# Talk:A9 dualling project

Just noting that this article was removed from the main page for various reasons after 10 hours, as was reported to WP:ERRORS: [1]. If this gets to GA (which its currently awaiting review), then it might be worth another try. JuniperChill (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@JuniperChill, there are some citation errors still in here that you'll want to fix before the GA review starts. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
done! If i take more than 12 hours to respond, then its because i'm getting really busy with things IRL (see my talk page for the banner). I may not be back until ~6pm Uk time JuniperChill (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I was looking this over as a potential GA review, but in fairness to everyone's time, I think it's worth pointing out that I don't believe this should be a standalone article. The A9 road (Scotland) article needs some attention and trimming in general, but could easily host all of the information on this page. There is much background about the project's origins and construction, all of which is directly related to the roadway itself. I'd also suggest merging in Killer A9 too as it just pulls from both articles. It makes more sense to provide a full picture instead of scattering bits and pieces across multiple articles. It appears there's a good amount to talk about, but not enough that would require separate articles, even from a WP:PAGESIZE perspective. Grk1011 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, the size of this page is about the same as the A9 (both are roughly 42kb in size) and its inappropriate for half of the A9 page to be focused on the dualling program. Although the project page is 2000 words compared to the A9s 1700, the A9 page is longer in terms of how much you have to scroll down. Plus the info about the dualling program in the A9 page is at least talked about in summary style. Plus this page will eventually be much longer than the A9 page once more sections of the A9 start and finish construction. (Currently only 2/11 sections are finished and see WP:WIP so you can see why I made this page)
The project page is notable as many sources have covered this project, is very long (at 110 mi), and has been severely delayed by 10 years. A road project would almost never be the subject of its own page but this is an exception for reasons why I said earlier (WP:ROTM). For example, see the electrification projects of the Great Western Mainline and Midland Mainline which both have their own articles about the electrification project (both were delayed and partially complete/cancelled). JuniperChill (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with User:Grk1011. Much better to concentrate information in one article than to split it - especially for pages of this length. As far as a GA nomination goes, it's best to wait until after the works are either complete or definitely cancelled before seeking a review. Articles about projects that are in progress go out of date very quickly and don't have the long-term stability that is desirable for higher-rated articles. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination. 213.31.218.96 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:PAGESIZE which I linked above, articles less than 6,000 words are not good candidates for splitting. Author JuniperChill notes that as of now, the sum of both would be 3,700 words (2,000 plus 1,700), though I think that would be likely less with the removal of overlap. While I understand that the dualling would take up a good portion of the article, all of the dualling information is about the roadway itself, not some sort of tangential related subject. I think you have a long way to go before needing to split this, even after the project is complete and more information is added. Grk1011 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the project itself, the project article also covers the delays to it, the criticism, and the fact that the A9 is one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland. Plus like I said, this is a large £3.4 billion project, not some sort of adding cycling lanes, a single grade separation project, that sort of things. Plus, I think a section dealing with one specific topic is too much especially since the project page has more words than the A9 although the A9 page also consists of bullet points and tables, both of which do not count towards the 1700 words prose size. Additionally, at WP:WHENSPLIT [If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed [emphasis added]. Plus the Level Crossing Removal Project isn't complete yet and its already a GA? JuniperChill (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in this subject and was willing to review this for you, so I hope you understand where I'm coming from. The A9 article is not close to GA standards yet and needs work (particularly the list of links in the "Route" section is a no-go). This could be a very comprehensive article if you combined the three related articles together (this article, A9 road (Scotland), and Killer A9). The difference between this subject and the Level Crossing one you link above is that the dualling pertains to one marked route while the Level Crossing is a systemwide improvement touching many articles (it's  one defined project affecting many entities/articles); that's not the case here. As I've said before, everything in the dualling article is directly related to the main A9 article and neither are particularly long. I can only see benefits to combining them. Grk1011 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I can see the sense in potentially merging these topics eventually but for now I think the current standalone article is the best approach. My reasoning would be that the dualling of this major road and all the information and news it brings fits better here for now, as it deals with the topic of dualling. Once the road is dualled however, then it becomes very much a case of likely merging key items, history, photos etc into the A9 article as the dualling is completed. That would seem logical. However, as the A9 infrastructure dualling project is expected to continue for quite some time yet, I would support keeping things as they are for now here. As an aside, I would actually think that the Killer A9 article is the one that should be merged into the A9 article. That is the article that strikes me as perhaps strange to be standalone from the A9 article. The dualling article is about the infrastructure project which seems notable enough to standalone. Coldupnorth (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I definitely agree that Killer A9 should be merged to the A9 article. Looking at the logs, it looks like an NPP reviewer hasn't even picked it up yet. I'm not sure why that needed its own article because even if its notable, it could easily be described in an existing one. Anyway, I'm not looking to edit this article until new years as I spent hours editing this one and I need to focus on other articles, plus I'm on holiday next month, according to my user talk page. Additionally, someone added almost 3k of prose characters to this article. And like I said earlier, the upgrading of the MML/GWML both have their own articles, so this one deserves it too. JuniperChill (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I am planning to edit this article to reach GA standards after a pause from editing by end of June. I am using this section to track my progress before a 2nd GAN. Guess I didn't expect to be closer than I thought to meeting the criteria. JuniperChill (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Since I did most of it, I'm now nominating it for a second GAN! JuniperChill (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)