User talk:Ovinus/Roads4117

Mentorship chat

@Roads4117: Hi! First I just want to get to know you, then we can figure out exactly how this mentorship will work, in terms of what you need and what you can already do. What attracts you to road articles? Are there any other topics you find interesting? And what editing skills do you know you need to work on? Ovinus (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus Hello.

• What attracts me to road articles is when I was younger, I used to love numbers, and also cars, so I think I merged the two and became interested in roads.
• Other topics I find interesting are probably transport systems, especially London Underground, London Buses, cars and also trains. As I like numbers, I find myself liking maths.
• The editing skills I need to improve on are mainly citing my work, but also make my writing standard better. There also probably many more, but those are the ones I know about currently.

Thanks again, Roads4117 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: Great! Thanks for the background. I'll start off with two preliminary points to check your understanding of two policies that I think you've had trouble with. The first is verifiability. Ovinus (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 06:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, hope it's okay to drop in like this. As somebody who's disagreed with Roads4117 on a number of things, I think it might be useful to explain my interests, as hopefully it will help explain how people with different viewpoints can work together for the same goal. I'm particularly interested in transport history and politics, especially around London; I travel on the London Underground regularly and have taken several tube station articles to good article status - other editors such as DavidCane have gone even further and taken a few to featured article status. There's still plenty to do - I've got a vague project on the back burner to make every station on the Victoria line a good article. For roads, I'm especially interested in the historical and political angle to them, which is why I mentioned earlier that a key interest for me with the A303 road is the never-ending proposals to bypass the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, and today I've mentioned the A635 road in context of the Moors murders in another thread. I hope that's all of interest to you, and explains a bit more about where I'm coming from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why, hi Ritchie. Good to have the perspective of someone who is more familiar with road articles. Ovinus (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Thanks for that. Like Ovinus said in the last message, it is good to see the viewpoint of someone who is more familiar with road articles. Roads4117 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh also Ritchie, please butt in as much as you want. I realize now that our time zones are rather offset—I'm on the US west coast—so if Roads comment at 8 am GMT I can't respond for like six hours. Ovinus (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

roads.org.uk, like the chicken source you found, is a self-published source. We can check this from its About page. [1] @Ritchie333: I would appreciate your opinion as well, as this source seems fairly widely used on Wikipedia (730 uses). Ovinus (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI if you aren't already aware, Ritchie has mentioned roads.org.uk on a WP:RSN thread. Roads4117 (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at the discussion. Looks like it's a reasonable source, although as an editing principle it's always good to back it up with other sources. In any case, the points below are still important, for example understanding why most wikis are not considered reliable. Ovinus (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus Sorry to not do the activities earlier.Roads4117 (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI I have finished the exercises. Roads4117 (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I have finished paraphrasing, and apparently it is 89 words long. Is that OK, or does it need to be slightly shorter? Roads4117 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Will check it out. Ovinus (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Don't worry about the delay. Roads4117 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I have redone the paraphrasing exercise. This time it is around 77 words. Roads4117 (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I have completed the second paraphrasing exercise, however I have copied a couple of words from the article. The length is just under your deadline of 40 words (38 words to be exact), so if you want me to redo the exercise to make it slightly shorter, and/or not to copy any of the original article, then please let me know. Roads4117 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I have completed the third paraphrasing exercise. It is currently 34 words, which is way over your deadline. Should I redo the exercise to copy less and to more or less half the length? Roads4117 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for adding extra sections; personally it is easier to read. Roads4117 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus,

I am struggling regarding finding citations for road articles where they're no citations. Due to this, could we please agree to change it to if their is a small amount of citation (for example three or less).

Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: Sorry for the delay; been busy IRL. And yes, of course you can worth with road articles that have only a few citations; sorry I didn't make that clear. In fact, any article with uncited information is fair game to find citations for. I'll be looking through your contribs in a moment. Ovinus (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

