MyWiki:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Kwinana Freeway

Kwinana Freeway

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.

---

{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Kwinana Freeway}} Kwinana Freeway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: Another Perth freeway is the second WP:AURD article to go to ACR

Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Article promoted -- Algorerhythms (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check by Dough4872

I will review the images in the article. Dough4872 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• File:AUS national route 1.svg - Released into PD by creator.
• File:AUS state route 2.svg - Released into PD by creator.
• File:Kwinana Freeway map.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0, has source data.
• File:Kwinana Freeway, viewed from Cranford Avenue bridge, April 2006.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
• File:Perth,Kwinana freeway.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
• File:Mt Henry south gnangarra.ogg - CC-BY 2.5 Australia.
• File:Kwinana Freeway from Leeming SMC.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
• File:Narrows Interchange looking south while under construction.jpg - CC-BY 3.0.
• File:Mount Henry Bridge, April 2006.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
• File:NarrowsTransitway.JPG - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
• File:Cockburn stn2.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
• File:Kwinana freeway S from murdoch works.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0.
• Captions look fine
• Support - Images look good. Dough4872 15:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've changed some images around, per Nbounds review below:

• File:PerthskylineKwinanaFreewaySatuSuro.jpg has been added to the article in the "Bus transitway" section.
• File:Cockburn stn2.png has been moved to the "Southern suburbs of Perth" section, with an altered caption.
• File:Kwinana Freeway from Leeming SMC.JPG has been removed from the article

- Evad37 (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The first is CC-BY 2.5 Australia, the second and third are CC-BY-SA 3.0. Images still check out fine. Dough4872 03:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rschen7754 06:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC) The link to the instructions for the infobox looks really goofy in the article. I can't think of any other infobox on this site that does that, and also, Wikipedia is written for the reader, not the editor. --Rschen7754 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Note: I have BOLDly removed the link from the infobox -- Nbound (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Preliminary look-through RJL - while the first word in a notes section should be capitalized, generally the ones after semicolons should not, unless it's a proper noun or something like that. Sources are reliable. The lead comes off a little short - maybe add a sentence or two to the history? --Rschen7754 21:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Adjusted the RJL notes, expanded the lead - Evad37 (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Route description with all the line's stations north of and including Cockburn Central also built on the strip - bit difficult to understand. Removed, as redundant to the railway line being in the median strip - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC) What is a foreshore? Wikilinked, clarified that it is the river's foreshore - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC) The interchange is a diamond interchange - could be condensed Reworded - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC) What is a dogbone interchange? Wikilinked, reworded the rest of the sentence that explains it - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC) although Vine Road is a minor road that terminates at the Serpentine River - doesn't seem like a necessary detail. --Rschen7754 07:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Removed - Evad37 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC) History Probably should specify which state, for State Government. Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) a further 11.7-kilometre (7.3 mi) - should be plural Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Two sentences in a row starting with This Reworded - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) What is a Member for Canning? Wikilinked Member to Member of Parliament, Canning to Division of Canning - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Did a copyedit (with VisualEditor, hope it didn't mess things up!) No problems with the VisualEditor edit - Evad37 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Didn't have any other issues, so this concludes the review. --Rschen7754 08:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, issues resolved. Just a note that it may be worth considering adding inflation templates, if that is possible (I don't know what the support is like for Australian currency). But plenty of road FAs have passed without this, so it's definitely not required at FAC. --Rschen7754 09:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nbound

Review by Nbound

Pre-review comments:

I would re-suggest the same wording complaints in the lead from Mitchell Freeway's ACR.

Changes to the lead made - Evad37 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If no other editors volunteer I will write a full review in the next few days -- Nbound (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I promise I will! LOL probably tomorrow or the long weekend. If still havent heard from me here, remind me on my talk - Nbound (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox:

• Add suburb information to the start and end junctions. (Happy to discuss this one here or at WP:AURD if any issues - though its what we have been doing over on the AU east coast, and seems to be IR standard practice also).

 Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• It might be worth replacing the establishment section with a history section either listing staged dates, or a summary like, progressively completed between 19XX and XXXX and variations upon that depending on how long breaks were in the works. If possible to find out the original gazettal date (or acceptance by the state's naming board) would also be a good indicator or a rough "birth" date for the road.

Note: These could probably apply to Mitchell Freeway aswell in preparation of any future FA nomination also. Note 2: I have modified {{infobox Australian road}} just now to better describe our usage of the establishment parameter so far (it's now labelled "Opened").

I think the history is best left to the prose of the article, rather than the infobox - its hard to summarise eight paragraphs into just a few words. I haven't yet found any relevant gazettal info - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead:

• Rather than "The Kwinana Freeway has been progressively widened and extended south since then, and now reaches beyond the boundary of the Perth Metropolitan Region.", perhaps: "The Kwinana Freeway has been progressively widened and extended since then, and now reaches beyond the southern boundary of the Perth Metropolitan Region"

 Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Route Description/History:

• Round mph figures to nearest 5 (Ive asked a few USRD guys about this, and this was what they felt was best), {{convert}} can be switched to do so by adding |disp=5

 Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• "There is a southbound exit to South Terrace which provides access to the local areas" - drop the "s"

 Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• "There are plans to extend Roe Highway west to Hamilton Hill, which would necessitate upgrading the interchange." - Confirm the extension and/or confirm the interchange upgrade. (Google Maps source does confirm, but I doubt we should be considering Google Maps a reliable source for upgrades)

 Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• "There is a pocket of developing urban land near Safety Bay Road, south of the freeway." -> "There is a pocket of newly developed urban land near Safety Bay Road" - requires less vigilance to keep upto date while essentially saying the same thing. (happy if you or others disagree on this one)

 Done - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Imagery: (When viewed at 1920x1200)

• "Kwinana Freeway from Leeming..." extends into the History section
• "View facing south at Cockburn..." extends into the Future Works section
• The pics on the right hand side which refer to the northern section of the road are pushed down into the southern section. (might not be too much that can be done with this)

 Done. I've changed the images around so that it should work better on wider screens - Evad37 (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think thats just about done -- Nbound (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Image alignment now almost perfect, all other issues have been dealt with. When can we expect to see an FA? ;) -- Nbound (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Other comments and uncompleted reviews

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Review by Fredddie

Comments by Fredddie

I'll review this article after Rschen and Nbound (possibly) do so. –Fredddie™ 16:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will begin reviewing in the next few days. –Fredddie™ 04:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

1. "A 4-kilometre (2.5 mi) section between Canning Highway and Leach Highway is also part of National Route 1." Maybe between Canning and Leach highways to avoid repetition?

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

2. At the start of the second paragraph, the subjects of the first two sentences are "the route" and "the K.F." Might be good to switch them.

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

3. The freeway has been adapted to cater for public transport, with the introduction of bus priority measures in 1987, and the opening of the Mandurah railway line, constructed in the freeway median strip, in 2007."→"The freeway has been adapted to cater for public transport, with the introduction of bus priority measures in 1987, and the 2007 opening of the Mandurah railway line, which was constructed in the freeway median strip." also avoiding repetition

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

RD

1. Km/h can be abbreviated after the first use

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

2. "and a shared pedestrian and bicycle path is built alongside the freeway." should be a separate sentence.

    Done, though the sentences seem a bit short now... - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

3. I am a little uncomfortable with the "600 metres (2,000 ft)" conversion. Not because it's wrong (it isn't), but because nobody who uses imperial units can tell you how far 2000 feet is. I don't have a solution for you, though. #Ironically, I don't have a problem with a similarly-long bridge listed in feet.

