Talk:Dartford Crossing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll take this. It may take a few days for the in-depth comments, but here's a few quick ones:
  • Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 redirects back here

• Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• • The "Miller Lessard", "Hodge, Greve & Carsten 2010", "Faultley Garon", and "Fautley 2004" footnotes don't point anywhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have superficially fixed these so they now work, but I'll have to ping @Dr. Blofeld: (who IIRC added them) to confirm they are correct and cite the information referenced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looks fine to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Images:
  • File:Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, Dartford, England - Feb 2009.jpg is fine copyright wise, but it is pretty darn hard to make out at the current resolution. Check out {{wide image}} and see if it helps

• I have given this a go with {{wide image}} (it's a featured picture so I wanted to keep it in), but that created problems with too much of a wall of text further down. I've done some copyediting and added a further image of the bridge tower to break up the flow a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• • File:Greater London UK location map 2.svg - looks okay
  • File:Dartford Crossing Toll.jpg - Copyright wise it looks fine, but I recommend fixing the cats

• Done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• • File:Dartford Crossing - geograph.org.uk - 1194694.jpg - Fine
  • File:Dartford Crossing Tolls - geograph.org.uk - 169071.jpg = Fine
  • File:Dart-tag.png - So what's the copyright on the dart logo? It looks like it may be enough to attract copyright

• This is a Commons image that has been held for over seven years. What's our position on challenging images in Commons (which this is) - nominate them for deletion? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Image now removed as it's redundant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• • File:Dartford crossing approach.jpg - Fine
  • File:Dartford Tunnel Ventilation Shaft - geograph.org.uk - 4416.jpg - Fine
  • File:Dartford Crossing traffic plot.JPG - Rather out of date, this, isn't it? Should be updated.

• I think this can probably be removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• • File:Dartford Tunnel bus.jpg - Where's the source that this was taken by a government photographer? Also, wouldn't "bicycle" be more English-variant neutral and more encyclopedic? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• The rationale is a little complicated, but I'll try and explain. The photograph comes from the National Archives, the main archive facility for government works. Though the digital scan was made by TNA staff, the original physical file can be found in a file at the main archives in Kew, and my understanding of the file contents is that they are Crown Copyright on the date specified on the file. The file's contents are described here and the description reads "Special vehicles for use in Dartford tunnel. Includes 9 photographs depicting: Motor vehicle: Dartford/Purfleet Tunnel passenger/cycle carrier: interior/exterior views. Dated 1963." Crown Copyright expires at the end of the year 50 years after publication, which in this case was 1 January 2014. According to this link, the WMF's position on a faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work of art (which this is), is public domain itself. I see the file has since been tagged as "Copy to commons", which suggests somebody else shares this view. What do you mean by "bicycle"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• The caption uses the word "Cycle", not "Bicycle", when technically a cycle can also refer to a unicycle or tricycle. I'm not asking who digitized this image. I'm asking how we know the photographer worked for the government. Who took the photographs? The link to the National Archives website doesn't help, as it goes straight to the image and not to an information page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I was getting confused with the caption on the picture itself, as opposed to the one in the article.

From my experience, the copyright of any documentation held within National Archives files is ultimately held by the public body responsible for producing it (in this case the Ministry of Transport as was). It cannot have been anyone else as it would not have ended up in TNA. If a member of the civil service did not personally take the photograph, it would have been done as a work for hire, assigning ownership and copyright to the public body. Indeed, the TNA file in question asserts "Legal status: Public Record". The link I mentioned above to the National Archives was not to the image, but an information page about the original physical file as stored in the archive facilities. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was unclear which link I was talking about. The link on the image file page is not to an information page (which can confirm the provenance of the image) but rather directly to the image itself. That should be cleaned up, to make confirming the copyright status easier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I understand. I have clarified the source link to point to the Discovery catalogue entry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Prose

• Dartford - Thurrock River Crossing - Why the spaces between the endash and names?

I don't think I understand what you mean, but the presentation here is because I copied and pasted the official name from its title on the Highways Agency's website ([1]) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Compare Indonesia–Malaysia border (no spaces). I believe that's how the endash is usually used on Wikipedia, per WP:NDASH — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, should now be fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• The crossing's development started in late 1930s, but resumed after World War II. - better to actually say it was halted rather than simply imply it

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• increased traffic put increased pressure - increasingly increasing "increased"-es are increasingly infuriating (i.e. can we avoid repeating the word so close together? A couple of cases with other words in other places too)

I've fixed this one. I wouldn't have written prose like this deliberately, this either came out from copyediting text around and I didn't notice it, or another editor wrote it and I didn't spot it. I'll have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• It has been described by the Highways Agency as "a vital transport link for the national and South East economies" and is signed as a major destination on London's orbital route, the M25, though crossing and its approach road are actually on an all-purpose road (the A282), allowing traffic prohibited from motorways to use the crossing. - I'd split this

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• It should be noted that at the Dartford Crossing, the A282 does not have the status of a motorway. - Per Wikipedia:ITSHOULDBENOTED the phrase should not be included.

