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

Mitchell 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=Mitchell Freeway}} Mitchell Freeway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class

Nominator's comments: This is Oceania's and Australia's first GA class article, and now it will be the first road article from outside North America to go to A-Class review. Please note that the article currently uses {{Infobox Australian road}} instead of {{Infobox road}}. While I am not against the use of {{Infobox road}} as a concept, the template requires further work to customise it for Australian roads, and I'd rather not bring up the issue here considering what happened last time it was raised. As far as I am aware, {{Infobox Australian road}} is compliant with the MOS.

Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First comment occurred: 16:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872

Review by Dough4872

• I will review the article. Dough4872 16:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

1. Maybe some more historical detail can be added to the lead.
2. The sentence "The original plan took the route, then known as the Yanchep Highway,[2] inland from what is now known as Karrinyup Road to the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Balcatta Road,[1] but the first gazetted edition of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, from 1963, shows a controlled-access highway along the current freeway alignment" is long and needs to be split.
3. The sentence "Ground improvement works began in 1964, which included the installations of 43,000 sand drains,[5] and demolition of buildings in the freeway's path commenced in 1965." sounds awkward and may need to be split.
4. The sentence "Construction of the extension, initially planned for May 2006, began on 14 December 2006, managed by Main Roads in conjunction with Macmahon Contractors." reads choppy and needs to be reworded.
5. The sentence "Construction of the third lane is scheduled for the first half of 2013, with the existing lanes to be resurfaced later, during the summer months of 2013-14." is wordy. I would remove "later" and the comma.
6. The statement "The project is scheduled to start in January 2013, with completion expected to be in December 2013" is outdated.
7. The sentence "The report recommends a staged approach, including intersection improvements from 2013–15, followed by extending the freeway to Hester Avenue by 2017, and then building an expressway standard extension to Romeo Road, Alkimos by 2021" is long and needs to be split.
8. The sentence "The main northbound exit to Hay Street is via an access road, beginning from the Mounts Bay Road exit ramp, that rejoins the freeway as an outside lane on the shared Riverside Drive and Mounts Bay Road entrance ramp." sounds awkward.
9. The sentence "Charles Street, and further north, Wanneroo Road, are major arterial roads that provide an alternative route, State Route 60, to Perth's northern suburbs, and to areas north of the Perth Metropolitan Region." is long and choppy and needs to be reworded.
10. The heading "Exits and interchanges" sounds redundant. I would use either "Exits" or "Interchanges" or you could possibly use "Exit list" like USRD. Dough4872 23:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I have made changes to fix all the issues above. - Evad37 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns have been addressed. Dough4872 15:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

Review by Fredddie

• I, too, will review the article. –Fredddie™ 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to welcome you to ACR. If you're not aware, I like to divide up my reviews the same way the article is split. I'll then go over each line and make sure the prose is tight. Sometimes I will just have a question that may or may not inspire you to clarify something written. I'll post the whole thing once I'm done. –Fredddie™ 03:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, I look forward to your review - Evad37 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

1. Is there an article for Allocation? From our infobox "discussions", I've learned what it means, but that doesn't mean John Q. Public knows what it means.

   I don't think there's an article. I have thought about moving the route numbering info from Highways in Australia to a separate article, but references haven't been easy to come across. The info in the field is linked to the appropriate table row in List of road routes in Western Australia - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

   Perhaps Route number? That's basically what it is (though the article could do with a section on Australia). - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

2. There is inconsistent usage of the direct article (the) when you mention other highways. Example sentence: "Along the way are interchanges with several major roads, including the Graham Farmer Freeway and Reid Highway."

   I've been thinking about this and am not sure which way to go in this one. In common usage, eg radio traffic reports, I would generally expect "the" to be used for freeways, but not highways... probably stems from the road (along with Kwinana Freeway) being referred to simply as "The freeway" for many years prior to the opening of the Graham Farmer Freeway. I will give this some more thought and come back to it later. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

    Done - removed from mentions of other highways - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

3. During the six years it took to build the first section, did parts of the road open as crews finished them or did it all open at once?

   I think it all opened at once... will have to go back to the library to check. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

    Done - Turns out I was wrong. Info added to article. - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

History

1. "The Mitchell Freeway began as a proposed highway included in the..." or "The Mitchell Freeway began as a highway proposed in the..." Which sounds better to you?

