Talk:Perth Freight Link

Proposed edits
The following are edits I'm proposing here because they are based off a WP:COI edit from this morning from a user calling themselves "" (since blocked).
 * Proposals struck 00:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC), see below - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Lead section: add
 * between "...bypassing fourteen sets of traffic signals." and "The plan includes mandatory GPS tracking...". This helps summarise the ==Route== section, the source is the existing ref for the MRWA Perth Freight Link website
 * oppose Will be undertaken, the project has been approved and this presupposes that the approval will occur, tonkin hwy orrong rd isn't even within the region and these works are part of the gateway project  Gnangarra 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose Will be undertaken, the project has been approved and this presupposes that the approval will occur, tonkin hwy orrong rd isn't even within the region and these works are part of the gateway project  Gnangarra 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 2) ==Route== section: add
 * between "Muchea" and "and the port."
 * oppose it doesnt link Perths southern industrial areas as it misses Forrestdale(Perths newest), Kwinana(Perth largest and heaviest), Coogee(Marine industrial) and the under creation Wattleup Industrial Park. Gnangarra 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose it doesnt link Perths southern industrial areas as it misses Forrestdale(Perths newest), Kwinana(Perth largest and heaviest), Coogee(Marine industrial) and the under creation Wattleup Industrial Park. Gnangarra 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 3) ==Route== section: add
 * to the end of the first paragraph (after "and the port.") Refs here are already used elsewhere in the article (ABC and Main Road's Perth Freight Link website)
 * oppose commonwealth funding is conditional on environmental approvals which have been ruled invalid, and that the whole project goes ahead though the section from Stock road are currently thought bubbles only. Gnangarra 12:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose commonwealth funding is conditional on environmental approvals which have been ruled invalid, and that the whole project goes ahead though the section from Stock road are currently thought bubbles only. Gnangarra 12:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 4) ===Roe 8=== section: add
 * Relevant to this section, still described in greater detail in "History" section below.
 * oppose presupposes that despite being ruled invalid that the project will occur,WP:NPOV from the point "as such..." should be removed as it also draws a conclusionWP:OR Gnangarra 11:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose presupposes that despite being ruled invalid that the project will occur,WP:NPOV from the point "as such..." should be removed as it also draws a conclusionWP:OR Gnangarra 11:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 5) ===Stage 2=== section:
 * rename to ===Section 2==== and similarly change the first word of the first section. Not a big deal, but makes the article a bit more consistent, as the previous paragraph starts "Section 1, also known as Roe 8, is..."


 * merge with #6 make one section
 * 6) ===Stage 3=== section:
 * rename to ===Fremantle Port link=== (or maybe to ===Swan River crossing=== ?)
 * This section is not in the project scope shown in the MRWA ref - which does actually have a "section 3" for the roe highway widening, so calling this section "stage 3" might be a bit confusing.


 * merge with #5 as neither has any formal plans only speculation with many varied routes being suggested currently as thought bubbles, no funding and the proponent Barnett even says its unlikely to see these occur. Gnangarra 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Also, expand the content in the section, to
 * (mentions the scope of the project as defined by Main Roads ref –maybe this should be explicitly stated?– and adds info on options for Stirling Bridge, as reported in the ref from The West
 * (mentions the scope of the project as defined by Main Roads ref –maybe this should be explicitly stated?– and adds info on options for Stirling Bridge, as reported in the ref from The West


 * 8) Move ===Roe Highway widening=== up one section (no change to its content)
 * in terms of organising content, seems more logical to have "things which are in (Main Roads') scope" before "things which aren't"