All your recent contributions look fine in terms of copyright! I'm glad you've been staying careful and making incremental changes rather than adding prose. Trying to find citations seems like a good exercise to keep doing. Ovinus (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus Thanks for that feedback. I'll try my best to keep to keep my edits like this. Roads4117 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh and also, do you have any more exercises for me, or have I finished them all? Roads4117 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus, how are you? Sorry I haven't done that paraphrasing exercise yet - I have been really busy with school, the World Cup, and have been doing something for the editors at WikiProject Highways. Although when I have finished w8th the help out, then I'll do the paraphrasing exercise. Roads4117 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm well, thanks! School is infinitely more important than Wikipedia. So take your time, and it seems you've been doing good work with highways. Cheers. Ovinus (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ovinus Roads4117 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus, how are you? I have just finished that paraphrasing exercise. Roads4117 (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, one question which I was going to ask you but completely forgot about was would you like to create a shared userpage, as I see it is empty. We could maybe do like a paragraph or so about both of us. Though this is probably a terrible idea, but just wondered what you thought about it. Roads4117 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hm, I'd rather not. There's no obligation for a talk page to correspond to an actual page; the reason I created this page in the User talk namespace is so that the reply function works correctly. But you are free to add limited personal information to your user page. (If you're younger than 18, please don't add identifying information.) I'll take a look at the paraphrasing when I have time. Ovinus (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

OK then, I'll just leave it. Roads4117 (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus, happy new year!! Can't believe it's 2023 already. BTW I have re-done the paraphrasing exercise if you want to take a look. Roads4117 (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And also I have a question for you - could I copy from SABRE if I put into my own words? If you want I could send my version through to you. Just wanted to check with you, as my mentor, as I don't want to get blocked for doing something stupid. Roads4117 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hm, could you send me a link to the page you want to copy from, and I can do it? Just for avoidance of all doubt. And happy new year to you as well! Ovinus (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright then, may recommend the A2213 [2]. I would appreciate you doing it, because then I can see how it is done. Thank you! Roads4117 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

But honestly, if you would rather me just send you what I have done for you to have a check through and give me some feedback, then I am also happy for that (if you are too). Roads4117 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Ovinus, what's up? I noticed tht you haven't responded to my message that I sent two weeks ago, or done it when looking at your user contributions. If you do not have much time due to college, then as I mentioned above, I'd be delighted to compose it, and send it over to you for a quick review. That's only a suggestion though, and will only happen if you'd like it to. If that doesn't suit you, then please reply ASAP to let me know. Thank you, Roads4117 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi—yes, unfortunately I've been swamped by college. :P There should be a respite within the next week. Feel free to compose as you please and post your draft here. Ovinus (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

OK then, will do. I may post it on the userpage as it would be much easier to read, rather than a whole article taking up the space here. Also, please tell me if you think it is too similar to SABRE. Roads4117 (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

January 26 - update on draft

Hi Ovinus, how is college going?

I have posted it on our shared userpage, and have nearly completed the route section.

My plan is to put it on to Draft: A2213 road when we have finished edited with it over here, and then just wait for up to a month (maybe a bit less - for example, 3 weeks) or so to see if anyone has changed anything, and then hopefully put it up on the main page. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2 - draft update

Hi Ovinus, how is everything? I am guessing you are busy with college , as I see you haven't contributed for a while. As for the draft, I have finished the route section, except just need to add a few more sources, and I need to finish off the tables in the 'road traffic statistics' section. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there User:Ovinus, sorry to interrupt your wikibreak, but just an FYI that I am going to do no (or maybe very little) further progress until you are back :) Roads4117 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ovinus, how are you? Sorry to interrupt your wikibreak, but just an FYI that could you please let me know when you ar free, so we can work together on this. Or I can crack on with this, and when I am done, you can give me feedback on where to improve etc. Both are just suggestions at this point, but please do let me know in the near future which one would work best. Roads4117 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus, How are you? I am just going to let you know that I am going to move the page we are working on to Draft:A2213 road as there have been no edits on that page since February 21. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability

Verifiability (WP:V) is a key content policy on Wikipedia. It says, among other things, All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Here are some questions for you to ponder; just give some free-form responses:

1. Give three examples of verifiable statements—they can be anything—along with a citation for each. As an example: Interstate 5 is over 1,300 miles long.

   (your thoughts) I think that this source is unreliable.

   @Roads4117:  Not done Interesting! We'll discuss source reliability later, but I'm simply asking whether the information is verifiable by the source. Anyway, I asked you to provide three verifiable statements of your choice (so, statement + source). You can just use a bare URL since formatting is not the focus here. Ovinus (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

2. Why does the verifiability policy matter? Why can't we just put what we know is true, and be done with it?

   (your thoughts) The verifiability policy matters because otherwise people can create a website, make stuff up about their thoughts, and cite it on Wikipedia.

   Y Yes, this is important, but make sure you understand the difference between verifiability and reliability. Verifiability is (for our purposes) ensuring that a statement is cited to a source which supports the statement. Reliability is also important, but I want to make that a separate discussion. Here's a hint: Verifiability allows other editors to check whether a statement is true. Can you expand upon why that's important? Ovinus (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

   (thoughts) This is important because editors can use the source to double-check it is true, rather than putting something on a Wikipedia page that is not true. Roads4117 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

3. In each of the examples below, explain whether the citation(s) does, or does not, support the given statement.
   1. Swedish geneticist Svante Pääbo received a Nobel Prize in 2010 for his successful sequencing of a Neanderthal's genome.

