Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kwinana Freeway/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Kwinana Freeway

edit

Kwinana Freeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Evad37 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. This is my first nomination at FAC, and the first Australian road to be nominated at FAC. The article has recently passed an A-Class Review at WikiProject Highways. - Evad37 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC own work, extensive check done during ACR). GermanJoe (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I am the third to have reviewed this article at ACR, and I felt that the article met the criteria. Comment placed above those by Dr. Blofeld so as not to interrupt them. TCN7JM 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

edit
Its part of the actual name. If anything the capitalisation of Wetlands should possibly be dropped. (ie. The Spectacles wetlands). See: The Spectacles, Western Australia -- Nbound (talk)
Ah I see, well something doesn't look right, maybe it is the capitalization of Wetlands!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Spectacles Wetlands" is the actual name, see for example [2] - Evad37 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I did have a feeling that might be the case.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • megalitres -can you link (I wanted to check the size).
    Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delink Murdoch railway station in the future section per OVERLINK.
    Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to see more book sources used for the article, but I understand that for roads there may be a distinct lack of sources which cover the road in detail. However sources such as [3] and [4] I think indicate that extensive studies of the environmental impacts of the building of the freeway have been conducted, given that much of it is swampland and water habitat. I'd expect such an article to have a comprehensive section on Environmental impact. If you live in Perth, perhaps you might be able to find such sources in the library?
    There seems to be various sources available in the State Library of Western Australia. Might have to wait until next weekend, but I'll see if I have time to go before then. - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in great shape to me, await your response on my suggestions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few quick changes now, and will take another look tomorrow my time (UTC+8) - Evad37 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more done, more to attend to later - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great thanks, thanks for addressing the points. If you could find those sources in the Perth library and try to add something on environmental impact of the road this would be the icing on the cake.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've started drafting a section on the environmental impact at User:Evad37/Sandbox 7, but it looks like I'll need another trip to the library / additional sources - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Environmental impact section added to article – though it will no doubt need a bit of copyediting - Evad37 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job, really appreciate the lengths you've gone to here to research it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour (60 mph) north of Safety Bay Road and 110 km/h (70 mph) to the south. - km/h unabbreviated then abbreviated...any reason they are not formatted the same?

Support - nothing else to complian about really....Hmm, looks in good shape otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed so that both are 'kilometres per hour' - Evad37 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

  • Source for the interchanges table?
  • FN2: suggest using at/loc parameter rather than pages
  • FN9 and similar: title should use endash not hyphen
  • FN12: formatting
  • FN47: don't need both retrieved and accessed date. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick question, but is the library location where the sources were accessed necessary? I could see indicating the library if we were citing an ancient manuscript whose content varies depending on which copy is consulted. Otherwise, I don't see the point. We make no requirements that the sources used in our articles are freely accessible on the Internet, free of charge to use, or even widely published, just that they be reliable sources that someone could access to verify the claims and information repeated in the article.
As a second note, some of the footnotes starting with FN47 seem to be of the CS2 style (uses commas for separators instead of only fullstops/periods) and not the CS1 style used in the rest of the article. There's inconsistency in how PDFs are indicated: some use "PDF", some use "pdf" and some are missing the format indicator completely. Since "PDF" is an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format", I should think it would follow the abbreviation rules of that dialect of English used by the article. Imzadi 1979 → 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the footnotes per the above comments. The source for the table is the reference in the km column heading. I looked at a number of road FAs (chosen randomly from Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles) and they all used a single ref in the distance column heading. - Evad37 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm concerned that the environmental impact section is a bit lengthy, giving undue weight to the matters... maybe consider trimming it a bit? --Rschen7754 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and the overall organization of the article could use a review as well. I'm tempted to say on first impression that the environmental impact section should be a third of its present size, and that it should be included in the history as historical events of the freeway's timeline. Additionally, the traffic volume table implies that there would be newer years' data listed by how it's formatted, yet only one period is listed, and it's 5–6 years old. I'm not overly fond of such detail on traffic counts, but I would think this should be part of the RD section, and not a separate heading slipped in after the two sections that treat the roadway chronologically and before a third that also discusses major historical events of the subject road. Consider my comments as "neutral", but leaning toward opposition. Imzadi 1979 → 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more with Dr.Blofield on this. I think the environmental section is great, though it might benefit from splitting into a couple of subsections -- Nbound (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's saying that it is bad, it's just that it seems to have too much emphasis as-is. --Rschen7754 08:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. But generally the EIS is the most substantial part of the road planning process, it generally involves the most in depth study, and its outcomes determine the final route the road may take. If the section was half the article or something that'd be a bit concerning in regards to likely being poorly summarised. But its a fair bit smaller than both the Route Description and general History sections, its also at the bottom of the article after all the other sections have had their say. Im a little confused as to how material that isnt challenged in its validity can receive undue weight in the context of the article. If the information is there, if its of consequence (which this clearly is) - then we should be covering it. At the very worst, if there is a perceived overemphasis on this, it could be summarised and the remainder moved to its own article - though that move seems a bit pointless at this stage as I wouldnt consider the article to be WP:TOOBIG - the secondary article would also need to retain a significant amount of information from the main one to provide context. -- Nbound (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re environmental impact section: The relevant policy is WP:BALASPS (part of WP:NPOV). The examples given there are "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports". I don't think 'Environmental impact' is as insignificant as those examples, and Dr. Blofeld actually commented above that he'd "expect such an article to have a comprehensive section on Environmental impact". I'll take a look tomorrow, but I don't know if I can trim too much without either giving undue weight to one or more sections of the road, or losing significant detail.
Re traffic volume: I will be able to add some more years to the table - I have found another document online, and historical data seems to be available in the state library archives. The source currently used in the article seems to be the latest published data.
Re organisation: I agree that traffic volume makes more sense as part of route description, and environmental impact as part of history. At the moment I think they should retain their headings (as ===Level 3=== subheadings) and be subsections, but may reconsider tomorrow (it's starting to get a bit late over here). - Evad37 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that traffic volume belongs under route description, and propose further discussion at Talk:Kwinana Freeway#Traffic volume as a subsection of Route description. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at cutting down the length of the environmental impact section. I managed to reduce it by about 20%, but I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it, so for the moment its in a sandbox. I intend to do more work on the article over the weekend. - Evad37 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much to recommend (my initial comments were based on an impression from an initial skim of the article, so they could be subject to change), but I still have an issue with the article's organization. All of the EI stuff is historical details, it is not? Then why is it not integrated into the history section? As it stands at the moment, we have a TOC with the following sections in order:
  • Route description (and subsections)
  • History (past events treated chronologically)
  • Future (upcoming events treated chronologically)
  • Environmental impact (past planning studies and events, treated chronologically)
  • Interchanges (big table traditionally the last item before...)
  • See also, Notes, References, External links (aka the "end sections" of any article).
So we're bouncing a reader around from the past to the future and back into the past. It's verging on a FA criterion 2b failure on the current structure. Imzadi 1979 → 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are being very liberal with your interpretation of 2b ("appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents") there Imzadi1979. There is no requirement for absolute chronological order through all sections (and a quick browse of existing FAs can confirm that). It makes more sense to keep the article on the same topic per section or subsection rather than mixing everything into a wall of text. The same reason why the transitway section is currently separated. The same reason the shielding history is separated on other roads. Hell its the same reason all major articles contain more sections other than "Description", "History", and associated tables and charts . Are we really doubting the intelligence of the average reader so much that given a whole new section or subsection on a separate topic they cant comprehend a new timeline tailored to the topic at hand? *highly confused* -- Nbound (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a further quick check, even some of your own FAs restart timelines in new sections for coverage of some subtopics. (Even: U.S. Route 23 in Michigan, currently an FAC - I think this is perfectly fine, but it shouldnt be by your own argument) -- Nbound (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (Modified- 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
But the overall organization is still to keep the by-chronology stuff together in my past works. There are times when one must backtrack when dealing with some complex histories to keep topics together. I never said there was an absolute requirement for chronology, however, it does require an "appropriate structure". Bouncing around the chronology when it can be kept together logically is not appropriate. The proper use of subheadings with creative use of photographs or other media eliminates the "wall of text", so that argument is a non-starter. See below for other related comments. Imzadi 1979 → 06:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that some of the examples in your FAs could be integrated in much the same manner. As I said earlier checking any of the various other FAs will find plenty of chronology "bouncing". overriding topics are usually whats given precedence. If you prefer them combined together, then thats personal preference and it should be considered by the nom much like all our opinions. But its not an FA criterion, explicit or implied beyond its most basic level - which was the main reason I replied. -- Nbound (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