    Done: changed - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

2. "Initially, three new rail and road bridges were constructed at Vincent Street, Powis Street, and Scarborough Beach Road.[20]" Was it one bridge at each street or three bridges at each street?

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Future works

1. I would remove the sentence "The timing and staging of future extensions beyond 2017 are not yet known." There is nothing wrong with it per se, but once a post-2017 plan is introduced, it will be out of date.

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Along those lines, have you used {{Update after}} for every future date? It will provide a footnote reminding you or whomever to update the article once we reach that date.

    Done: added - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Route description

1. My major concern with the RD is the use of distances. I would recommend using them equally across both sections (the first section doesn't use them at all) or not at all. Consistency is the key.

    Done, added distances to first section - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Secondary to the point above is that there are 14 separate instances of {{Google maps}}. While that too is not wrong, I think you could get away with combining a few.

    Done, combined all distance refs in the RD into a single ref - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Interchanges

1. I don't have an issue with the name of this section.
2. Am I right to assume that "<city 1>, <city 2>" means that the road forms the boundary between the cities? If that's the case, I didn't see much mention of those cities in the RD.

   Yes, I use commas when the road and/or intersecting roads were at the boundary of LGAs or suburbs(locations). Will fix later the RD later. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

    Done, added LGAs to RD - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

   I was looking more for adding the cities, unless you think the LGAs add more value. –Fredddie™ 05:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

    Doing.... Sorry, just saw this now (and they are actually suburbs, not cities (while most of the LGAs here are called cities)). - Evad37 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

   Very good. –Fredddie™ 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

General notes

1. I think the RD and history sections need to be switched; not because I think what you have is wrong (it isn't), but because it would give someone unfamiliar with Perth (read: everyone reviewing this article) some geographic context of the area without having to read a map at the same time. It's kind of jarring to read the history without any context and then see it all there in the RD. Just my opinion, though.

    Done - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

2. I like that there are a bunch of pictures and I love the video, but I'm not sure if how they are presented is the best way.
   • The central Perth interchange graphic is informative, but since it takes up a lot of vertical space, is it the best picture?
   • Try interspersing the best photos into the article instead of in the galleries. I'm not saying you have to change it, but try it out and see if you like it.

    Changed, reduced effective height of interchange graphic. - Evad37 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Nice work, overall. –Fredddie™ 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I will start working on the article now. - Evad37 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's everything from your review now - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one issue remaining. –Fredddie™ 05:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. –Fredddie™ 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review by Rschen7754

I'm trying not to review every article that comes through here, so I'll just do an image review for now. If needed I'll pick up the third review, but I'll see if someone gets it.

• File:Mitchell Freeway map.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0, sources noted
• File:Mkt st to mill pt gnangarra.ogg - Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia - looking at the license page I don't see any issues.
• File:Mitchell Freeway Perth city ramps.png - CC-BY-SA 3.0, sources noted
• File:Mitchell Freeway 112 N Gwelup Karrinyup Rd.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
• File:Mitchell Freeway 286 S Joondalup Moore.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
• File:Narrows Interchange under construction.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
• File:Mitchell Freeway 147 N Walter morning peak.jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
• File:MitchellFreewayExtMooreDriveMay07.jpg - PD

Review done, no issues found. --Rschen7754 07:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Nbound

Review by Nbound

• I will also review the article. -- Nbound (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Prose:

Lead:

• (minor)"Mitchell Freeway is a 30-kilometre-long (19 mi),[1] north–south freeway in the northern suburbs of Perth, Western Australia, linking central Perth with the satellite city of Joondalup."

Could perhaps be better written as:

"Mitchell Freeway is a 30-kilometre-long (19 mi),[1] freeway in the northern suburbs of Perth, Western Australia, linking central Perth with the satellite city of Joondalup, and running in a north–south direction." (or similar)

Essentially, it isnt a "north-south freeway", its a freeway that runs north-south.

I couldn't find any phrasing I liked, so I removed "north-south" - the last sentence of the paragraph explicitly states "southern terminus..." and "northern terminus..." - Evad37 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• (minor)"Along the way are interchanges with several major roads."

