# Talk:Kelston toll road

I just wanted to add this here to make sure there's no confusion, and it can also be added to the article if need be.
Some sources say that the diversion was 14 miles (23 km) long. Some sources say that the diversion was 10 miles (16 km) long.
Per WP:CK, a non-specialised physical map and a bit of string or google maps will tell you that this discrepancy is because:

It is a 10mi diversion if you want to get from Kelston to Bath but can't because the road is closed.
It is a 14mi diversion if you want to get from one side of the closed road to the other, via Bath.
Edit: mixed up miles and kilometres
Please let me know if you think this is worth actually explaining (with the only source being common knowledge). JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 17:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest is to say that the diversion was 10–14 km. Then it's a matter of deciding if a brief mention is needed along the lines of "10–14 kilometres (6.2–8.7 mi), depending on exact starting points[1][2]" or similar. Imzadi 1979 →  21:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I feel like giving a 4 mile range (btw I mixed up the numbers above it's fixed now) is more confusing than just using one. I chose to use 14mi because that's the definition of the diversion; it is the distance it takes to do what the road would do before, not to go to a place that some people may want to using that road. I think it may be best to use 14mi in the lead, then explain in the background section that the diversion was 10mi to get to Bath and 14mi to do the full diversion. However, the only verification of that will be google maps under WP:CK. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 10:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
That would work too, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 →  19:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I was curious about this, and decided we could do with some more info
Only vehicles under 3.5 tons were allowed to use the road, and cyclists were not permitted at all.[12]
I'm going to quote a non-reliable source here: https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=89265
I've been using the A431 through Kelston whenever I get the chance since the landslip caused it to be closed at the beginning of this year. It was closed to motor vehicles immediately, then about a week later closed to all road users, but a few weeks later a footpath alternative was constructed in an adjacent field, about 400 yards long, which cyclists can also use, to by-pass the actual landslip. It is limestone dust path, but does involve carrying the bike up steps to reach it.
The section of the A431 around the area of the landslip does give fantastic views over the river Avon countryside and also up into the Cotswolds above, and the round trip along this and then back along the Bristol & Bath Railway Path has been a wonderful almost car-free run from Bath, which very few people seem to have cottoned onto. I haven't yet tried it since the toll road opened on Friday, but the A431 is a narrow twisty main road, so even just 500 cars a day will make it quite a bit less pleasant (though still worth taking for the views).
I wouldn't want to try to use the toll road, as it involves a steep climb into the field and from what I've seen is very rough and bumpy, far worse than the alternative temporary footpath.
Furthermore, you can actually see the temporary footpath - and stairs - in the OpenStreetMap extract used as the image for this article. It seems remiss not to mention that the council built this for pedestrians, despite no official detour for motor vehicles.
If anyone can find a WP:RS for the above, maybe a B&NES council document about the temporary footpath, it'd be useful to document that other road users did have a free detour provided by the council. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kelston toll road/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: JacobTheRox (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: JuniperChill (talk · contribs) 13:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jacob, I will be reviewing this article. As this is my first GA nomination, please bear that in mind. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to do this review. It was also my first time nominating an article so we have something in common there :) JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 14:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I love it when a new reviewer meets a new nominator. And we even have usernames that start with the same letter JuniperChill (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)


### Prose
Lead

The Kelston toll road was an unofficial temporary toll road in the village of Kelston, Somerset, England. Link Somerset.
I disagree per MOS:GEOLINK, which suggests either [[Kelston]], Somerset, England or [[Kelston|Kelston, Somerset]], England.
Ah ok, I didn't know about that.
The A431 closed through Kelston due to fears of a landslip on 17 February 2014 - add 'was' between 'A431' and 'closed'
 Done
After 14 weeks of operation, the toll road closed on 17 December - I assume it meant to say 17 November
 Done, mb
The road was returned to fields in February 2015. - remove was
Is it not passive though? The road returned to fields suggests the road had a mind of its own, rather than being the recipient of demolition works.
Ah ok
Background