Agreed. I'm not sure what this footnote is supposed to convey to the reader. Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• The proposed Thames Gateway Bridge between these two crossings and the Dartford crossing was given planning permission in December 2004, but was later cancelled in November 2008. - what are "these two crossings"?

The Blackwall Tunnel and the Woolwich Ferry, but I agree this is not obvious (particularly to readers who don't live in London) so I've rewritten this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• In #Charges, the table is sandwiching the image.

Fixed (also helped by removing sub-sections and rearranging prose per other comments) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Why is "charges" before the history of the crossing proper? Makes the History subsection more difficult to follow, as we don't know when "the first tunnel opened", for instance. Also, I'd work this history subsection into the main history subsection.

The idea behind this is that I thought that one of the most important pieces of information a reader would want to know is how much it costs to use the crossing. This article is the first result in a Google search for "Dartford Crossing", so I think it's important to state this information as early as is practical. I've changed "the first tunnel" to something simpler as it's irrelevant in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• For someone looking up pricing (i.e. planning to use the crossing), sure. But for an encyclopedia (introducing the subject from a detached and historical perspective) I don't think the charges are first and foremost. The narrative would be tighter with the charges after history, as we don't have to scramble to find (say) when a bridge opened in order to understand the sentences in #Charges. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've rearranged this. I've left "Charges" where it is as I still think it's important information, but cut the section down so it only states what the current state of affairs is. Nobody who wants to look up the pricing as a priority cares what it was in 2008 or 2012, they only care what it is now. I've moved information about the DART-Tag to the front of the section (and cut it down), as prose later on doesn't make sense. I've also removed the DART-Tag image (which was a problem noted earlier in itself) as the reduced prose causes sandwiching problems, so it was an obvious choice to remove. Have a look now and see what you think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Do we need subsections with only one paragraph (residents scheme, for instance)

On reflection, I don't think so. I'm still a little unsure about how the narrative now works having removed them, as it jumps from a description of what's happening now, then back to first opening. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• It could probably be worked into the history section, so you don't have one-paragraph sections but also don't lose the information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, historical information is now in the relevant place in "History" (trying to keep it all in chronological order). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• accept change, while the remainder only accept exact change in coins or a DART-Tag - I have the feeling your first "accept" is not the word you are looking for

Fixed (in conjunction with general changes per above) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• What is VAT?

Don't know. Ask Ken Dodd. (On a more serious note, acronym properly defined). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• If a driver cannot pay the toll in cash or a DART-Tag, they are issued a debt ticket. UK car drivers must produce identification and pay the debt within seven days, while commercial and foreign drivers are refused entry and must turn back. In 2014, it was reported the amount of unpaid tolls had tripled between 2010 and 2013. - This is definitely not supposed to be part of #History

As mentioned above, I've collapsed down the section and moved this into a more relevant place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• People who use this pre-paid system save money per trip. - redundant to the fact that they are charged less.

Agreed. There's a bit of redundancy in this section actually, so I've copyedited it down further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• More tomorrow — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've swept through the rest of the article and tidied up a bit of prose, so hopefully there should be less to report. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• History section: any pre-tunnel crossings, like ferries and/or rafts, in the Dartford area? Or just the one near Gravesend?

I don't have any sources that say so, and I'd be surprised, as historically Gravesend - Tilbury had been the main ferry route in the area since at least 17th century, and back then, having a town either side of a major crossing was desireable. A quick look at an 1864 map online suggests that the whole area around what's now the crossing was uninhabited marshland. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• the tunnel's design to be improved, which included an improved - this improving clause can be improved

A better idea I feel is if you see an improved, it may be better to write "better" as a better alternative, although better than "better" can be to remove the "better" to better reduce the word count, making the article better. (Fixed) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The first tunnel, a two-lane bore tunnel, - I'd like to tunnel under one of those tunnels

I can't find this, did somebody else fix it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oops. I did, apparently. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The bridge was opened by Queen Elizabeth II on 30 October 1991 at a total cost of £120 million (£244 million as of 2014), and the approach roads cost £30m. - I doubt the opening itself cost that many pounds. Construction did.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• David Cameron - Might be worth mentioning that he's PM.

