Talk:Graham Farmer Freeway/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 06:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zzz plant (talk · contribs) 11:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Steelkamp, thank you for your work on this article. I'll review it against the GA criteria and should have comments posted within a day. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Overall

• Thanks for your edits and replies! I marked prose off as all set. The main things left are the points about non-independent sources and neutrality wrt weighting. The broadness questions are not that critical- fire/safety features seem maybe particularly relevant because of the later emergency-lane controversy discussion. Best, Zzz plant (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Writing

• Very good job on prose. I have only a few comments, organized by section below: Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Lede

• provides a good standalone summary of the body as it currently stands Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• I'd consider replacing "subsuming", at least in the lede. I don't think it's a common word for a general reader Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, done. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

History

• "As the tunnel passed through Weld Square, two century-old Moreton Bay figs and a kurrajong tree were cut down. Six more century-old trees were relocated." this feels like a breadcrumb without significance - I'd either briefly mention the fact that it upset people or cut it altogether Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I've added that there was criticism of the trees being cut down. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• "At the time, Riverside Drive and The Causeway were heavily congested, with much of the traffic using those roads heading through the CBD rather than to or from." I get that the noun is implied but this sounds truncated / almost like a cut-off sentence to me Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• the Swan River bridge para reads a bit more like a timeline than the others Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I've reworked this para. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• "Charlton claimed that there was no cost blowout and that "everything is within expectations"." I'd rework this, the combo of MOS:CLAIM and the quote marks implies a lot of skepticism. which is maybe earned, but I'd convey directly the views of people / newspaper articles who were skeptical of him directly. Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I've reworked and simplified this to be more neutral. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• without context of why traffic increased or reduced the vehicle figures can kinda read as arbitrary. it's fine if sources don't elaborate, but if a smidge of context can be found I feel it'd be a high-value add Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I've added that these are routes into the CBD. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Verifiability with no original research

Reference formatting

• generally good. I'd add a press release parenthetical tag to [20] for consistency Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Done, good catch. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliability

• I feel the sourcing balance skews too heavily towards government press releases at the moment. I'm not opposed to using them, but I would like to see some more supplementation or even replacement with reliable secondary sources. Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I've gone through to check each press release:

    [2] is used with a newspaper source each time.

    [8] is used with a map source. I think there's an advantage to including the press release because it explicitly mentions the James Street off ramp (which is a change from the design by the Burswood Bridge and Road Committee).

    [15]-[29] Fair enough, I agree its too much of the government press releases. Unfortunately I don't have online access to The West Australian before August 1996, so I'll have to go to the library to look at microfilm copies. I should be able to find coverage of the freeway based on the dates of the press releases.

    [38] Ditto.

    [43] This is used with a newspaper source. I could remove it and replace it with "Edmonds 2008", which also mentions the public open days, but not the specific month of March 1998.

    [50] I haven't found any alternate sources for this.

    [51] I managed to find newspaper coverage of this, which I have added.

    [52] This is also used with a newspaper source.

    [59] "By October 2000, an average of 65,000 vehicles per day were using the Graham Farmer Freeway" I haven't found another source for this. For the other sentence this source is used, there is also a newspaper source for it.

    [60] I haven't found any alternate sources for this. I found a newspaper article that says traffic was up to 106,000 vehicles per day, but it didn't mention the date this happened, so not a perfect replacement.

    [63] I managed to find newspaper coverage of this, which I have added

    [66] and [71] This is used with an ABC News article.

    Steelkamp (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

    • • overall independent coverage has been improved across the board. the one [15]-[29] area (although numbers have changed now I think) is all that's left. happy to informally hold since the newspapers are offline. Zzz plant (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Spot check

• [4][5]: "The speed limit for the whole freeway is 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph)." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• [9]: "The first proposal for a northern bypass was made by the Metropolitan Town Planning Commission in 1930. It would have cut across from The Causeway to Newcastle Street." ? I don't see "first" explicitly spelled out but otherwise fully verified Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I think its fair to say first because this is a comprehensive source and that is the first thing mentioned in the history in that source. Steelkamp (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
    • my concern is that the report doesn't seem to explicitly state that this was the absolute first time a bypass was ever conceptualized in Perth, nor does it present itself as an exhaustive or comprehensive history of every single early planning discussion. Let me know if I'm missing something on the latter front. To keep it strictly verifiable while preserving detail, I would soften slightly to something like: "Proposals for a northern bypass date back to at least 1930, when..." Zzz plant (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've done what you've suggested. Steelkamp (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• [9]: "The state government commenced acquiring the land for this in the 1960s, with some of the land leased back to private tenants." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• [9]: "Due to a lack of investment in the land, it fell into disrepair." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• [17]: "Public hearings were held in the first half of 1994." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• [38]: "However, acting environment minister Kevin Prince stated in April 1996 that the normal development processes would be sufficient to manage environmental issues, and rejected claims that the EPA's decision was rushed." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• [69][70][71]: "The third lane in the eastbound tunnel opened on 16 April 2013, and in the westbound tunnel on 29 April 2013. A reduced speed limit was put in place for about a month to allow drivers to get used to the change." Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright

