Just checked the page on the A4123 to see that details of the Burnt Tree Junction have been updated.

I'll be honest and say that I find some of the flippancy within the page a little immature and I think is a bad reflection of the society.

Quotes from the page include:

It is marked by many signal-controlled junctions that frustrate progress along the road.

The junction itself is, not surprisingly, light-controlled

there are roadworks in progress in order to convert the roundabout to, yes, you've guessed, yet another light-controlled junction.

we meet one of the most notorious junctions in the Black Country at Burnt Tree

Before long, we pass under another disused rail line

Whilst I understand that some may be frustrated from driving it every day, should we really be writing up pages in such an aggrieved fashion? I think we're putting people off from using the site as a definitive source, if we give a perception of angry little geeks in our bedrooms.

Yes, we should be looking to improve articles - some of the Wiki pages come pretty much straight from Roads by 10, some 10 years ago when the Internet and SABRE were a very different place.

We've been asking people to improve things for a long time - so get stuck in and change it!



What's wrong with that line? I can't see how you can rephrase that one much better beyond changing "we pass" to "the road passes".

Fair point about the last bit. I thought I saw the use of "yet" within the piece. My mistake and for that I apologise.

I'll be happy to change it but I wanted to see if my thoughts were different to others.

Go for it!

While accepting the point about the general tone of articles, I would say some mention of the fact that the vast number of traffic lights makes the A4123 much less attractive as a through route than it might appear on the map is justified.

Have to agree with Peter here, it's a truly awful road and there are too many traffic lights. I think there is more sarcasm there than bitter-ness

I use the road a lot and I'm not the biggest fan but I don't think it is offers factual information throughout, which was- of course- my original point.

There are lots and lots of route descriptions that were written for SABRE as it was ten years ago, which are now totally out of step with what we want today. Have a look at the history, and if you can't see any changes since 2009 when the article was copied from the Digest, assume it's been abandoned and is fine to change. Guy Barry's articles in particular are full of whimsical crap that should be removed as soon as something better comes along (here is an earlier example of mine).

Having said all of that, the paragraphs Matthew refers to in his original post appear to have been written by Steven in January 2010, so in this instance I think it was fair enough to ask before changing it.