Jump to content

Talk:A9 dualling project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by JuniperChill (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

JuniperChill (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

DYK removed from main page

[edit]

Just noting that this article was removed from the main page for various reasons after 10 hours, as was reported to WP:ERRORS: [1]. If this gets to GA (which its currently awaiting review), then it might be worth another try. JuniperChill (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill, there are some citation errors still in here that you'll want to fix before the GA review starts. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done! If i take more than 12 hours to respond, then its because i'm getting really busy with things IRL (see my talk page for the banner). I may not be back until ~6pm Uk time JuniperChill (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I was looking this over as a potential GA review, but in fairness to everyone's time, I think it's worth pointing out that I don't believe this should be a standalone article. The A9 road (Scotland) article needs some attention and trimming in general, but could easily host all of the information on this page. There is much background about the project's origins and construction, all of which is directly related to the roadway itself. I'd also suggest merging in Killer A9 too as it just pulls from both articles. It makes more sense to provide a full picture instead of scattering bits and pieces across multiple articles. It appears there's a good amount to talk about, but not enough that would require separate articles, even from a WP:PAGESIZE perspective. Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the size of this page is about the same as the A9 (both are roughly 42kb in size) and its inappropriate for half of the A9 page to be focused on the dualling program. Although the project page is 2000 words compared to the A9s 1700, the A9 page is longer in terms of how much you have to scroll down. Plus the info about the dualling program in the A9 page is at least talked about in summary style. Plus this page will eventually be much longer than the A9 page once more sections of the A9 start and finish construction. (Currently only 2/11 sections are finished and see WP:WIP so you can see why I made this page)
The project page is notable as many sources have covered this project, is very long (at 110 mi), and has been severely delayed by 10 years. A road project would almost never be the subject of its own page but this is an exception for reasons why I said earlier (WP:ROTM). For example, see the electrification projects of the Great Western Mainline and Midland Mainline which both have their own articles about the electrification project (both were delayed and partially complete/cancelled). JuniperChill (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Grk1011. Much better to concentrate information in one article than to split it - especially for pages of this length. As far as a GA nomination goes, it's best to wait until after the works are either complete or definitely cancelled before seeking a review. Articles about projects that are in progress go out of date very quickly and don't have the long-term stability that is desirable for higher-rated articles. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination. 213.31.218.96 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:PAGESIZE which I linked above, articles less than 6,000 words are not good candidates for splitting. Author JuniperChill notes that as of now, the sum of both would be 3,700 words (2,000 plus 1,700), though I think that would be likely less with the removal of overlap. While I understand that the dualling would take up a good portion of the article, all of the dualling information is about the roadway itself, not some sort of tangential related subject. I think you have a long way to go before needing to split this, even after the project is complete and more information is added. Grk1011 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the project itself, the project article also covers the delays to it, the criticism, and the fact that the A9 is one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland. Plus like I said, this is a large £3.4 billion project, not some sort of adding cycling lanes, a single grade separation project, that sort of things. Plus, I think a section dealing with one specific topic is too much especially since the project page has more words than the A9 although the A9 page also consists of bullet points and tables, both of which do not count towards the 1700 words prose size. Additionally, at WP:WHENSPLIT [If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed [emphasis added]. Plus the Level Crossing Removal Project isn't complete yet and its already a GA? JuniperChill (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:A9_dualling_project&oldid=1251282313"