Could perhaps be better written as:

"Along its length there are interchanges with several major roads." (or similar)

Changed - Evad37 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Route Description:

• The link to State Route 2 should probably link to the State Route subsection of the List of road routes in Western Australia page.

Hmm... I think routes should generally link to their actual entry in the list - when a reader clicks on "State Route x", they probably expect information about State Route x, and not necessarily the general information. - Evad37 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have to concur - whenever we link other road designations it always links to the info about the road itself. --Rschen7754 09:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree Evad, though at this stage it just links to the page itself, not to a subsection, or better yet: to the listing of the road. -- Nbound (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I see where the confusion might be... Im referring to the link in the prose, not in the infobox (which is linked correctly). Ill make the edit for you, feel free to revert if there is reason to do so -- Nbound (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rest of article appears to of good standard

Imagery:

• Shielding has already been updated to more correct images.
• A map of the approximate route of the future extension would be a welcome addition
• The general amount/positioning of pictures looks good, and the captions are clear and concise.

The issues from previous reviews appear to have been adequately covered. Particularly Fredddie's very in-depth analysis.

This article is probably already at or very close to A-Class. And I am happy to take any objections to my above comments.- Nbound (talk)

Support - The few issues not addressed in earlier reviews have been addressed. Consider the addition of the extension map a comment or potential guidance for even further improvement. -- Nbound (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

Making a drive-by comment - the citation for the length of the road really should go in the infobox, not in the lead. While there's nothing specifically prohibiting citations in the lead, they're typically frowned upon when the lead summarizes information found elsewhere in the article. --Rschen7754 09:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Also, ref 27 is dead. Finally check your page numbers - they don't seem to be formatted consistently (I'm not an expert, but something seems off - sometimes you have Pg. and sometimes you don't; sometimes you have pp.) --Rschen7754 09:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Fixed the dead ref. Will do more later - Evad37 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Length ref is now in the infobox - Evad37 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Page numbers are now formatted consistently: "p." for single page, "pp." for multiple pages (but just the numbers when inside {{rp}}, per the template documentation). I've also seen that I forgot to note the page number for ref 15, so I'll have to go back to the library to look it up. - Evad37 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Also, the last paragraph of 1.2 is a bit long - can it be broken up? --Rschen7754 09:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Broken into two paragraphs - Evad37 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC) After some discussion I've agreed to take up the spotcheck (hopefully I'll have it up today or tomorrow). How these work is we pick 25% of the sources (with a 20 source limit), to check for verifiability and plagiarism. If sources are not online, we ask for any electronic copies over email; if they are not available that way (it's a book, for example) that's fine. It seems that most of your sources are electronic though. After the spotcheck is done the article will be promoted. Reference formatting isn't my strength, but I know enough so that whatever issues are left should be easily fixable at FAC. General formatting notes: For newspapers, the city should be mentioned, unless it is included in the title already. I'm not entirely sure what the sources at the bottom are for - could you clarify? Compare references 26 and 31 - some inconsistencies in formatting. --Rschen7754 09:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I've added locations to newspaper refs that needed them. The refs at the bottom were general refs, first added in ~2005-06, when the article had no / very few inline refs. However, as they are not detailed enough to be of any use in verification, I've removed them. Ref 26 has been adjusted (was using {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}}, and the author parameter instead of publisher) - Evad37 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Source 3: map, so no plagiarism; passes V. Source 5: map, so no plagiarism; passes V. But the overall map sources that you are using for the base of your RD should be cited at the end of each paragraph. Source 10: map, so no plagiarism; passes V. Source 13: good on V and CP. Source 17: unfortunately this link is now dead. I found it on archive.org, however and repaired the link. Good on CP, but not seeing where the Vincent Street part is mentioned in the source. Thanks for finding the archived version. I've moved refs [11]:261 and [16] to after "first extension of the freeway was to Vincent Street", as [17] just supports "splitting the suburb of Leederville in two" - Evad37 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Source 24: see source 17 for the archival format, but V and CP good. Source 32: cites could be combined. Some stuff doesn't seem to match with the source. Source 35: good on CP and V. Source 38: link dead, try [1] Good on V and CP. Source 41: [2] Good on CP and V. Source 42: Good on CP and V. --Rschen7754 01:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)  Done --Rschen7754 06:16, 26 May 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.