      (ans) That source says that Svante Pääbo received a Nobel Peace Prize, and that his discovery was in 2010, however it doesn't say that his discovery made him the the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010. Y good

   2. On July 19, 2019, the Google Doodle paid tribute to the Apollo 11 moon landing, complete with a link to an animated YouTube video with voiceover by astronaut Michael Collins.

      (ans) They do celebrate the 50th Anniversary, although I don't think it is Michael Collins doing the voiceover.

      Y Close, but he actually did do the voiceover. This statement sticks to the sources.

   3. The Nile River is exactly 4,258 miles long.

      (ans) The source says that the river Nile is approximately 4258 miles long, not exactly 4258 miles long.

      Y Good. Why is it important to say "approximately"? Why not just say it's 4258 miles long?

      (thoughts) It is important to say "approximately" because you need to be precise, instead of being vague and giving people the wrong information.

Q: Ovinus, I write my answer where it says your thoughts/ans or do I do a list underneath? Roads4117 16:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please plop it where I've written ans or thoughts. Ovinus (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Great! Roads4117 06:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus I have completed the verifiability policy quiz. Roads4117 06:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I've left a couple more things to respond to. Ovinus (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Roads4117: You can begin these, and the section below, when you like.

1) Please try to find a citation for each of the following uncited sentences in articles, and link the diffs where you added them. If you can't find a source within a reasonable time, that's fine.

• In Chicken: Many people feed chickens in part with kitchen food scraps.
• In IBM: In 2002 IBM acquired PwC Consulting, the consulting arm of PwC which was merged into its IBM Global Services.
• In Major film studios: On April 8, 2022, Discovery, Inc. completed its acquisition of WarnerMedia and was renamed Warner Bros. Discovery. The primary goal of the merger is to combine their respective streaming services into one (HBO Max, Discovery+) and to reach 400 million subscribers. My edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist.

Not a great sign, but what website is it? Put a space in the middle of the domain name if necessary. Anyway, well done on the first two; please add those citations to the respective articles. Ovinus (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It was https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/warnermedia-discovery-complete-merger-become-warner-bros-discovery-2022-04-08/

Y That supports the first sentence, good. It does not support the second sentence though. Ovinus (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

2) Find five citation needed tags on articles you find interesting (road articles are fine), and provide good citations for them.

• A509 road When reasearching, there were some more citations to do with the Isham Bypass Scheme, so if you want me to cite them as well, feel free to ask.
• A511 road
• A1300 road Sorry that this is a forum.

Ah, I think this is a good segue into discussing reliable sources! I'll make a section for that. Ovinus (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Also Ovinus, sorry for not doing the five articles, however if I find anymore road articles with citations, then I will add them. On top of this, when I have found the five articles and you have approved them, I will add them to those articles. Thanks, Roads4117 15:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Citing road articles

1. The verifiability policy is worded quite carefully. Why must a source directly support the given statement – why can't it just be implied? (Think about the Nile example above)

   (thoughts) A source must directly support the given statement because the I a nutshell section of WP:V says that readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations, and as you said with the Nile example above, there is a big difference between exactly 4258 miles, and approximately 4258 miles. Roads4117 (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

   Y

2. There are of course gradations to "direct" support, about which people may disagree – we're seeing that on WT:HWY as we speak. One important exception, of relevance to roads, is WP:CALC. Please describe this policy in your own words, and why it is useful.

   (thoughts) The policy WP:CALC is useful because it says that more or less everything on Wikipedia needs to not be original research (WP:OR). The in the nutshell for WP:NOR says Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Roads4117 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

   Y Good on the WP:NOR part, and perhaps that should have been my first question. But the importance of WP:CALC is that it's a very narrow exception to NOR, that allows us to convert between units. My point is that WP:OR has few exceptions, and we should stick to the sources carefully. So, we can convert between units, but we can't start giving in-depth interpretations of maps.

Copyright

Copyright (WP:C) is another key policy on Wikipedia. It requires (with limited exceptions) that all text on Wikipedia be freely licensed, or in the public domain. Copyright issues are unfamiliar to many in today's age of copying from websites, and is unfortunately one of the most common reasons leading to good-natured, good-faith contributors being blocked.

