# Talk:M32 motorway

I don't know exactly what is meant here by being "part of the Bristol Parkway", but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean part of the railway station, and yet that's where it links to. Please link to the right page, if one exists.Tobycek 17:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article reads:

It is generally 2 lanes each way, though heading northbound it widens to 3 lanes as it approaches the A4174 ring road.
I think this might mean:

... the northbound section widens to 3 lanes as it approaches the A4174 ring road.
However, if both sections of the road widen to three lanes, then the following wording would be clearer:

... but it widens to 3 lanes near the junction with the A4174 ring road.
Could someone with local knowledge fix this? Michael Glass (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Southbound, it is 3 lanes between the M4 and where the sliproad to J1 (the A4174) diverges. It is then 2 lanes all the way to the end of the motorway, apart from the short distance between junctions 2 and 3 (the third lane comes as a lane gain at J2 and then forms a lane drop at J3).
Northbound, it is 2 lanes from the start, then 3 lanes between J3 and J2 (the same as southbound). There is then an extended (~⅓rd of a mile) merge from the J2 onslip, after which it reverts to 2 lanes until it widens to three and then four lanes for a total of about ½ a mile before the diverge for J1. It is 2 lanes through the junction. There is then a ~¼ mile of 2+1 lanes as the left lane of the onslip runs as part of the carriageway but separated from it by tiger tailing and then a solid white line, before it becomes a third lane for the remaining ~⅛ of a mile to the M4 roundabout.
The measurements are crudely taken from google maps air photos. I've not updated the article as I'm unsure of what phrasing would best sum up this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

M thirtytwo ?? But it's in the '4' sector, it's nowhere near Southampton.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.100.240 (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 
Rubbish. The M32 is South of the M4, and west of the M3. So its in the correct sector. Matt-thepie (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Aiming to advance the article to B-class I have amended the following:-