( For the convenience of any further reviewers, here are links to a version with EI as a separate section and a version with EI integrated into the history section. - Evad37 (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

I personally think it looks better. The history section could use a few subheaders, but otherwise I have no further objections. --Rschen7754 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can do it that way, or you can move the EI as a subheading of the history, leaving the history section to be subdivided by topics. However, my point is that the EI is part of the road's history as a series of controversies and events in the past. Placing historical, or past, events after future events just comes out very disorganized, and betrays the fact that the section was written and added afterwards. Imzadi 1979 → 06:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—regarding the Interchanges section, I have a problem with some things.

  • Looking at the fourth line of the table (kilometer 2.98), is that interchange located over the boundary between South Perth and Como? If so, shouldn't that say it's on the "Como–South Perth boundary" (Substitute a different word for boundary; in the US I'd use "city line" or whatever works best.) The boundary shouldn't be implied with a comma, and it really should be explicitly implied with the dash and a descriptor. (The US highway FAs haven't always done this, but we're starting to change them to be more explicit about boundary locations.) I would suggest that all of the comma-ed locations need to be changed.
    Changed. Used boundary as that is how a government map [5] describes them. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the second line of the table, you have the same issue regarding the comma. However, I suggest a simpler solution. If the river is the border between Perth and South Perth, a better option would be to move the river to the location columns and set it so that it spans the two columns. This would be analogous to the Mackinac Bridge's entry on Interstate 75 in Michigan stating that it crosses the Straits of Mackinac. This should also be considered for the Mount Henry Bridge over the Canning River.
    Changed for both bridges. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Karnup Road interchange is missing a dash to separate the road from Serpentine (km 46.69–47.53)
    Fixed as obvious typo - Nbound (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (no prejudice against nominator reversion if required)[reply]
  • Why is the zero point only expressed to one decimal point (0.0) in the first line while the other distances are two DPs?
    Fixed as almost definitely uncontroversial change - Nbound (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (no prejudice against nominator reversion if required)[reply]
    • Another quick thought, but I'd use the full shield + name formatting for the Mitchell Freeway as the destination in that line and split the "freeway terminus" part as a note in the notes column. Otherwise this one line looks a bit inconsistent with the rest of the table. At the opposite end of the table, I'd also use the Forrest Highway as a "destination" (since it is an option for Kwinana Freeway traffic at that location) and alter the note to just say "continues south as Forrest Highway" without the link or "State Route 2" because both would be in the destinations column.
Imzadi 1979 → 06:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kwinana_Freeway/archive1&oldid=1109754633"