Article was promoted at FAC - Evad37[talk] 00:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Forrest Highway is the shortest article I've nominated at ACR, but I feel this recently constructed road is comprehensive and up to standard. The article was promoted to GA last December, and has recently undergone further copyediting. If promoted, this would take all components of Western Australia's State Route 2 to FA/A-class.
Nominated by:Evad37[talk] 03:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I will review this article. Dough4872 03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
"The existing alignment through Mandurah would form a bottleneck", how can an alignment form a bottleneck? Better wording is needed here.
There would ultimately be a freeway/expressway-standard road north and south of Mandurah, but not through Mandurah, thus the bottleneck. Evad37[talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"The road travels south for 6.3 kilometres (3.9 mi), over the Murray River and through rural land in and beyond South Yunderup.", what kind of rural land does the highway pass through?
Clarified as farmland - Evad37[talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In the history, you need inflation conversions.
We probably need to look at getting a template built for that... If I recall correctly, there is price index data going back to the 1970s available online for road construction in Australia. I'll have to have a look again. - Evad37[talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You mention how towns along the old route were affected with decreasing traffic volume, but are there additional affects to mention such as lost revenue to businesses?
I've expanded a bit with a new source, but there isn't much info available other than "loss of business" or "loss of trade" - Evad37[talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Otherwise, the article looks good. Dough4872 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - Issues addressed. I would continue to look into creating an inflation template for road construction in Australia that can be used in this and other articles. Dough4872 00:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@Dough4872: I've added inflated values. I only found data going back to 1998, but that's enough for this article. - Evad37[talk] 03:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Question: Is the major cities parameter only used for freeways? Could we use it here anyway?
No, its not only for freeways. Added to infobox. - Evad37[talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Lead
The definite article seems to be used inconsistently. Example with emphasis: "Since the 1980s, the state government has been upgrading the main Perth to Bunbury route, by extending the Kwinana Freeway south from Perth, and constructing a dual carriageway on <no 'the' here> Old Coast Road north of Bunbury."
Since June 2014 is almost over, do you have an update on the construction of the roadhouses?
I haven't found any new information on the roadhouses
More to come. –Fredddie™ 04:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the review, I'll look into it tomorrow my time (UTC+8) - Evad37[talk] 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just discovered that almost 60 kilometres (37 mi) of road south of Lake Clifton has recently been renamed as part of Forrest Highway [1], so this ACR will need to be left on hold or suspended until I've had time to update the article with that section's route description, history, and junctions. - Evad37[talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Suspended after 30 days of inactivity with unaddressed comments. --Rschen7754 17:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm reactivating this nomination as I have finished updating the article with a more than 2+1⁄2–times expansion. Pinging @Dough4872 and Fredddie: - Evad37[talk] 08:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I will start over. –Fredddie™ 17:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fredddie: were you still planning to review this article? --Rschen7754 00:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Observation
I made one grammar change to this article last week, and have since read through it several times to try to get the true sense of it, My conclusion: It is a disjointed and confusing read for a non-local. My suggestion: Needs review by someone with local knowledge to get the grammar, sequence, and structure right without compromising accuracy. I will watch this space with interest, and will help if I can. Cheers. Downsize43 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest, Downsize43. Is there any way you could be a bit more specific? I would like to improve the article, but it's a bit hard to fix something if I can't really understand the problem. - Evad37[talk] 10:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Happy to be of service, I hope.
First - some high school writing principles that I find invaluable:
Only one idea per paragraph
Avoid overly long and/or complex sentences
No more than five or six sentences per paragraph
While not suggesting that this article seriously breaches any of these principles, there is some scope for improvement.
Some general comments:
The lede seems overlong, and includes some almost verbatim text from the body of the article
Some of the sub-section headings in the History section could be expanded to include a time frame, eg. "New construction in the 1950s"
Avoid using the article name as a section etc heading, eg. perhaps "Redesignation as Forrest Highway"
Consider reducing or removing the descriptions of the effect of the Forrest Highway improvements on the South Western Highway
Consider reducing or removing the Old Coast Road section
NOTE: While browsing the article to write this I got brave and made some minor changes.Downsize43 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for you spelling and grammer fixes. In reply to your general comments:
I've adjusted some of the section headings, let me know what you think
Changed to "Forrest Highway after opening", since the content of that section is the history since the opening
I think that it is important to show that impact of the highway, as discussed by sources specifically relating the impacts to the the opening of Forrest Highway. Three sentences discussing this does not seem disproportionate to me.
I merged Old Coast Road here due to the significant overlap of the histories, and the description of these former sections of the Perth–Bunbury route seems appropriate to mention in the context of the current Perth–Bunbury route. This is not unprecedented, including related routes below the junction list is quite common for U.S. roads.
Please let me know if you have any other suggestions, or want to discuss these points further. - Evad37[talk] 04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I like the new headings. I will give it a good read sometime over the weekend.Downsize43 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Downsize43: were you planning on leaving any other comments? --Rschen7754 03:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Government copyright is only 50 years, so the plaque itself is PD - Evad37[talk] 23:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking PD along the lines of "you can't copyright something simplistic like a block of text on artistic grounds", but it should be fine. --Rschen7754 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Adding exact distances in between the junctions leads to tedium - isn't that what the major intersections list is for?
I would have thought most road articles would give distances in the route description, WP:USRD/NEW even says Exact distances are quoted, giving a sense of scale. - Evad37[talk] 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that's referring to "four miles" as opposed to "4.3 miles" or "a few miles". --Rschen7754 16:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've adjusted the distances in this section - Evad37[talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
History
which was could only be forded by horses - a few extra words
Removed "was" - Evad37[talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
the adjacent land... as in "while the adjacent land was still privately owned, it [ie, the adjacent land] was uninhabited" - Evad37[talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The source says sea worm, without being more specific, but our page sea worm is a just a set index article - Evad37[talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
improve local amenity -> amenities?
no, the other definition of wikt:amenity - as in "amenity of the climate" rather than "amenities the hotel provided" - Evad37[talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
reduces -> reduced? Also, should it be "according to X"?
Done, added "according to" in a footnote - Evad37[talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: Should this nomination be reactivated, this will need a source review to pass ACR. --Rschen7754 04:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.JPG){kind=link}