   Other options would be "600 metres (0.37 mi)", or "600 metres (660 yd)". I don't know if these are any better? - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to stop there for now. –Fredddie™ 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I will not be completing my review, so I am Neutral just so it doesn't screw anything up. See my talk page if you have any concerns. –Fredddie™ 23:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion(s) regarding unit conversions

One of the issues raised by Fredddie was

I am a little uncomfortable with the "600 metres (2,000 ft)" conversion. Not because it's wrong (it isn't), but because nobody who uses imperial units can tell you how far 2000 feet is. I don't have a solution for you, though. #Ironically, I don't have a problem with a similarly-long bridge listed in feet.

My response was

Other options would be "600 metres (0.37 mi)", or "600 metres (660 yd)". I don't know if these are any better?

Does anyone think that converting to miles or yards would be better than converting to feet, and if so, what should be the upper limit for converting into feet? - Evad37 (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We discussed this on IRC back when it was originally pointed out; IIRC, the consensus was for miles (but wait for someone else to confirm). It was also pointed out that what unit was used was largely upto tradition (like altitude in feet, certain sporting pitches in yards, so on and so forth). Man I love metric :P. -- Nbound (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat that 2,000 feet is bad, but 660 yds isn't a bad value either. That's 5.5 times the length of an American football field (which is 120 yds including end zones). Any of the options works ok by me, if pressed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If all the options are okay, I might just leave it how it is, unless someone really thinks I should change it. - Evad37 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Scott5114

Comment by Scott5114

I will likely not formally review this article, considering there are several other people volunteering for reviews ahead of me, and this should not be construed as an oppose vote (at least not at this point in time), but it gives me pause that an article is at ACR using nonstandard templates (i.e. not {{Infobox road}} and {{Attached KML}}). The reason is because the Australian infobox has not been vetted for MOS compliance as well as the standard infobox has, and MOS compliance is one of the major things that ACR checks for. ACR is meant to serve as a test run for a FAC, essentially, and MOS compliance is part of that. If the standard infobox were in use, we could mostly disregard it because it has been found good multiple times at FAC. I understand that the Australian roads project feels that it is necessary to include certain extra features in the infobox, but the proper way to do it is to have those added to the existing template, not make a fork of it. There are some instances where I feel the verbiage used in the Australian template is demonstrably inferior to that of Infobox road, such as use of "Major towns/suburbs" instead of the more concise "Major cities" that Infobox road uses. It is not the purpose of the infobox to list the exact legal categories of all of the major administrative entities it passes through (this is the only reason I can conceive for the current wording to have been chosen), that is for the prose to do; the infobox should use a short, generic term like "cities". Likewise, I don't understand what benefit there is in eschewing {{Attached KML}} in favor of integration with the infobox. Though it was borne out of a discussion at WT:HWY, Attached KML is no longer a template specific to roads, and it can be found on pages in many topic areas on Wikipedia. Currently, it is transcluded in 4,284 pages. (You can even find it on 2013 Moore tornado, complete with KML data provided by the National Weather Service.) Google uses data provided by Attached KML in its search results. (Google "Creek Turnpike", for instance—it displays a map with our KML overlaid on it. Googling "Kwinana Freeway" also displays a map with the KML at time of writing, but I would wager that it will disappear when Google recrawls the page, as the KML has only been moved to the infobox today.) My understanding of the way that Infobox Australian road works is that the KML data is being stored as subpages of the infobox, not Attached KML. This is a poor decision because it splits up KML data across multiple locations. Were all KML data at Attached KML, it would be trivial for a reuser of our KML data, like Google, to see if an article has a KML; all they have to do is visit "Template:Attached KML/[pagename]". If the KML data for Australian road articles is stored elsewhere, that data is "off the grid". It is not as easily discoverable. Data reusers will have to code their software to look for data at multiple locations. They might decide to not bother to use Australian KML data (or simply not know that they must take the extra step to get to it), or scrap plans to use Wikipedia's KML data over concerns that its location is unstable (especially if this opens the door to similar infobox-KML storage schemes in the future). The end result of all of this is that this article breaks compatibility with a Wikipedia-wide convention, which may ultimately detract from its chances at FAC. Breaking convention is not something ACR should be encouraging. In short, while I don't necessarily feel that there is anything wrong with the template (at least, without seeing the results of a MOS expert going through it with a finetoothed comb), I wouldn't feel comfortable passing an article through this process with a template that is untested, when there is little reason that templates that are known to pass FAC muster are available and can be used. Likewise, I have concerns that the decision to handle KML data in the infobox harms the utility of the data for little discernible benefit. I feel that the creators of this article have made several questionable decisions, and although I am sure they had reasons for doing so, I don't feel that those decisions should be validated by getting an ACR pass. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I've reverted the removal of the {{Attached KML}}, which I wouldn't done myself. I intend to respond more later, but I've been sick this week, plus a bit busy in real life. I'll be able to spend more time onwiki/online after next week. - Evad37 (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Okay, I've had a while to think about this, so I'm going to share my thoughts now. This is really directed at everybody, not just Scott5114. Firstly, WP:CONSENSUS is pretty much a fundamental policy. The current consensus is that Australian road articles use Infobox Australian road – the recent proposal to adapt and switch over to Infobox road ended with no consensus. I was one of the people pushing for Infobox road, and I would probably !vote to switch over to (a specifically modified/adapted version of) Infobox road in future discussions. However, I would not feel right switching articles over to Infobox road and just ignoring the current consensus. Also, as far as I am aware, there is no A-class or FA criteria that would require the article infobox to be Infobox road. Of course, Infobox Australian road should be up to A-class/FA standards - any comments left here can be taken over to Template talk:Infobox Australian road, though changes of course require consensus. So if there are objections over the infobox, please be specific per the instructions near the top of the ACR. I'll also note that Infobox Australian road has mostly the same fields as Infobox road (or Infobox road with the proposed modifications from the recent discussions at WP:AURD), so there would also be "untested" aspects if using Infobox road. The KML issues seems to be basically resolved at the moment (and I agreed with the points you made regarding the previous situation) so I don't see any need for further comments regarding KML here. - Evad37 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This article, nominated in May, still needs one more review, and a source spotcheck - Evad37 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it seems that after our activity spurt this spring/fall, ACR has gone dormant. Perhaps you can ask frequent ACR reviewers to take a look? I've tried to no avail. --Rschen7754 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by TCN7JM

