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

Kwinana Freeway

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.  Dough 48  72  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.  Dough 48  72  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.  Dough 48  72  03:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Review by Rschen7754

 * 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
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).
 * - 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 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"
 * - 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), can be switched to do so by adding
 * - 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"
 * - 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)
 * - 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)
 * - 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)
 * . 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)

Review 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?
 * - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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
 * - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * RD
 * 1) Km/h can be abbreviated after the first use
 * - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "and a shared pedestrian and bicycle path is built alongside the freeway." should be a separate sentence.
 * , though the sentences seem a bit short now... - Evad37 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 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 m", or "600 m". 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)

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 m", or "600 m". 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

 * 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). T C  N7 JM  03:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC) This is all for my review. T C  N7 JM  22:18, 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.
 * 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.
 * 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. T  C  N7 JM  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. T C  N7 JM  03:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC) 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. T C  N7 JM  03:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Source #29 - ✅
 * Source #30 - ✅
 * Source #31 - ✅
 * Source #32 - ✅
 * Source #33 - ✅
 * Source #34 - ✅
 * Source #35 - ✅
 * Source #36 - ✅ (Yes, including the table on the right.)
 * Source #37 - ✅


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.