Because you've had trouble copying from sources before, I request that you don't copy from sources at all for the time being—just ignore the "limited exceptions". As you get practice paraphrasing, we can start to quote sources appropriately. Questions (just give your current thoughts):

1. Why is copyright policy enforced so vigorously on Wikipedia? Who cares whether we copy from some random guy's website?

   (thoughts) The copyright policy is enforced so vigorously on Wikipedia because, somebody/a group of people have taken the time to write an article, then you come along and copy it for your own website/a website you volunteer on. After all though, that information may not be reliable - as you say it could just be a random guy's website, of which everything is made up, if you copy it, then everybody knows where you have copied it from. Roads4117 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

   N It's not at all about reliability. For example, I can copy some stuff from a high-quality journal article, and it'd probably be highly reliable. What matters is that it is illegal to copy a bunch of someone's work and put it in an article; we call this a "copyright violation". Once text has been inappropriately copied into an article, it must be removed (regardless of quality or relevance) as a matter of policy. That's why it's serious.

   Please explain this policy more thoroughly in your own words. As a guide: What happens if we have a bunch of text copied in, and other editors expand on the same text – what will happen to the new text? What is legally possible if large amounts of an article are copied from other sources?

   (thoughts) If we have a bunch of text copied in, and other editors expand on the same text, it is still copyright, just with a little extra text. I think it is legally possible to copy something if you only do it for one or two sentences. For it not to be copyright, you would have to change the section you copied into your own words. Roads4117 (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

   N Not quite. You should not copy sentences at all.

   Here's a tip: When writing an article, read the source, then put what you read in your own words, without looking at the source at the same time. Then, after you have written it, look back at the source to make sure you didn't make any mistakes. We'll try this below. Ovinus (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

2. If I take a paragraph from a source and change the words to use various synonyms (for example: "heavy" to "weighty"), does this still present a copyright issue?

   (thoughts) This change would still present a copyright issue as you are only changing one word. Roads4117 (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

   Y

@Roads4117: I suggest you work on these two first. Ovinus (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Practice paraphrasing

1) Please try to paraphrase the following paragraph. That means, explain in your own words, and use less detail unless it's very relevant. I'd like your paraphrase should be between 30 and 80 words—so, fairly short in comparison.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Ms Kelly said the hard-shoulder extension could be used on the M1 and M6.

The Transport Secretary also insisted the policy move was not a soft response or second best choice following the Government's climbdown from introducing national road pricing.

Tolls could still be introduced in the bid to tackle congestion on Britain's roads sometime in the future, but it was more of a long-term possibility.

Ms Kelly continued: "I think there will always be a need for road widening where there is a huge and severe congestion problem because in those situations you just need to maximise the number of cars that can drive on a particular stretch of road.

"But what I am doing today is asking the question are there bits of the network, and it could be bits of the M1 or parts of the M6 for instance, where an active traffic management approach... might not be a better way to get more people to use the motorway network and improve how reliable their journey times are." (Source: [3])

We want to summarize what Ms Kelly has stated, but not go into too much detail, and definitely not copy it all. Give it a go, then we can discuss. Ovinus (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Speaking on a BBC programme, Ms Kelly said that the hard-shoulder extension could be used for the M1 and M6, and that tolls could be introduced to tackle congestion, like the M6 Toll in Birmingham. She went on to say that "there will always be a need for road widening" and "there is a huge and severe congestion problem". Her main point, however, was whether the M1 and M6 need an active traffic management approach to "get more people using the motorway network and improve reliability on the road". Roads4117 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Y We're mostly there, but there are two issues. First, when quoting someone, please use "double quotes", not italics. I have corrected this for you. Second, I would like another paraphrase that does not quote the subject at all, merely puts it in her own words. Therefore, no double quotes (or italics). Ovinus (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ms Kelly said that the hard-shoulder extension should be used on both the M1 and the M6. To tackle congestion on Britain's roads, tolls could be introduced, like the M6 Toll near Birmingham. She continued to say that there will always be a need for road widening where there is severe congestion problems. Her main point however, was whether the M1 and M6 need an active traffic management approach system, to improve reliability on Britain's road network. Roads4117 (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Y Better. I'd say it's longer than it needs to be; I'll try write an example paraphrase when I have time. Let's try another one. Ovinus (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Roads4117 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

2) Please try the following two paragraphs, about the opening of the M1 road in the UK ([4]):

While the M1 was not Britain's first motorway – an honour bestowed on the 8¼-mile-long Preston bypass, now part of the M6 – the first 72 miles of what was variously called the London to Birmingham or London to Yorkshire motorway was Britain's first major motorway. It was also the first southern English motorway, an experimental space that was located far closer to London – and the offices and homes of the majority of national journalists, politicians and cultural commentators – than the Preston bypass.

