'the geology of the moors resulted in the carriageways splitting for three-quarters of a mile in the middle of this section' - this makes it sound like the road was built with both carriageways together and then the geology split them apart.
'Two contracts were awarded for the section of the M62 between Lofthouse and Ferrybridge, which were awarded in 1972, and completed in 1974.' - 2 awardeds. This could be re-written to only use one.
'Construction between the M1 and the A1' paragraph - why could a lightweight superstructure be used? did they not need to actually take care then? 'to engineers' should be 'to the engineers' I think.
I vaguely remember something about the design of the over-the-top footbridge for the
Pennine Way, can't find anything online now but will try to look in a book later.
Things that I might possibly expect to find in the article - cost of the road, who the contractors were especially if there was anything interesting about them (for example 1 firm got all the work or 1 of them had massive delays), does the road have particular traffic problems? are there any plans to widen it etc? are there any accident blackspots on it? how many people die on it per year?
What is happening with the various rivers on the UK map? These really don't help you to place the motorway accurately. A map with other major motorways or just major cities marked as dots might be easier to follow. On second thoughts I suppose you can tell that the motorway follows a major river quite closely so you might guess it was mainly in the river valley but at this scale the information is fairly meaningless. Having the missing M60 section marked in a different colour might make it clearer too.
JMiall18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
From the Relative emphasis section: Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only. i.e. if something like a long official title (if the M62 had one) would be stated in the lead only, but significant facts (in this case, things like being the highest motorway in Britain) should be included in the body.
Oldelpaso18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
To a certain extent, the article reads like
Construction of the M62. Going into more depth on topics other than construction would be beneficial. For example, the effect of weather in the Pennines is mentioned briefly, this could be expanded upon. We are given the traffic figures for 2005, how have traffic levels changed over time?
A greater diversity of sources might be helpful, the majority of references are to a single site. Presumably several books have been written about motorways, or about the UK transport system in broader terms; it could be worth seeing if your local library has anything useful.
'the geology of the moors resulted in the carriageways splitting for three-quarters of a mile in the middle of this section' - this makes it sound like the road was built with both carriageways together and then the geology split them apart.
'Two contracts were awarded for the section of the M62 between Lofthouse and Ferrybridge, which were awarded in 1972, and completed in 1974.' - 2 awardeds. This could be re-written to only use one.
'Construction between the M1 and the A1' paragraph - why could a lightweight superstructure be used? did they not need to actually take care then? 'to engineers' should be 'to the engineers' I think.
I vaguely remember something about the design of the over-the-top footbridge for the
Pennine Way, can't find anything online now but will try to look in a book later.
Things that I might possibly expect to find in the article - cost of the road, who the contractors were especially if there was anything interesting about them (for example 1 firm got all the work or 1 of them had massive delays), does the road have particular traffic problems? are there any plans to widen it etc? are there any accident blackspots on it? how many people die on it per year?
What is happening with the various rivers on the UK map? These really don't help you to place the motorway accurately. A map with other major motorways or just major cities marked as dots might be easier to follow. On second thoughts I suppose you can tell that the motorway follows a major river quite closely so you might guess it was mainly in the river valley but at this scale the information is fairly meaningless. Having the missing M60 section marked in a different colour might make it clearer too.
JMiall18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
From the Relative emphasis section: Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only. i.e. if something like a long official title (if the M62 had one) would be stated in the lead only, but significant facts (in this case, things like being the highest motorway in Britain) should be included in the body.
Oldelpaso18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
To a certain extent, the article reads like
Construction of the M62. Going into more depth on topics other than construction would be beneficial. For example, the effect of weather in the Pennines is mentioned briefly, this could be expanded upon. We are given the traffic figures for 2005, how have traffic levels changed over time?
A greater diversity of sources might be helpful, the majority of references are to a single site. Presumably several books have been written about motorways, or about the UK transport system in broader terms; it could be worth seeing if your local library has anything useful.