going to the relevant section and looking at the last data point in the table/graph. You know, as if this was an encyclopedia whose primary purpose is to impart historical information, not a FAQ aiming to serve up transient 'guide' style info. Clarion Collar (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

4. According to the link above, an A-class Highways article has "a well-written introduction". This article's introduction omits the basic fact that the crossing and its approaches are an A-road (the A282), not a motorway. All it contains on this issue is the sentence "The crossing, despite not being under motorway restrictions, is part of the M25 motorway's route", which is obviously misleading, as readers will understandably be asking themselves how a motorway route cannot be under motorway restrictions. The answer of course is that it's not a section of motorway, and that any and all mentions of it being "part of the M25" elsewhere, are merely imprecise (but perfectly understandable to the layman) explanations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not for the layman, its wording is supposed to be precise on matters of basic and obvious fact like this. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You think the A282 is just like any other A-road here? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Clarion Collar: I would suggest that you focus your comments more on the article, and not the editor - your ideas might be better received if you do so. --Rschen7754 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but that's quite hard to do when so many of the article's problems are tied up with the views of that one editor (who claims to have written most of it) and what he claims other editors think about his work, or rather what they don't take issue with (which in at least one case is false). If he changes his approach and starts defending the article based only on objective reality, rather than framing everything as being about his personal views and what others think of his work, then maybe we can start discussing the article in isolation. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

I will admit that bridges are not my area of expertise, but I am willing to read it and give my feedback.

• This isn't a source review (I'll leave that to folks more familiar with citation formatting) but eyeballing the citations I think they will need to be more consistent - FAC is pretty strict in this regard. For example, ref 75 has no access date, and ref 65 is missing the newspaper name.

Both fixed. I think if I was going to take this to FAC, I would want to see if using {{harnvb}} or some variant of that might be better, rather than just leaving references clogged up amongst the text, which makes copyediting across them a pain in the tail. @Jennica: - you like formatting and templates, is this anything you might be able to help with? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Everything looks good on a template/formatting standpoint. I have no input. Looks like a job well done. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• The proposed Thames Gateway Bridge to the west was given planning permission in December 2004 - by who?

Transport for London; however a more serious problem is the source given did not support that statement and was a dead link. Both now fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• and will most likely be a tunnel - a bit speculative

The problem with government plans is they tend to be a bit vague, especially if Boris Johnson has his fingers in them, but an updated news source shows this is definitely going to be a tunnel, so fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thurrock Council suggest -> The Thurrock Council suggests

Are you sure about that? xxx Council (or xxx Borough Council, or xxx City Council) is pretty standard British English. For example, this new search does not contain "the" in any of the hits. (This discussion might be relevant). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but perhaps it should be "suggests" instead of "suggest"? --Rschen7754 02:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an ENGVAR quirk. In the UK, groups are considered a they, while in the US, groups are typically an it. –Fredddie™ 05:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that should be fine then. --Rschen7754 05:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• though construction is unlikely to start before 2026 - should say in whose opinion this is

Highways England - I've copyedited this to make it a little clearer (technically the construction will actually be undertaken by a contractor, it's not like Chris Grayling is going to turn up with hard-hat and shovel, except maybe in a ceremonial context) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Charges are payable between 6am and 10pm and this is indicated on overhead-gantry signs - this is a bit wordy. Also, there should be a (nonbreaking) space between 6 and am, and 10 and pm.

Trimmed and formatted accordingly (isn't there an easy way of identifying when   is in a script or something?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Charges table: Perhaps the "free" should have the F capitalized?

I think a better question is, should the "free" column be there at all? I've had a look at some other comparable articles, including Tamar Bridge, Severn Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge and Mackinac Bridge and none of them have a "free" column (some put this information in prose; Tamar Bridge explicitly says "There is no charge for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycles". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If the information is in prose, that's probably fine. --Rschen7754 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

More later. --Rschen7754 07:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Generally nonbreaking spaces should be used between a number and the associated unit: 60 years, 65,000 vehicles.

Have we got a script anywhere to help do this? It seems like a common enough task. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• 2 axle -> two-axle
• and it took a team of around 56 - do we need "around"? --Rschen7754 03:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The source says "....supervised a team of about 56 men who constructed the concrete towers", so saying "56" on its own is not necessarily correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• under a charging scheme under powers - repeated "under".

Also a repeat of "charging scheme", I've copyedited this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Pre-pay accounts for the crossing were introduced around this time; drivers held a device called a DART-Tag in the vehicle that automatically deducted the charge at payment booths - may want to link to Electronic toll collection somewhere.

I've changed "device" to "electronic device" and linked it there; since the DART-Tag is now discontinued, it would make more sense to clarify it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• 10pm and 6am again, and 2-axle.

Fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This completes the review. --Rschen7754 05:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support issues resolved. As far as a nbsp script, I would ask around (say, at WT:MOS or WT:FAC) - I usually do it by hand. --Rschen7754 03:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Review by Moabdave

Review by Moabdave

General comment: I have to say, even though I usually edit USA road article, and I can count the number of times I've stepped foot in the UK on my fingers, the article was easy to follow. That's saying something about your writing style and I congratulate you.

Lead: I would add the words "license plate recognition" to the description of the electronic tolling. Where I'm at both license plate and transponder tolling systems are common and it's nice to know which one you need before you go, and IMO a lead worthy detail.

The "location" section uses Automatic number plate recognition, so I've gone with that Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Location:

• FYI, the article isn't consistent about which unit system comes first (metric or imperial) and which is listed as a conversion. I get it; I've been to the UK and the country isn't consistent. I'm OK with it, but it may cause issues at FAC.

Well, my reasoning is this. Back in the days of the British Empire (or at least before the 1957 Suez Canal Crisis), everyone used feet, inches, yards, chains, acres, shillings, pennies and guineas. Then in the 1970s, Edward Heath decided that Britain joining the EEC was a good idea, and so everyone converted over the metric system. So older measurements use imperial first, as that's what was used in designs for the 1960s and earlier, whereas everything after that, from a technical / engineering standpoint, is in metric. It matches (or at least should match) what the sources say. (The reality is more complicated, in certain parts of Britain, particularly those who think the Daily Express is a quality newspaper and Brexit is the greatest idea ever, swear blind we should never have got rid of imperial, but that's a conversation for another time). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• A couple of places in the article claim that this motorway is unusual as traffic that does not normally meet motorway restrictions is allowed. Is there an article (or even sub heading of an article) that discusses what these restrictions are? If so a wikilink would be most helpful.

There was a bit of an argument about this a while back - the official answer (certainly from a legal standpoint) is that none of the Dartford Crossing is a motorway, and none of it is part of the M25. The Special Roads Act 1949 (and related orders) define what a motorway is, and it's purely what gets government approval to be one (which is why this is a motorway junction). From a de-facto standpoint, when looking at hundreds of reliable news sources is that most people think it is a motorway and it is part of the M25. Even though they're actually all wrong. I don't know if you get QI over in the US, but if Stephen Fry asked Alan Davies what road number is given to the Dartford Crossing, and he answered "M25", the klaxons would go off. (Or possibly from a US standpoint, Kellyanne Conway would say it's an "alternative fact"). Does that help matters, or just muddle them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

What I'm hoping is that the UK Roads wikiproject maintains an article similar to Interstate Highway standards, which covers the design standards and motorist restrictions a highway must comply with before it's eligable for inclusion in the Interstate Highway system. If such article exists, you could then wikilink to that article, or ideally the appropriate section of that article. Ironically I just checked the article Interstate Highway standards, and it fails to mention the traffic restrictions, but those basically are, prohibit hitchhiking, non-motorized vehicles, etc. Dave (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, I understand what you're saying, and I think you're asking for an article that doesn't exist. Motorways are political in Britain and are not obliged to conform to any standard; all that is needed is for the relevant order to be placed under the Special Roads Act 1949 + later amendments, and all that does is ban certain classes of traffic from the road. That's why you get things like the A6144(M) Carrington Spur) that was a two-lane undivided highway fully signed (correctly) as motorway. There are also so-called "secret motorways" which are roads that have the correct legal paperwork per the act but yet are not actually signed as motorways as such; the first example that comes to mind is the A55 North Wales Expressway under the River Conwy. In particular, following events such as the Twyford Down and M11 link road protests, and New Labour's A New Deal for Transport: Better for everyone proposals, governments (at least in England and Wales, not so much in the Scottish Central Belt) have been absolutely terrified of classifying anything at all as a motorway because the backlash and protests from Swampy and friends.

There are formal specifications for nationally built highways generally; the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges specifies exactly how wide lanes should be, what the appropriate speed limit is, what drainage should be taken into account, what the geometry is. There's a source from the Chartered Institute of Highway Technicians which briefly summarises a history of British motorways, but there's no discussion of a formal specification or standard (although it does proudly trumpet the QEII bridge as a major feature on the motorway network, thus proving my earlier point). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

How about for now changing "despite not being under motorway restrictions" to "despite not officially designated a motorway". It's the word "restrictions" that makes me want to ask "what is a motorway restriction? If that word is removed, so is my question. Dave (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've gone for "although not officially designated a motorway" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

History:

