Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tonkin Highway

[edit]

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

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

Suggestion: Promote to A-Class
Nominator's comments: Welcome to Tonkin Highway in Perth, Western Australia, a controlled access highway* with more than a dozen sets of traffic lights. It is an important route connecting Perth Airport to the city's north-eastern and south-eastern suburbs. While the road itself is in the process of being upgraded into a modern gateway into WA, I believe that recent upgrades to the article merit consideration for an A-Class rating.
* Technically, a highway with control of access... but I thought I'd have a little fun with the nominators comments - Evad37 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by: Evad37 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First comment occurred: 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review by Fredddie

[edit]
Review by Fredddie
Overall
  1. Just a reminder to double check if the definite article is used (or not used) consistently before highway names.
    The style I'm using is to use the definite article for bridges, but not highway names (which is also what the book source The Vital Link uses). I have fixed the one inconsistency that I saw. - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead and infobox
  1. Infobox looks good
  2. ENGVAR question: Is "north-eastern" and "south-eastern" common usage in Australian English? I'm more familiar with the unhyphenated versions.
    Hyphenated or separate words are more common than the compound form, as noted in MOS:COMPASS (Australian English is very similar to British English) - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the answer I was looking for, thanks. –Fredddie™
Route description
  1. In a GAN review by Nbound (talk · contribs), I was suggested to convert a 1/2 mile to 800 m as opposed to 0.8 km. In a similar vein, I would suggest converting 800 m back to a 1/2 mile instead of 2600 feet.
  2. " A further 750 metres (0.47 mi)..." inconsistency with the above. Maybe we should come up with some guidelines as to what proper conversions should be. (See WT:AURD#US_distance_conversions)
    I'll see if anything comes out of that discussion. Also, as long as {{convert}} is used, conversion would have to be to decimals, not fractions, so it would be 800 metres (0.50 mi). - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Naturally. I just like the look of 1/2 mile over 0.5 mile. –Fredddie™
    Changed converted units so that under 400 metres → feet, 400+ metres → miles - Evad37 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We could use a little more variety in your choice of prepositions (After <distance>... or Another <distance>...) They're fairly evenly spaced, but still seems repetitious.
    Adjusted wording - Evad37 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. This is probably not actionable, but take it as a wishlist item. It would be great if we had map of the Perth area circa 1955 with all the proposed highways and freeways.
    The plan is available here: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/plate9complete.pdf
    Similarly further maps from the plan are here: http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/5308.asp
    Evad may already be aware of these sources anyway :) -- Nbound (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the 1955 map as an external link (whilst now public domain in Australia due to it's age, as far as I can tell its not PD in the US) - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyright law is not my specialty, so this will do.
  2. Dollar figures from the past should be inflated to 2013 numbers.
    How? (Template:Inflation's documentation specifically warns that it "is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses,..." and "incorrect use of this template would constitute original research.") - Evad37 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was worried that there wouldn't be template support for this... we've had several FAs pass without inflation, for this reason, during the years that we didn't have the proper US figures. --Rschen7754 19:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's make this a long term goal to have. –Fredddie™
  3. The word 'stage' is used too many times in quick succession.
    Adjusted wording - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Future works
  1. I'm a big fan of mini-leads for sections when there are third-level headers. A couple summary sentences might be a good idea here.
    Added a mini-lead - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. When you say construction "officially began on 1 February 2013..." did construction begin unofficially before that?
    Some service relocation works started earlier, added the info to the article - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Since the 2001 federal election caused some changes to construction plans, will the new government do the same?
    Add some info re the election & change of government - doesn't appear like there will be changes - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be a good idea to either make a mental note to check on this again in a year or two or add a {{Update after}} to remind you.
Junction list
  1. A little bit of overlinking in the Destinations column.
    Reduced - Evad37 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Overall it's a great article, but with a few tweaks I don't see why this can't become a featured article. –Fredddie™ 23:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am satisfied with the changes I requested. –Fredddie™ 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Rschen7754

I will review this article. --Rschen7754 22:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you're probably aware, I tend to break my reviews up into several parts, so here goes:

