This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Couple unsourced paragraphs, especially "Sites of interest". Source #2 looks like it might be interpreted a little too much. I can't judge most of the stuff sourced to books for lack of access. #10 probably merits a pagenumber. Lead is unsourced and not supported anywhere else.
I take your point about over-interpreting Millerd's Map. The trouble is, I'm trying to prove a negative - that nothing much happened - which is difficult. It would be a shame to lose the point though, IMO.
I have also added a Ref for the statement about the house-numbering scheme. This again is not ideal because you need to zoom in to the EH map to see the house numbers. but without this information the 'Listed buildings' table would possibly confuse people who were more accustomed to the European scheme.
Please let me know if I've missed anything or if more work is required
I think everything is referenced now. If there is anything else that needs sorting can you please be specific? The image was published by the Bristol Record Office, a reputable public body who are sensitive to copyright issues and cautious about which elements of their extensive collections they publish. Their statement: 'We are working to make our holdings more accessible to the public by engaging directly with Wikipedia'.
RedSquirrel (
talk)
13:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The Civic Society were criticising a future plan because it did not seek to remove the existing dual carriageway; thus they said:
The Society argues for:[...]removing the ironic length of dual carriageway
as opposed to:
The Society argues for:[...]removing the proposed length of dual carriageway
This current Google image shows why they described it so:
https://goo.gl/maps/ikAbsU9NX3C2 . It is hardly worth the name, being only a few metres in length.
The other citation for that paragraph is from a chronology of events which reads:
[September 1963]High St/Wine St corner: traffic lights removed for new roadway
Page 6 of Ref.14 has:
The tightening of the junction at High Street and Wine Street offers an opportunity to introduce a focal building and exceptional public space
So the crossroads was altered in 1963 and a new roadway was made; that roadway was the 'ironic' dual carriageway which the Civic Society and the City Council would wish to see removed.
I can see that none of these pieces of evidence on its own makes a 100% watertight case for there being a short length of dual carriageway, ironic or otherwise, linking High Street with Wine Street but put together I hope you will agree that they make a strong circumstantial one.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Couple unsourced paragraphs, especially "Sites of interest". Source #2 looks like it might be interpreted a little too much. I can't judge most of the stuff sourced to books for lack of access. #10 probably merits a pagenumber. Lead is unsourced and not supported anywhere else.
I take your point about over-interpreting Millerd's Map. The trouble is, I'm trying to prove a negative - that nothing much happened - which is difficult. It would be a shame to lose the point though, IMO.
I have also added a Ref for the statement about the house-numbering scheme. This again is not ideal because you need to zoom in to the EH map to see the house numbers. but without this information the 'Listed buildings' table would possibly confuse people who were more accustomed to the European scheme.
Please let me know if I've missed anything or if more work is required
I think everything is referenced now. If there is anything else that needs sorting can you please be specific? The image was published by the Bristol Record Office, a reputable public body who are sensitive to copyright issues and cautious about which elements of their extensive collections they publish. Their statement: 'We are working to make our holdings more accessible to the public by engaging directly with Wikipedia'.
RedSquirrel (
talk)
13:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)reply
The Civic Society were criticising a future plan because it did not seek to remove the existing dual carriageway; thus they said:
The Society argues for:[...]removing the ironic length of dual carriageway
as opposed to:
The Society argues for:[...]removing the proposed length of dual carriageway
This current Google image shows why they described it so:
https://goo.gl/maps/ikAbsU9NX3C2 . It is hardly worth the name, being only a few metres in length.
The other citation for that paragraph is from a chronology of events which reads:
[September 1963]High St/Wine St corner: traffic lights removed for new roadway
Page 6 of Ref.14 has:
The tightening of the junction at High Street and Wine Street offers an opportunity to introduce a focal building and exceptional public space
So the crossroads was altered in 1963 and a new roadway was made; that roadway was the 'ironic' dual carriageway which the Civic Society and the City Council would wish to see removed.
I can see that none of these pieces of evidence on its own makes a 100% watertight case for there being a short length of dual carriageway, ironic or otherwise, linking High Street with Wine Street but put together I hope you will agree that they make a strong circumstantial one.