Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Forrest Highway

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways‎ | Assessment‎ | A-Class Review

Forrest Highway edit

Article was promoted at FAC - Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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.
Toolbox

Forrest Highway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Forrest Highway is the shortest article I've nominated at ACR, but I feel this recently constructed road is comprehensive and up to standard. The article was promoted to GA last December, and has recently undergone further copyediting. If promoted, this would take all components of Western Australia's State Route 2 to FA/A-class.
Nominated by: Evad37 [talk] 03:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Review by Dough4872 edit

Review by Dough4872
  • I will review this article. Dough4872 03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  1. "The existing alignment through Mandurah would form a bottleneck", how can an alignment form a bottleneck? Better wording is needed here.
    There would ultimately be a freeway/expressway-standard road north and south of Mandurah, but not through Mandurah, thus the bottleneck. Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The road travels south for 6.3 kilometres (3.9 mi), over the Murray River and through rural land in and beyond South Yunderup.", what kind of rural land does the highway pass through?
    Clarified as farmland - Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the history, you need inflation conversions.
    We probably need to look at getting a template built for that... If I recall correctly, there is price index data going back to the 1970s available online for road construction in Australia. I'll have to have a look again. - Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You mention how towns along the old route were affected with decreasing traffic volume, but are there additional affects to mention such as lost revenue to businesses?
    I've expanded a bit with a new source, but there isn't much info available other than "loss of business" or "loss of trade" - Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article looks good. Dough4872 00:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Issues addressed. I would continue to look into creating an inflation template for road construction in Australia that can be used in this and other articles. Dough4872 00:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dough4872: I've added inflated values. I only found data going back to 1998, but that's enough for this article. - Evad37 [talk] 03:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dough4872 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete reviews

First review by Fredddie edit

Since this stopped abruptly, I'll just start over. –Fredddie™

I'll take a look in the next day or so. –Fredddie™ 05:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, if I'm watching the videos correctly, the alignment in your car is terrible.   –Fredddie™ 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
  1. The infobox length conversion should be the same precision as the cited length.
    Done - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Question: Is the major cities parameter only used for freeways? Could we use it here anyway?
    No, its not only for freeways. Added to infobox. - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  1. The definite article seems to be used inconsistently. Example with emphasis: "Since the 1980s, the state government has been upgrading the main Perth to Bunbury route, by extending the Kwinana Freeway south from Perth, and constructing a dual carriageway on <no 'the' here> Old Coast Road north of Bunbury."
    Removed - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Since June 2014 is almost over, do you have an update on the construction of the roadhouses?
    I haven't found any new information on the roadhouses

More to come. –Fredddie™ 04:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the review, I'll look into it tomorrow my time (UTC+8) - Evad37 [talk] 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just discovered that almost 60 kilometres (37 mi) of road south of Lake Clifton has recently been renamed as part of Forrest Highway [1], so this ACR will need to be left on hold or suspended until I've had time to update the article with that section's route description, history, and junctions. - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended after 30 days of inactivity with unaddressed comments. --Rschen7754 17:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reactivating this nomination as I have finished updating the article with a more than 2+1⁄2–times expansion. Pinging @Dough4872 and Fredddie: - Evad37 [talk] 08:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second review by Fredddie edit

I will start over. –Fredddie™ 17:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: were you still planning to review this article? --Rschen7754 00:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Observation