The A431 road is an A road - remove road after 'A431' to reduce redundancy
 Done
On 17 February 2014, cracks that had been found in the road near the village of Kelston, Somerset - remove Somerset as already mentioned in lead
 Done
There were also suggestions that the army be used to help repair the road - Add British Army for the benefit of readers.
 Done
Creation of the toll

In order to avoid the closed road, local four-wheel drive car owners - to "local four-wheel drive owners"
 Done
In response, Race suggested that Watts built a toll road over the field to "Race suggested that Watts should build a toll road over the field"
 Reworded
he considered building it as an aluminium track, however this was abandoned for safety reasons in favour of building a conventional road to "he considered building it as an aluminium track, but this was abandoned for safety reasons in favour of building a conventional road" per WP:WTW
'But' is also a WTW so I've reworded the sentence accordingly here.
The road had toll booths at both ends, they did not install any boom barriers. to "The road had toll booths at both ends without installing any boom barriers
 reworded more nicely
Operation

The media also showed support for the toll, with the Daily Mail going as far to suggest that Watts should be knighted for his efforts. I would remove this sentence and its sources altogether since both Daily Mail and The Sun are deprecated per WP:RSP
I was debating this myself as RSP is more about using it to verify information, rather than citing the papers' own views on the subject. I have removed it because I don't really think it's relevant in the wider article.
the toll road was only 1,198 feet (365 m) long when it opened, and could be travelled in approximately 1+1⁄2 minutes. I would replace the second half with "and only took 1+1⁄2 minutes"
I disagree because 'took' is needlessly ambiguous. "took 1+1/2 minutes to travel" sounds cleaner so I've used that but taking it out entirely seems a little extreme.
Watts claimed that he would be able to break even if the usage of the toll road remained at its current rate - add hyphen to 'break-even' to make it clear its talking about the financial topic and do the same for the  rest of this article
Per wiktionary, break-even is a noun and break even is a verb. Maybe just personal differences but seeing as wiktionary is consistent with the article I think it is unnecessary to change it.
Alright then, I thought they were identical.
Opposition from the council

Bath and North East Somerset Council forced the toll road to apply for retrospective planning permission Could be shortened to 'the council and perhaps 'operator' could be added cause it implies that the road could apply for planning permission.
 Done
Watts applied for planning permission on 13 August consider adding retrospective
 Done
End of operations

Looks good.
Note that I am still reviewing, I just need to save the first reviews in case my computer dies. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Its quite hot where I live in the UK, so I'm taking a break for a few hours. JuniperChill (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
After you finish the above, I will do a spot-check and it should be ready for GA! I had to read the article like 4 times and its 2500 words and spent over an hour reading it. JuniperChill (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Just think how long it took to write xD. I've replied to everything now so let me know if there's anything else. I've been a bit busy irl so sorry for the wait! JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 22:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Regarding copyright, after checking Earwig, it states that there's a 27% confidence, but is mostly about quotes and is attributed, so should be alright. JuniperChill (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)


### Spot-check
Alright then, I will check 6 out of 28 sources according to this revision:
3 -  good
9 -  all good via the archive page, as Telegraph is normally behind paywall which I would've AGF afterwards, like in DYK.
17 -  good
19 -  good
23 -  good
24 -  good
All good!


### Criteria 3-6
After the prose is sorted (I will do the rest of that tomorrow BST), I will do a spot-check. Otherwise, I can see that meets GACR 3 (broad), 4 (neutral), 5 (stable) and 6 (relevant images with suitable copyright tags). I feel as though since two of the images are almost the same, I think one of them (the later one) should be removed. I was hoping to find an image for the middle of the toll road, but there were none at Commons. JuniperChill (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)


### Closing comment
Since the nominator has done all the work needed for GA, it's safe to say that I can now promote it. Because this is my first GAN review, I have made a few mistakes including not knowing that break-even is a noun and break even is a verb, but maybe also its because the article is long at 2500 words, but otherwise, I think I did pretty well for my first review. Anyways, now promoting! JuniperChill (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this review and your kind words. As we both seem involved in UK railways' articles I'm sure we'll cross paths again soon  JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 16:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)