  • Infobox - no issues.
  • RJL - no issues.
Lead
References
Traffic volume
  • I remember there were comments regarding this at your FAC (including where it should be placed) - I would take those into account.
    Changed to the highest and lowest traffic volumes (for each end). I have merged it into Route description, per the FAC (for now at least - I'm still a bit on the fence on the placement issue... will see how the discussions develops) - Evad37 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Route description
  • The highway heads south as the border between the residential suburbs of Beechboro and Noranda. - forming the border?
  • which is also the border between the suburbs - the city is the border?
  • From this point... on?
  • urban houses - seems a bit odd.
  • Two sentences starting with "Tonkin" in the last paragraph. --Rschen7754 09:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The above issues have been fixed - Evad37 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my full intention to give this article a review in good faith, but due to the unnecessarily combative behavior I've seen exhibited on several Australian road article-related discussions, and due to the fact that I'm already behind on several other Wikimedia projects, I don't have the time to fight this one. I'm sorry, Evad37, as this isn't fair to you, but I have to draw the boundaries somewhere. --Rschen7754 00:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


After further discussion on IRC and Nbound's subsequent appreciated clarification of his comments, I have decided to review this article again. Since Fredddie is in the middle of his review, and Nbound was in line after that, I will move to the third slot. I may have to re-review the sections that I have already completed, but it should go faster than starting completely over. --Rschen7754 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Nbound is unable to review this article, I guess I'll go. I don't think I need to re-review what has already been done, and that part of the review will still stand even though it has been hatted. --Rschen7754 04:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History
Future works

Comments by Nbound

[edit]
Extended content
Hatting original opening and discussion in good faith after IRC discussions with rschen7754
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I will review this after Rschen7754.

As a start I do not wish to waste everyone's time with potential multiple reverts one way or the other, in regards to the odd content placement claims made by an editor(s) at the FAC and elsewhere, I will likely oppose if these (or similar) opinions are followed as they:

  • ruin the readability of the article
  • cause loss of information
  • are not MOS/policy/guideline based
  • are not based on the wider WP community's consensus
  • are not followed by A-Class/FA articles in general
  • are often not followed by roads A-Class/FA articles

The actual review will follow once Rschen7754's review has been completed (or completed as much as possible) -- Nbound (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite happy to discuss concerns, and that invitation will remain open. Though specifically in reply to the latter half of the first point, the traffic volume section has already been merged. - Nbound (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained my viewpoint, and you responded to that with more unnecessary emotion and rhetoric at this review. --Rschen7754 00:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to further explain, you quite openly threatened to oppose promotion of this article if I requested any changes that you choose to disagree with. That is not how ACR is intended to work, and I cannot review this article with that on the table. If I'm going to review this article, I want to be able to draw on what I honestly believe this article needs to pass FAC, and not be limited by politics; I cannot review this in good faith with the above comments on the table. Mathematically, net support + net oppose = 0. Not to mention criticizing the reviewer in the process; since I have had several successful road FACs, I don't think I deserve to have my comments treated as if they will damage the article if followed. --Rschen7754 00:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had attempted to move this discussion to a neutral place (WP:HWY) outside of the article review (which to me appears inappropriate to have such discussions). This has been reverted, and I will not be moving it back. I would kindly request that no further comments are made here (In good faith - Im also going to not respond to the final point made by rschen7754, therefore he has had last say prior to this request). I make this request so as not to further detract from any future review. I am of course still very open to discussion in regards to this matter, just in other locations -- Nbound (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith I am re-posting the opening post of this section:
As some are aware I dont agree with the issues raised at the FAC and the Kwinana Freeway talk page - I am quite happy to discuss this further, at a location such as the WP:HWY talk page, with invitations to all major roads projects. -- Nbound (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got too much stuff going on IRL to do this any time soon - consider this review slot open. -- Nbound (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dough4872

[edit]
Review by Dough4872

Comments:

  1. Since the entire length of Tonkin Highway is State Route 4, I would make sure that it redirects here and I would bold "State Route 4" in the lead.