Here was a new kind of road, with dual carriageways, three lanes in each direction, a continuous ‘hard shoulder’, no speed limit, and flyover junctions. Marples’ fears reflected concerns long held by civil servants and journalists. Would the nation’s drivers and vehicles be able to cope with the conditions and speeds of the new motorway? Would they possess ‘lane discipline’, misuse the hard shoulder, or push their cars beyond their limits?

A few things to note: The original article uses stuff like rhetorical questions, which are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It also goes into far more detail than what I'd like you to do. Try to summarize this information in 40 words or less, leaving out details you don't have space for. Ovinus (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Except the M6 Preston Bypass, the M1 was Britain's first major motorway. It was a new type of road - with dual carriageways, three lanes in each direction, a continuous ‘hard shoulder’, no speed limit, and flyover junctions. Roads4117 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roads4117 (talk • contribs)

Y Don't just copy like that! There's a lot to draw from, so we can summarize. For example:

At 115 kilometres (72 mi) long on opening, M1 was Britain's first major motorway, and the first in southern England. It introduced to the public a new and unfamiliar type of road, with flyover junctions, continuous barriers on the shoulder, no speed limit.

Note how I tried to incorporate the second part of the second paragraph—worry from the public—into my second sentence. Ovinus (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

3) Let's try this text from the same article. Try summarize this in less than 20 words. Ovinus (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This exciting new motorway was widely celebrated as an important national achievement, a symbol of British engineering expertise, but it was as much a product of migrant labour as British engineering effort. Official accounts of construction celebrated the national and ethnic diversity of the motorway labour force, which included workers from Hungary, Poland, Jamaica, India, Canada and South Africa, as well as large numbers from Ireland and Britain.

The new motorway was widely celebrated as an amazing piece of British engineering. The ethnic diversity of the motorway builders included people from Hungary, Poland, Jamaica, India, Canada and South Africa, Ireland and Britain. Roads4117 (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Y It's better. We're still copying words like "new motorway" and "widely celebrated", but I find that comparatively minor. Ovinus (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Another one while I'm gone

Try to paraphrase the following, from [5]. Ovinus (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In 1975, a number of motorway roads ran through the heart of Belfast. However, these became over-crowded. So, a number of road developments were introduced to reduce congestion.

• The Westlink was built in 1981 to connect the M1 and M2 motorways. However, further widening and extension upgrades were carried out in 2002 and again between 2006 and 2009.
• The M3 cross-harbour project began in 1995 to join the M2 with the Sydenham Bypass.

Both projects resulted in delays and diversions and when the roads were opened the congestion was as bad as ever. This has meant that the journey time from one place in the city to another has increased considerably.

In 1975, numerous motorways ran through Belfast, but these soon became overcrowded. So a number of road developments were introduced to reduce congestion; the Westlink, and the M3 cross-harbour project. When the road's opened, congestion was worse than before, and journey times throughout the city increased considerably. Roads4117 (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In 1975, Belfast saw a considerable amount of traffic on its motorways but this eventually caused an overcrowding issue. To combat this, various road developments were implemented; however, these only had the opposite effect with congestion being much worse and journey times substantially longer. Roads4117 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Y I'm fine with this, nice work. Ovinus (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

The sources you provided for the verifiability section were good, except maybe for the chicken one, but that's alright. If you have a "meh" source and a high-quality source which say the same thing, it's usually better to cite the latter (or even both, if the latter is paywalled). So, for example, we could find a journal source which talks about chickens in culture and cite that.

In your own words, what is a self-published source?

A self-published source is a source which has been written and published by only one person. Roads4117 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is it important to usually cite sources that are not self-published?

It is usually important to cite sources that are not self-published because the website have got multiple people to check it over and over again. Roads4117 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Y Yes, there is more oversight from more people, making the output likely of higher quality.

Why are self-published sources still valuable in the process of researching a Wikipedia article? How should we use roads.org.uk going forward?

Self-published sources are still valuable in the process of researching a Wikipedia article if they are verifiable and reliable. Going forward, I think we should use roads.org.uk if they're no other sources showing this information.

Y This is not what I meant. The reason why self-published sources may still be helpful is that they can point us to reliable sources that are not self-published, which we should ultimately cite for information.

A2213 to do

• add more citations to Sabina Nessa part
• finish off the road traffic statistics

Roads4117 (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)