I'd be surprised if even someone in the wilderness of Boise, Idaho doesn't know what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is, but just in case - done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps not from Boise, but how about those people on Wikipedia Zero? We'd be their main access to information (although how such readers would reach this article...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• MP - Link to Minister of Parliament?

Fixed and linked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• scrapped, - I don't think this is a formal term for "discontinued"

This is a search through the hansard of debates in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom containing the word "scrapped", but I see your point that only British readers may find it acceptable, so changed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The traffic levels at the crossing have decreased overall in the past decade. - Use a specific time, rather than something relative

I've re-ordered the sentence, so it's easier to specify in absolute terms, though one claim is still "since 2004" which may not always be correct in the future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• A total of 1,486,929,267 vehicles have used the crossing since opening as of 31 March 2014. - Since opening as of 31 March 2014... what?

The Highways Agency consulted their statistics on 31 March 2014 and concluded that since records began in November 1963, a total of 1,486,929,267 vehicles have used the crossing. If I take out "since opening" from the prose it becomes clearer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, or "between the tunnel's opening in 1963 and 31 March 2014"

• The total income for the financial year up to 31 March 2012 was £72,147,091, while the same figure up to 2013 was £80,331,662. - Rather disparate, giving the number of crossings for 2014 but two-year old data for income.

I don't have a source for the figures to 31 March 2014. Perhaps they have not yet been formally published? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps. Alright, we'll let this one go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The tunnels are classified as ADR class C. - Meaning...?

It's French - according to ADR (treaty) it stands for Accord européen relatif au transport international des marchandises Dangereuses par Route. Normally I think defining acronyms before use is essential, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the case here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• I had more issues with the "Class C". What exactly is a class C? Rather more pertinent to the subject at hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got no idea - the source just says "the Dartford tunnel is a C" with no further explanation. I've removed the sentence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• How about a source which explains what Class C is, without necessarily linking it to Dartford? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Now done - though a full explanation of everything that Class C entails seems to run to a UN report several hundred pages long, so I have just given a few examples! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Officers may stop and direct traffic and, so far as is necessary for the performance of any of their duties, on the approach roads, - I think you're missing a verb

This looks like verbal diarrhoea - rewritten. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• 50 mph speed limit - The UK uses MPH?

Yes, and as long as people keep reading the Daily Mail it will never change, though the Highways Agency and other traffic authorities all work in metric. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• claimed - Per WP:CLAIM, we shouldn't use this term

Change to "said" - it's a direct quotation. The idea here was just because the spokesman said journeys would be more reliable, doesn't mean they would. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• the North and Midlands onwards to Europe - The UK is in Europe. Continental Europe, I'd assume. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Nigel Farage would be upset by one of those comments! Changed. There is nothing at all unusual about seeing Czech, Polish and Romanian lorries using the crossing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Mr Farage would have to note I avoided "Union" ;). Good fix. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Some funny comments in here like "What is VAT?" and "you use mph" which look rather amusing to us Brits but probably baffling to anybody else including Crisco!! We certainly have a unique identity!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that's one of the good things about a GA review is that things that are obvious to one person can be spotted and fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And could Ehrenkater (talk · contribs) pop in and say hello? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there :) ----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for your fixes, including the blatant howler of having the times for free overnight crossing the wrong way round! I was just a little unsure about putting speed limits in metric, because they are legal instruments (technically you can go a little faster than 80km/h and still be under the speed limit) and so the best we can do is a guide. I've parked them as a set of footnotes for the time being. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I feel as this is ready to promote. Ehrenkater (talk · contribs) seems to have had a few issues with the prose though, so I'd just like to ask if xhe feels the prose is up to snuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ehrenkater: Your changes are getting controversial. Calling somebody's else's edit "nonsense" is unhelpful. Per WP:BRD, you need to explain changes on talk. It would be sad to get this far and have to fail the GA review per the "stability" criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been through the article again and am happy with the prose.

Regarding the speed limit, I don't feel strongly about this but would prefer that the metric equivalent was shown in the text as per usual, not in a footnote. I agree that you can legally travel at 80.4672 kilometres per hour, but in any case speedometers are not that accurate and the police allow a few mph leeway.

Regarding the article about the need for an additional crossing, the authorities claim that removing the toll booths will speed will reduce congestion, not increase it, so it is not appropriate to say that an additional crossing will be needed when the toll booths are removed.

I would just like to add that the article will need to be changed in October when the toll booths are removed, and it would be useful to flag this somehow.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, so it seems to me that the only remaining issues are fairly minor, and can be taken up after passing the GA review. Congrats to everyone who has worked on this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)