• EW in green at 32.9%, overlap is mostly proper nouns and source titles Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• checked "What We Thought Would Kill Us: Case Study 6" in-depth for close-paraphrasing and other sources from spot-check more generally- no issues found. Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Scope

• assortment of scope questions in no particular order; not necessarily critical to GACR:
  • worth mentioning polly's pipe nickname? and how he was the first to drive through the tunnel? source Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes, i've done both. Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm very curious if there are any features for fire safety; I know that can be a big factor in modern tunnel construction. there looks to be a pertinent source in further reading section Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes, i've added some information on this in the description section, such as the water deluge system, fire detection, and ventilation. Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • similar-ish, is there a command room or something similar? security cameras? this talks about the Main Roads' Traffic Operations Centre which was above the tunnel Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is 24 hour monitoring of the tunnel. I've added some info on this within the description section. Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
  • artwork near the tunnel? source1 source2 Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
    • I've added a paragraph on this. That artwork has yet to be removed or restored, but there are no further sources on it either, so I've just chosen to mention the artworks, but not the bore water stain problems. Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
      • checked off scope as all set- great additions, the new subsection answers the fire/safety/operations questions without technical overkill- gives reader a much better sense of how the tunnel tangibly operates. and artwork provides nice civic texture. Zzz plant (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• follows a summary style, no detours of excessive detail Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality

• tone is generally formal and encyclopedic, with no puffery. Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• the third lane safety controversy could use a bit of re-weighting: I don't get a sense from the article itself on why the coroner released her report / what the safety situation was like that caused the controversy. similarly, I would also clarify that Barnett was specifically pushing back on her recommendations. I don't think "Premier Colin Barnett said that the tunnel was always built to have three lanes." quite conveys the extent of his disagreement Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I've reworded and elaborated a bit on the Burnley Tunnel crash and that Barnett specifically pushed back on the coroner's recommendations. How is that? Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    • this looks great, learning about the Burnley Tunnel crash causation makes the relevance of the coroner's recommendation much clearer! Zzz plant (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• I'd also be cautious about saying " By 2014, the rate of crashes in the tunnel was roughly the same as before the extra lanes were added, despite the extra traffic" - the news article this is sourced to reads basically like a regurgitation of the government press release (and obviously they have a vested interest in claiming their move was safe) Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I've removed "despite the extra traffic". Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
    • yep that's a nice softening, all set Zzz plant (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• I also wonder about weighting of the construction controversy. this to me implies some pretty strong disgruntlement about the tunnel's construction among residents. the article does talk about the negative impacts but it stays generally dry, to an extent that I don't know if I get a full picture of why people were so upset. for ex, have there been any scientific studies on the groundwater implications? why was the The Cities for People campaign formed? I think you could keep an encyclopedic tone while providing a fuller picture of the conflict Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Ideally I think even just a sentence or two more in this era would really help convey the extent of community outcry Zzz plant (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

    Does the second paragraph in the construction section address this? The main reasons for opposition to the tunnel is the impact during construction, the demolition of buildings, the environmental impact, and the impact of encouraging car use. Steelkamp (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

    It's helpful context, but right now I feel "The Cities for People campaign was formed in opposition" is doing all the heavy lifting for the community response. Is anything else known about the group (like maybe roughly how many people were in it?) besides that they were able to put together a successful FOI request? Even "Fifty-eight buildings were demolished, twenty-two of which had local heritage significance, a source of criticism." feels soft and a bit dry compared to the source's title "History falls to the march of time" My gut feeling is that this section needs just a bit more to convey the scale and intensity of the pushback. Zzz plant (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Stability

• no signs of edit warring or content disputes, either in recent article history or talk page. nominator is main author (91.3%) Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Illustration

• a bit of a sandwich effect between the long infobox and the first image of the body Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• five images and a map, all are relevant, displayed with text they serve as visual aids for. none feel superfluous or just images for the sake of images Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• license review passes:
  • File:Northbridge Tunnel western entrance 10.jpg - CC0 Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • File:Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel eastern entrance, 2021.jpg - CC0 Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • File:Graham Farmer Freeway viewed from Belmont Park footbridge 01 (cropped).jpg - CC0 Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • File:Northbridge Tunnel western ventilation building 09.jpg - CC0 Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
  • File:Goongoongup and Windan Bridge seen from Perth Stadium, December 2022 02 (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0 Y Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• images all have alt text :-) Zzz plant (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2026 (UTC)