 * remove section not part of the project, no independent sources state this. Gnangarra 12:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources used (Main Roads, ABC News, and The West Australian) are usually considered reliable. While the initial COI edit was problematic, and not just because of the COI, I think the above changes I've proposed could be made to improve the article. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 11:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that this is controversial all sourcing should be independent of the MRD and MRD sources should be removed. otherwise the article would be seen as being in violation of WP:NPOV in favouring the MRD perspective. Gnangarra 12:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, having thought it through more, you're right - the article does need to be based on independent sources, and the language used needs to be carefully worded so that it describes the project as a proposal, not a certainty. However, with the Roe Highway widening, saying it is part of Gateway is WP:OR unless you have sources. They are other (non-independent) sources which also say it is part of the Freight Link project (The Route from Rethink The Link's website; Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the decision to commit funding to the Perth Freight Link project from Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, page 9), and WP:ABOUTSELF allows self-published and questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves (if the the conditions there are met). So anyway, I've struck my proposals at the moment, need to reconsider. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(but not the rest of that sentence)
 * I think that 's assertion "MRD sources should be removed. otherwise the article would be seen as being in violation of WP:NPOV in favouring the MRD perspective." is too strong a stance. Obviously we would need to be careful if using MRD as a source, but WP:BIASED explicitly allows the (balanced and careful) use of biased sources. Clearly most of "Project Overview" in https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/UrbanProjects/Pages/Perth-Freight-Link.aspx is biased, but (unless they have been explicitly contradicted by other sources) it would probably be safe and appropriate to use neutral statements of fact from "Project Scope", eg:
 * "A 5 km extension of Roe Highway, west of the Kwinana Freeway to Stock Road in Coolbellup"
 * and in some limited cases "Project Benefits", eg
 * "Fourteen current sets of traffic lights to be eliminated or bypassed"
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Using a government authority website as a source is, regardless of the sources a problem. Utilising biased sources unless contradicted is a problem as well.   In most cases the opponents to extensions are focused on the loss of the environment, while the proponents are focused on the reduced traffic lights.  Different planets.  Which is why using an understood bias for traffic lights, cannot be matched against loss of bird habitat.  I agree with Gnangarra - unless there are findable sources that specifically argue for and against traffic lights, or for and against bird habitat, drop it.  As for neutral statements - the extension itself is not neutral, as it is contested that it will destroy environment that cannot be offset or compensated for. JarrahTree 13:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose changes to WP:BIASED if you think it is wrong. In particular, the parts that say:
 * "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"
 * "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable ..."
 * If your objection to using MRD is that it is not reliable in stating certain facts about the roads please say so explicitly. (Did they measure the 5km distance wrong? Did they miscount the traffic lights?)
 * I didn't suggest that we use MRD as a source for arguments for/against the extension, I said it would be appropriate to use them as a source of undisputed facts. Eg the length of the road, perhaps the relative number of traffic lights (compared to alternative routes - I did not suggest comparing the merits of the reduced traffic lights against the merits of the trees or the birds displaced by the road). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Independence (or rather lack thereof) is part of the issue, not just bias. While some content could be referenced to Main Roads (if done carefully, in a limited way, and inline with WP:QS policy and WP:BIASED guideline), we should preferentially use and base most of the article on WP:third party sources, per WP:V and similarly WP:RS. Much of the current info in the ==Route== section (where most Main Roads refs currently used) can probably be sourced to independent sources. Anything that can't be might need to be stated more in Main Roads' voice (Main Roads proposes/states/ blah...) rather than Wikipedia's voice. Some of the concern with using Main Roads refs, without at least also consulting independent refs, is that they may not tell the whole story, even if what they do say is accurate/factual (for me anyway, others may have different views). - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Perth Freight Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160113051917/https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/UrbanProjects/Roe/Pages/roe.aspx to http://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/UrbanProjects/Roe/Pages/roe.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Archive link is of a "page not found" page - Evad37 &#91;talk] 11:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

sources being collated for future expansion

 * http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/23/indigenous-site-older-than-pyramids-in-perth-freeways-path-taken-off-heritage-register
 * http://www.ibtimes.com.au/australias-roe-highway-perth-under-fire-undermining-historic-aboriginal-sites-critics-decry-expert
 * http://www.worldhighways.com/categories/auctions-equipment-supply-servicing-finance/news/australia-roe8-extension-could-face-more-legal-challenges/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Perth Freight Link. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150331092120/https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/UrbanProjects/Pages/Perth-Freight-Link.aspx to https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Projects/UrbanProjects/Pages/Perth-Freight-Link.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Corina Abraham RfC
Editors of this article may care to contribute at Talk:Corina Abraham. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Perth Freight Link: Win for Barnett Government as court upholds Roe 8 appeal
Perth Freight Link probably needs updating now that

Mitch Ames (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The project hasn't been cancelled yet
I think that these edits (collectively, because I haven't looked at them individually) by are premature - McGowan has not yet cancelled the project. I'm sure no politician would ever break an election promise, so I'm sure he will cancel the project, but surely we should wait until he actually does, before changing the description of the project to the past tense. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the lead sentence should say it is a project intended to be cancelled, rather than was a project, but in general I don't think if we do our readers any favours by saying futures work/stages will happen or are intended to happen when the in-coming government have made it clear that that is not their intention. Nor does it seem sensible to throughout the article have text constructs like "This will happen, except that is intended to be cancelled" or "As of [date before the election], this is intended to happen". - Evad37 &#91;talk] 12:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence should certainly indicate the current state of the project and intentions. As to the rest of the article, perhaps Time-context is appropriate:


 * Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Added the banner and changed the lead . - Evad37 &#91;talk] 13:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Current status?
I've tagged the article with update because it still includes sentences like:
 * "The incoming McGowan Government states it intends to scrap the entire project."
 * "... the incoming McGowan Government stated it intended to scrap the entire project. On 12 March, Main Roads and the contractors agreed to suspend work on the project."

so it still needs a bit of tidying up. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly also Roe Highway needs updating... Mitch Ames (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Roe 8 by stealth
I don't know whether it's worth paying any attention to the claims that the Murdoch Drive Connection is "Roe 8 by stealth". Probably not. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)