I can review this article either later tonight or tomorrow morning (that's UTC-6). TCN7JM 03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

1. It bothers me that some citations are out of numerical order. I've been lectured on this at GAN, and I've been told that they're always supposed to go in numerical order.
2. "660-metre (2,170 ft) long" should read as "660-metre-long (2,170 ft)". You can do this by typing {{convert|m|ft|660|adj=mid|-long}}.
3. I've never heard of ordinal directions being hyphenated like they are in this article, and I don't think it's common usage. Consider dropping the hyphens.
4. "deviates out of the" doesn't sound correct. I would switch this to "deviates from the" or something similar.
5. The penultimate sentence of the route description doesn't read correctly the part about the interchange with Lake Road and the part of the sentence after it don't really flow into each other.
6. "12-kilometre (7.5 mi) long" should use the same parameters I typed above.

This is all for my review. TCN7JM 22:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

All fixed except the compound compass points, which is actually an WP:ENGVAR issue (as mentioned in MOS:COMPASS). - Evad37 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. I support this article's promotion to A-class. TCN7JM 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck (also by TCN7JM)

Since there seem to be no other takers, I will also be conducting the spotcheck for this ACR. I am reviewing nine sources (29-37) as of this revision. I will do this immediately. TCN7JM 03:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Source #29 -  Good
• Source #30 -  Good
• Source #31 -  Good
• Source #32 -  Good
• Source #33 -  Good
• Source #34 -  Good
• Source #35 -  Good
• Source #36 -  Good (Yes, including the table on the right.)
• Source #37 -  Good

It seems that all sources I have checked are citing verifiable statements in the article and that the statements are not plagiarizing the sources. Good job. TCN7JM 03:44, 12 August 2013 (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.