Actually theres quite a few good reasons why this should not be done, but the main ones are:

  • All Australian states at one time or another used the same State Route shield
  • There was/is other State Route 4s

-- Nbound (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this the only State Route 4 that existed in Western Australia? If so, it should be bolded. It should also be helpful to note that designations are bolded even if they have been used multiple times. For example, "Delaware Route 4" is bolded in both the article about current Delaware Route 4 and the article about Delaware Route 299, which was formerly called Delaware Route 4. Dough4872 00:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current AURD practice is to only bold names that were commonly used for the road (See also: WP:AURDNAME). Its unlikely that this road has ever been referred to as "State Route 4" (Evad, correct me if Im wrong), even by local residents - At best it may have gotten something like "Highway 4". Ask almost any Australian where "<route>" is, and they'll probably give you you a "dunno mate". Similarly the fact that these two are entirely concurrent is more coincidence than anything else, equating the route number with the name isnt correct within the Australian context. The routes are not the roads themselves, and barring few exceptions are never treated as such, they are applied to roads to ease navigation. Im not overly familiar with Perth, so if it is actually commonly called SR4 there outside of roadgeek circles then by all means he should bold it. -- Nbound (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
State Route 4 redirects to List of highways numbered 4, with "* State Route 4 (Western Australia) – Tonkin Highway" listed under the heading == Australia ==. In the article lead, I have bolded State Route 4, because, it this case, both the name and route describe exactly the same bit of road – that is, all of Tonkin Highway is State Route 4, and all of State Route 4 is Tonkin Highway, without exception. Normally this isn't the case, hence Nbound is correct that standard AURD practise is not to bold the route designation. As for almost no-one knowing or caring about the route designation, WP:COMMONNAME applies to the title of an article, not the bolding of alternate (and not necessarily common) terms for the subject of an article, which is covered by MOS:BOLDSYN.
I think this is at risk of setting a poor precedent (and somewhat ignores AURDNAME). The reference to AURDNAME was also to the specific lead section (Im actually not referencing COMMONNAME at all). In other words that we equate the title with common names used to refer to the road itself (which can occasionally include route designations [eg. F3 Freeway for the Pacific Motorway (Sydney-Newcastle)]), rather than other names such as route numbers or internal designations. Similarly the secondary name section of the infobox has the same prerequisites, so names in bold should actually be listed in both, but again there its not really appropriate to equate the two. Route numbers and internal designations have their places within articles and leads where appropriate, but equating one with the other isn't correct. Unlike many areas around the world, routes and roads are not synonyms by virtue of alignment alone, the fact that these two happen to be entirely concurrent is a coincidence. I suspect this might be less of an issue if in our imaginations we equated a road with a concurrent Tourist Drive, Overdimensional Route, Detour Route, etc. You would never say that one is the other, bolding implies the words are true synonyms, which they arent, neither are SR4 and Tonkin Highway - In most cases internal road numbers would be more true as synonyms, but even then we dont bold those, because they are unused in the general public (even if the article later introduces them). Im not going to further interrupt Dough's review, but please take these considerations into account :) -- Nbound (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay we do not have to bold State Route 4. I understand that Australians favor names over numbers and that numbers are rarely used and hardly known to the general public. Dough4872 00:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The sentence "A further 400 metres (0.25 mi) takes the highway to a traffic light controlled intersection with Benara Road." sounds awkward.
  2. The sentence "After 500 metres (0.31 mi) the S curve ends, along with the residential area, leaving the highway travelling between industrial and commercial properties." needs to be reworded.
  3. "traffic light controlled intersection" seems like an unnecessarily long phrase and is repeated several times in the route description. You could use "signalized intersection" instead or simply "traffic light".
  4. The sentence "A 1.1 kilometres (0.68 mi) section takes Tonkin Highway to Leach Highway, as it curves back to the south-east." sounds awkward.
  5. The sentence "Over the next 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi), it curves back to the south, and meets Welshpool Road East, now entirely within Wattle Grove.", the last couple of clauses need to be reworded as it sounds confusing. Dough4872 03:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made changes for all of the above, if you could take another look (diff). - Evad37 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check by TCN7JM

[edit]

I will conduct an image check now. TCN7JM 04:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All good. TCN7JM 04:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Rschen7754

I will do the spotcheck, checking 9 sources. --Rschen7754 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 21: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 22: The source says that it was planned to open, not that it opened.
    Added the transcript of the speedch from the opening as a citation to show that the opening did occur (the source numbers below are now off by 1) - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 24: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 27: Dead, should be tagged accordingly. Otherwise fine.
    Removed |deadurl=no from citation template - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 32: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 35: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 36: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 37: Good on V and CP.
  • Source 38: The opposition, or the opponent?
    Clarified that it was the opposition's candidate - Evad37 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck done, waiting for fixes. --Rschen7754 05:27, 30 October 2013 (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/Tonkin_Highway&oldid=1141873899"