Talk:Coventry ring road

Did you know nomination

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 Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Coventry ring road

• ... that with some weaving sections of just 91 metres (300 ft), Coventry ring road, was the first grade-separated road in the world built at such a small scale? Source: Redknap, Brian (2004). Engineering the development of Coventry. pp 37–38

  ALT0a: ... that with weaving sections between junctions of just 90 metres (300 ft) in places, Coventry ring road, was the first grade-separated road in the world built at such a small scale?

  • ALT1:... that Coventry ring road has been likened to a roller coaster and a Scalextric? Source:
  • ALT2:... that Coventry ring road, the first grade-separated road in the world built at such a small scale, has been likened to a roller coaster and a Scalextric?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/S.T.H.
• Comment: Two hooks that seem interesting from the article, plus a third which combines the two. Happy to consider other variants or options as well.

5x expanded by Amakuru (talk). Self-nominated at 11:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC).

• @Amakuru: This article looks great, especially after the expansion. I just had a few comments:

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Not a problem per se, but for the original hook, I would also clarify that 91 meters is the weaving distance between interchanges. It was a bit hard for me to understand that hook. epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: thanks for the review and your kind words. I have tweaked the wording a bit, in ALT0a, to make it a bit clearer what's being talked about. I've also adjusted the significant figures down to make it 90m rather than 91. The original figure from the source was in feet, but the article is using metric otherwise. If you have any better suggestions, then please do let me know. The QPQ is also now done. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thanks for the response. I don't really have a better suggestion than ALT0a at the moment. I'm assuming your QPQ review is Template:Did you know nominations/S.T.H., so I think the nomination is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is Template:Did you know nominations/S.T.H.. Sorry, I thought I had added that to the template. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: could you review ALT1 and ALT2? I think ALT1 works better than the "weaving" hooks. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Confirming that all hooks are fine, and that I just had that particular comment about the original hook. epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sentence fragment

@Amakuru: I noticed you added an incomplete sentence in § Stage four: Hill Cross – Holyhead Road ("At the same time, the"). I thought the remainder of the sentence had been removed accidentally but the whole subsection was added in a single revision with the incomplete sentence already there, so hopefully you would be able to fix it? Jc86035 (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jc86035: oh, thanks for spotting that. I assume it was something I started writing when the article was in draft, and then forgot to come back to. I'm not sure what I was planning to say, so I've commented it out for now, but I will be returning to this to hopefully get it to GA and FA so will revisit the matter then! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coventry ring road/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• What is "one at-grade roundabout"??

  Linked. According to dictionaries, this is an American term, but I have no idea what its UK equivalent. I've reworded a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "giving it a reputation" what's it?

  The road. Clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A roads" link.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link Kenilworth.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Barely any links in the second para of the lead and, unless I'm mistaken, absolutely ZERO in the third para. Do you hate Wikipedia?

  Yes, how did you guess? Some links added. Let me know if I've missed any obvious ones.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "both a Scalextric and " track?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• A429 is linked differently in lead and "infobox".

  Yeah, that was the {{jct}} template behaving oddly. Honestly, these things are more hassle than their worth sometimes, and the A429 was also coloured green when it should have been white for a non-primary route at that location. I've ditched those and just gone for a straight bulleted list instead.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "designation A4053 in" should that be A4053 as a redirect back here?

  REmoved.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "View of Junction 6 of the ring road" from the south, north,...?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "only at grade junction" wouldn't proper English call that an "at-grade junction"?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link "roundabout".

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's a real pity we don't have a decent drawing of the ring road with junctions. Could you put in a request at the map creation people? I think it would really embellish the description section instead of that very generic photo which is not particularly useful.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a turn off to stay on" you're honestly telling me there's no actual link for this right now?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• B4544 - any link for B roads?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to Holyhead" link.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "routing the A45 around the" overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "including the cathedral, were left" overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the first bombing" was it singular or perhaps a first series of bombings?

Any thoughts on this? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: done. Turns out it was a much simpler issuer than I thought at first, I've just changed it to "series of bombings" are you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• "statue of Lady Godiva added" perhaps worth a footnote describing her relevance to Cov?

  As you wish.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "ring roads - a" en-dash.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• " a 439-yard stretch" convert.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "estimated £310,000 " inflate.

  Done (and others).  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "compulsory purchase orders" is there a link for this?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "traffic lights" link.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "separate works - a roundabout" en-dash.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "providing a grant of £232,000 as part of total costs of £310,000."

  Inflation added.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Stage two is the earliest..." sentence so full stop.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "council issued compulsory purchase orders on buildings" ah look, you linked it there.

  Unlinked.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the A45 and A46 roads in the south and the M6 motorway in" all overlinked.

  Unlinked.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "also divided Spon Street, which" also.

  Unlinked.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "cheaply" inexpensively? (encyclopedia)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Hill Cross flyover was..." sentence, full stop.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "by mid-1965.[95] By November 1965" repetitive.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "time the A46 road due north " overlinked.

  Unlinked.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Stage six: London Road – Queen's Road" this section is really clunky with lots of short paragraphs, suggest you improve the flow.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• "employees of the General Electric Company factory" overlinked.

  Unlinked.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "from Pool Meadow Bus Station, was " likewise.

  Unlinked.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "in the Guardian, " the is part of the title.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "city walls".[150][145] He" ref order.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Junctions section is a bit odd. Needs that map.

  It was added earlier. Perhaps the section isn't even needed? Who knows.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Source: [4]" no space.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Epic. But my first pass, so be wary. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru there's one issue you perhaps didn't see? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: hmm yes, I hadn't got around to checking that issue yet, sorry. Bit silly when it's the last one though, hopefully I'll get to it tomorrow, then you can do your second pass. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coventry Ring Road (A4053) at sunset.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2025

i think that you should fix these random letters here Randomranny (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Randomranny: I don't know what random numbers you mean. Can you be more specific? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

weaving distance

Excellent article - congratulations. One minor concern. In the lead, it states: "with weaving sections between them, some as short as 300 yards (270 m)". The "Design and construction" section says "The weaving distance between junctions is only 300 feet (90 m) in places". Is there a contradiction? 300 yards or 300 feet? I couldn't verify the cited source (Redknap 2004, pp. 37–38). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully @Amakuru will be able to find the answer quickly. Failing that, I'll see if I have any sources that can clarify. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gitz6666 and HJ Mitchell: it seems like this error was a result of an inexplicable epic fail on my part when I was trying to make the ordering of units consistent and somehow ended up changing the units altogether. I've checked the source and it definitely says 300 feet. Fixed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

"Epic fail"? It's just a small typo! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I meant "epic fail" in the sense of "what on Earth was I thinking?" rather than because the error itself was of huge importance to Wikipedia as a whole 😁 Maybe "brain fart" would be a more accurate term?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It's easily done when you have lots of stats and figures in an article! Glad it was easy to get to the bottom of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)