Intro says 5mi long, infobox says 4mi, both changed to 4.6mi.Baldy Bill (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
On the History section, I have checked the Motorway Archive reference given; this actually does not state that the m32 is the SE side of a rectangle; it states that the Bristol City Development Plan envisaged a spider's web-like plan of radial and ring roads BOUNDED by the M4, M5, and River Avon without specifying where the SE limit of the plan lies, but could reasonably be assumed to be the border of the authority's area. Therefore I have amended it to read "to be a key radial link through to the hub of a network of radial and ring roads within a rectangle", and amended the reference slightly (access date, and url to point directly to the information concerned without having to navigate the website).
On Recent Developments section the reference to the bus lane appears as a raw weblink, so have converted to the {{citeweb}} template and added the chapter number as it is a lengthy document.
In the junctions table there are no references, so I have checked the claims using Google StreetView. There were two distance markers slightly misquoted - one at the junction with M4 stated 7.9 when in fact it is marker post 8.0 (both directions) and the other states an assumed 0.0 for the start marker when in fact it reads 1.1 (northbound carriageway adjacent to the road sign defining the beginning of motorway regulations). This may be due to forward planning by those assigning motorway labels to allow for the motorway to have been continued southward to Cabot Circus approx 1km away (compare with the "futureproof" gaps in junction numbering on the A1(M) motorway) and would explain the motorway being just over 7km long but having mileposts up to 8.0km. In the interest of verifiability it would be good if someone who has an atlas with motorway junction detail could check all signs and cite the publication.
As I see it this should be sufficient to meet the criteria in WP:WikiProject_UK_Roads#B-class_drive. Baldy Bill (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:M32 motorway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this later this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thought I'd pop in a comment before Dr. Blofeld starts (please don't use a superweapon on me), but why on the junctions list is the line containing SOUTH WALES, MIDLANDS in all capitals when the rest is all standard case? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It's because that is what is printed verbatim on the signs as you drive up and down it, and I've found unless you transcribe exactly what is verifiable in the real world, people play "my list is better than yours" leading to silly reverts. Easier to nip it all in the bud, I think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd probably go with sentence case anyway, so long as you have the same words. I think there's some convention on that regarding article titles (McFly even when their logo was McFLY). But let's see what the good doctor has to say. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That's MOS:ALLCAPS I think. Put it this way, if I had to order my priorities in life, it would go something like spouse, children, job ... going down to what to have for breakfast tomorrow ... and then whether or not a list entry should have caps is just floating above reading the latest ANI thread for entertainment purposes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Lede
"The M32 is a short motorway in South Gloucestershire and Bristol, England. It provides a link from the M4, a major motorway linking London and South Wales, to Bristol city centre and is maintained by Highways England, the national roads body. It is about 4.4 miles (7.1 km) and is one of Britain's shortest motorways." -to avoid stating "short motorway" twice I would probably reword as "The M32 is a motorway in South Gloucestershire and Bristol, England, which at roughly 4.4 miles (7.1 km) is one of Britain's shortest motorways.. It provides a link from the M4, a major motorway linking London and South Wales, to Bristol city centre and is maintained by Highways England, the national roads body. "
I like that, so I've bolted it in, but copyedited slightly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Eastville, Bristol without piping would be useful so we know without clicking
Okay, since the paragraph doesn't mention Bristol at that point, we can accommodate this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"Design component" -I may come across as a dunce but I have no idea what this is
It's a fancy way of me trying to say "things", I've changed it to "Parts of" which is much simpler Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
History
"Per cent" -one word or two preferred?
One word is preferred nowadays. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Adam9007:, you're our resident MOS:PERCENT scholar, what would you say? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the 2-word spelling is more common British English. Adam9007 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
As a British person I have never seen it written as "per cent" in modern usage. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"The second section, through to junction 2 was co-operative design" -comma after 2?
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
"The cost of this section was reported to be £10.4 million (now £68 million)" I'd probably add "adjusted for inflation" and demote the brackets to a footnote.
Well, Euston Road and Dartford Crossing both have it as described. Remember that {{inflation}} will sort out the nasty business of what the value is right now (or at least I hope it does otherwise I'm planting factual inaccuracies all over the place, which isn't good). May I take the fifth on this one? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Traffic
" the M32 is frequently congested as it is a high quality " - a contradiction as surely high quality depends on traffic flow too! High quality doens't seem right here. "Modern/direct" maybe.
I've gone with "popular". I think the idea is you look at a map, see things like Gloucester Road, Cribbs Causeway and the Portway, but the M32 seems so much better without any danger of getting stuck in some suburb, so everyone heads for it. It's a victim of its own success. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Review done, good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Always a bit dangerous "fast tracking" an article to GA, but provided you can get a crowd who are prepared to disagree with you (as per Trafalgar Square, where we did GA + DYK in time for it to hit the main page for Christmas lunch with a nice picture of a tree there), it can be done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I throw in a comment?  It says:  "During the morning rush hour, queues can tail back onto the southbound motorway mainline from the city centre".  What is that supposed to mean?  Which is the "southbound motorway"?  What is the "mainline"?  If anyone understands what is meant - and as someone who frequently uses the M32, I don't understand it - it needs to be reworded.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I probably meant "southbound carriageway", but from context we can just say "motorway", which I've done. If you can picture a crawl along the Eastville Viaduct towards Cabot Circus, thinking "why didn't I take the scenic route?" you'll know what I mean. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M32 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823081321/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m32brisstat.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m32brisstat.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M32 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020083518/http://motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/en/motorways/motorway-listing/m32/index.cfm to http://motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/en/motorways/motorway-listing/m32/index.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117064027/http://motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/en/motorways/motorway-listing/m32/dates.cfm to http://motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/en/motorways/motorway-listing/m32/dates.cfm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/park-ride-m32-bristol/story-11237328-detail/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M32 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714000819/http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Campaign-launched-new-M4-junction-ease-M32/story-26228873-detail/story.html to http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/campaign-launched-new-m4-junction-ease-m32/story-26228873-detail/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)