• "£3 million (now £164 million)" I'd advise to replace "now" with {{CURRENTYEAR}}. The problem with "now" is it leaves the reader asking "when was this article last updated?" by subbing in the current year, it is known that the figure is up to date.
  • There's actually an {{Inflation-year}} that is tied to the inflation templates and indicates when that data was last updated. --Rschen7754 00:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, there's a couple of my FA's I should probably update to use that template instead of currentyear.Dave (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that. So you mean something like had been estimated at £3 million (£{{inflation|UK|3|1929}} million as of {{inflation-year|UK}})? I've got a bunch of GAs (eg: Mayfair) that could do with this as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

What I usually say is something like "the project cost $123 (equivalent to $789 in 2017)". Dave (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice this when I did my review, but the inflation calculations for construction costs (not the toll) should be using UKNGDPPC, not UK. Government/capital expenses are calculated differently than consumer prices. --Rschen7754 02:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you fix this? I know that government interest rates are different from consumers (and that George Osborne hoped you wouldn't notice so he could cut public services like buggery) but things like the inflation template are a pig to get right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. You may need a few more {{inflation-fn|UKNGDPPC}} citations, but otherwise it should be fine. --Rschen7754 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

For railway articles I usually fiddle about until I get fed up, then wait for Redrose64 to fix them all ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about A-class, but I got NBR 224 and 420 Classes to GA-class with this which didn't have that red error message at the time - it's since been amended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Footnote C may need to be re-written "Some sources say "near" 100% rather than 100% explicitly." As only one source is listed, perhaps say, "at least one source says near 100%"

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• One thing I notice is the clearance restrictions of the tunnel are in a separate section as the restriction on hazardous goods. I have no problem with how the article is organized, but I'll just ask the question, would it be better to consolidate all the restrictions of the crossing into a single section?

I'm being dense, sorry, which other section were you thinking of? I think I put it in this one because it's traffic-related; large goods block tunnel traffic and contribute to congestion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Links and sources:

• The link to http://www.theaa.com is dead. That's the only red flag identified by the checklinks tool, but there are also some yellow flags identified by the tool [3]

Since the GA review was 3 years ago, and I don't think anyone's made a point of running it since Cyberpower678's bot tends to do a pretty good job and spotting dead links and auto-archiving them if it can. It's invariable these things will fall out of the woodwork from time to time, though. Anyway, this and another dead link fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Has structurae.net been vetted and blessed to use as a source? I used it as a source at my first FAC, (admittedly about 10 years ago) and I seem to recall there were problems with using it. I hope that's changed, as it is a good source, I'm just asking the question.

All it's citing is the main bridge span of 450 metres, so it's hardly citing essential facts that can't be obtained elsewhere. I've replaced it with a book source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A nice read, best of luck at FAC, once you get out of here. Dave (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Moabdave: I think all the issues have been addressed, is there anything else? (I'm not planning on rushing to FAC, I've got this mini-project on the go first). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked some wikipedia time out early next week. I'll finish this up then. Dave (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The changes you made resolved all of my previous concerns except for the above mentioned word "restrictions". Please see my suggestion above to see if that works for you. However, I did find one additional issue:

• "the Dartford Crossing is class C" The previously linked ADR (treaty) article lists classes by number that apply to the goods. The article mentions nothing about letter classifications on highways. You did add enough context so that "class C" is understood. However, if you are familiar enough with the subject, perhaps a quick addition to the article ADR to include the letter classes would clear thing up. I know that's over and above the scope of this article, so I won't oppose, just a suggestion to improve the pedia if you're in a position to do it. Dave (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped a section on British tunnels into the ADR article, so hopefully at least people won't get lost when clicking on the link. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Hopefully I'll be more responsive next time. Dave (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the review's been open, what, a year now, so a couple of weeks won't hurt! Anything else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Support promotion with the above changes. Good luck. And I have to say, not many people know this (be they in the USA or elsewhere) but the US congress declared the USA to officially use the metric system in the early 1970's. The problem is they never put in an enforcement mechanism, so no changes ever actually happened. I remember when I was in 3rd and 4th grade watching all these government promotional movies saying how by the time I got into high school everything would be in meters and liters. Yeah, about that.... ;) 23:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

They tried it here. Result: I still buy milk and beer by the pint, and get nailed for driving at 35 miles per hour in a 30 limit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

All technical drawings have been done in metric for decades. If you go into B&Q and ask for a "5/16 drill bit" (or at least to anyone younger than me) you'd get a confused look for a minute while they quickly convert that to millimetres in their head. Incidentally, young editors on here might not remember that shilling and florin coins were in active circulation until at least up to the late 1980s, and I think even half a crown was legal tender until the ½p coin was deprecated. (Oh, and thanks for the review Dave!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

After the removal of the source check as a requirement [4] this review can now be successfully closed. --Rschen7754 17:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.