I made one grammar change to this article last week, and have since read through it several times to try to get the true sense of it, My conclusion: It is a disjointed and confusing read for a non-local. My suggestion: Needs review by someone with local knowledge to get the grammar, sequence, and structure right without compromising accuracy. I will watch this space with interest, and will help if I can. Cheers. Downsize43 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking an interest, Downsize43. Is there any way you could be a bit more specific? I would like to improve the article, but it's a bit hard to fix something if I can't really understand the problem. - Evad37 [talk] 10:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Happy to be of service, I hope.
  • First - some high school writing principles that I find invaluable:
    • Only one idea per paragraph
    • Avoid overly long and/or complex sentences
    • No more than five or six sentences per paragraph
  • While not suggesting that this article seriously breaches any of these principles, there is some scope for improvement.
  • Some general comments:
    • The lede seems overlong, and includes some almost verbatim text from the body of the article
    • Some of the sub-section headings in the History section could be expanded to include a time frame, eg. "New construction in the 1950s"
    • Avoid using the article name as a section etc heading, eg. perhaps "Redesignation as Forrest Highway"
    • Consider reducing or removing the descriptions of the effect of the Forrest Highway improvements on the South Western Highway
    • Consider reducing or removing the Old Coast Road section

NOTE: While browsing the article to write this I got brave and made some minor changes.Downsize43 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you spelling and grammer fixes. In reply to your general comments:
  • I've tried to tighten up the lead, but three paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this size, per Wikipedia:Writing better articles#The_rest_of_the_lead_section
  • I've adjusted some of the section headings, let me know what you think
  • Changed to "Forrest Highway after opening", since the content of that section is the history since the opening
  • I think that it is important to show that impact of the highway, as discussed by sources specifically relating the impacts to the the opening of Forrest Highway. Three sentences discussing this does not seem disproportionate to me.
  • I merged Old Coast Road here due to the significant overlap of the histories, and the description of these former sections of the Perth–Bunbury route seems appropriate to mention in the context of the current Perth–Bunbury route. This is not unprecedented, including related routes below the junction list is quite common for U.S. roads.
Please let me know if you have any other suggestions, or want to discuss these points further. - Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new headings. I will give it a good read sometime over the weekend.Downsize43 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Downsize43: were you planning on leaving any other comments? --Rschen7754 03:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No.Downsize43 (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Rschen7754 edit

Review by Rschen7754

I do plan to review this article, though it may be a while before I get to it. --Rschen7754 02:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary checks
  • Citation 10 seems to be missing something.
    Changed to {{cite thesis}} and added details - Evad37 [talk] 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • £ - British pound?
    Linked to Australian pound - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June 2014 - a bit too repetitive; maybe "that same month" or something like that
      Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Route description
  • Adding exact distances in between the junctions leads to tedium - isn't that what the major intersections list is for?
    I would have thought most road articles would give distances in the route description, WP:USRD/NEW even says Exact distances are quoted, giving a sense of scale. - Evad37 [talk] 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's referring to "four miles" as opposed to "4.3 miles" or "a few miles". --Rschen7754 16:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've adjusted the distances in this section - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • which was could only be forded by horses - a few extra words
    Removed "was" - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pastoral" should probably be linked
      Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need to repeat "1842" in the rest of the paragraph
      Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coastal route would require -> would have required? also check the rest of the sentence for tenses
      Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • write letters... to whom?
      Done, to the Colonial Secretary (add a link at the previous mention) - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • he news not well received ... was?
      Done - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was uninhabited... what was uninhabited?
    the adjacent land... as in "while the adjacent land was still privately owned, it [ie, the adjacent land] was uninhabited" - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • undertake such works -> undertake them
      Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • marine organisms - can we be more specific?
    The source says sea worm, without being more specific, but our page sea worm is a just a set index article - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • improve local amenity -> amenities?
    no, the other definition of wikt:amenity - as in "amenity of the climate" rather than "amenities the hotel provided" - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • reduces -> reduced? Also, should it be "according to X"?
      Done, added "according to" in a footnote - Evad37 [talk] 06:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nappies" should probably be linked.
      Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a comprehensive article and I should have no problem supporting once these issues are fixed. --Rschen7754 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I am suspending this ACR as I have nominated the article at FAC - Evad37 [talk] 09:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Should this nomination be reactivated, this will need a source review to pass ACR. --Rschen7754 04:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/Assessment/A-Class_Review/Forrest_Highway&oldid=1138363132"