Talk:Kwinana Freeway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleKwinana Freeway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 22, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 12, 2013WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
September 16, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Future works[edit]

From the article:

There are currently no plans to extend the Kwinana Freeway, except to have it continue as the Perth - Bunbury Highway where it currently terminates at Safety Bay Road. This is subject to change due to a funding dispute between the WA Government and the Federal Government.

What dispute? How does the 2007 Federal election result affect this? Where is this information coming from? Brian Jason Drake 09:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Transitway[edit]

Now that the Mandurah railway line is complete, is it possible that the Bus Transitway section needs a tidy up? Wiki ian 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Parts of it are just plain wrong - if one were to believe this article, Labor constructed the busway (they came into power at the February 2001 election.) As a student at Murdoch in the late 1990s I travelled up the busway and through the Canning Bridge station every weekday. Sadly, I don't know where this information could be correctly sourced. I'm also fairly sure it was never given the title "Bus Transitway", although on doing a restricted search on wa.gov.au I can find the words as a non-title being used to describe it. Orderinchaos 11:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more photos[edit]

I realise there are plenty of images already, but I just uploaded a few more featuring the Kwinana Freeway (below). Feel free to use. Dcoetzee 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical speed limits on the freeway[edit]

I have a memory that the maximum speed limit on the freeway was 90 for many years before being raised to 100. This may have been due to better surfacing or signage on the freeway being developed. This would be a notable inclusion if a source can be found. 203.206.44.246 (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recall it being 80, then raised to 90, then 100. Not sure of timing, but it would have been in the late 80s-early 90s. Wonder if Main Roads would know anything? Orderinchaos 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2005 flooding - travel time[edit]

On average it took people over two hours to travel[citation needed] between the Mill Point Road exit in South Perth to Canning Highway in Como along the parallel Labouchere Road.

The above info has been marked as needing a citation since September 2011. I've moved here because it is not strictly necessary in the article - the previous sentence regarding gridlock is adequate - although it could be added back in if a reliable source is found. - Evad37 (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kwinana Freeway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 (talk · contribs) 22:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • "The interchange is a diamond interchange, with Kwinana Freeway free flowing, and includes additional bus only ramps connecting to the median lanes of the freeway.", I don't see the need for "with Kwinana Freeway free flowing".
    Removed - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence "400 metres (1,300 ft)[8] south of Canning Highway is a partial Y interchange with Manning Road, consisting of a northbound entrance ramp and southbound exit ramp." should be reworded so it does not begin with a numeral.
    Fixed - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When mentioning Kwinana Freeway in prose, I would add "the" in front of it so it reads better.
    Fixed - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the freeway realigns itself south-east" sounds awkward.
    Changed - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    "Through the southern suburbs of Perth, Kwinana Freeway travels south as the boundary between suburbs", which suburbs does it travel as the boundary between?
    There's about fourteen of them, which are mentioned throughout the subsection. I changed it to "...between various suburbs", and added mentions of some more suburbs - Evad37 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will place the article on hold for some fixes to be made. Dough4872 00:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will now pass the article. Dough4872 03:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic volume table title[edit]

The table in the Traffic volume section has a title "... Tonkin Highway". Should this be ".. Kwinana Freeway"? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... I copied the table format from Tonkin Highway, but forgot to change that part - Evad37 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Como jetty/Jetty[edit]

Regarding this addition of "... the existing Como Beach and Jetty" - is "Como Jetty" a proper noun? I suspect not, in which case "jetty" ought not be capitalised. "Como Beach" is probably a proper noun - my 2011 Perth street directory shows "Como Beach", but just "jetty", not "Como Jetty". The linked reference refers to "the Como Jetty" - the inclusion of the "the" to says to me that Como is an adjective and "jetty" is a common noun. If "Como Jetty" were a proper noun, it would not require "the" in front of it. Quoting from our article Proper noun: "... proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by [a grammatical] article ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that use "Como Jetty" as a proper noun, without "The" or "the" in the front:
  • [1] p. 5122 "thence in a north easterly direction for approximately 551 meters to the outer end of Como Jetty."
  • [2] "A feature of the transit way project would be the construction of a spectacular footbridge across the freeway allowing people access to Como Jetty."
  • [3] "...mooring and landing area to be located at Como Jetty,..."
  • [4] "Walking along Como Jetty, ...", "Yachts at Como Jetty."
  • [5] "Como Beach and Como Jetty"
  • [6] p. 576 "(c) Como Jetty (Public Plan 1D/20, S.E.)."
  • [7] p. 2192 "Between Canning Bridge and a line drawn between Point Heathcote and the outer end of Como Jetty."
Those are all from *.gov.au websites. - Evad37 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact - environmental desecration[edit]

Resolved

The Environmental impact section says:

In 1974, that first stage was described by the EPA as an "environmental desecration".

I would have expected:

... described by the EPA as an "environmental desecration".

where desecration refers to the act of building the freeway, rather than the freeway itself. SOED also defines desecration as "a desecrated state" which could possibly refer to the state of the land with the freeway on it, but that seems less likely.

I don't have ready access to the ref, so I can check myself, but:

  • If the EPA did say "an environmental desecration" then we should put "an" inside the quotations marks, possibly as "an [...] environmental desecration" if appropriate.
  • Otherwise the word an should possibly be deleted.

A quote of the whole sentence here might clarify matters. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence is:

In the present environmentally conscious era such a public work could well be described as environmental desecration.

so I've removed the word an. - Evad37 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic volume as a subsection of Route description[edit]

I disagree with the recent move of the "Traffic volume" section into the "Route description" section (prompted by FAC comments). The route is where the freeway goes; the volume of traffic is not a "part" of the route, so ought not be a sub-section. I suggest that "traffic volume" should be promoted up a level, either immediately before or immediately after "Interchanges". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section is a description of the physical characteristics of the roadway and its routing. The level of traffic that uses the road is one of those characteristics. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vehicles on the road are not a "physical characteristic of the roadway". The volume of traffic is a result of (amongst other things) the physical characteristics such as capacity and route, but it is not an intrinsic part of the road or its route. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and honestly this is one subsection that could be eliminated. Most highway FAs only list the highest and lowest traffic counts at those specific spots in the RD section. By this I mean that when the RD is detailing an area, and that is the location of the highest AADT, that fact is mentioned there; ditto the lowest. The other common method is the "RD mini-lead" which summarizes some overall information about the total highway and includes the highest and lowest traffic counts. Anything more has been seen as getting into the realm of information more technical than needed for an encyclopedia article aimed at a general audience.
M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) is the only highway FA that currently has its own traffic count subsection. The only reason I gave BUS M-28 its own full subsection is that compared to its length, there are only a few other AADT measurements to include beyond the highest and lowest. Also, for a short road, there's a desire to "pad" the content a bit to avoid having an article that's too short. Again, the traffic congestion (or lack thereof) is a physical characteristic of the road, and it helps to describe environment on that road. Imzadi 1979 → 06:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut down the number of count locations to the highest and lowest points, as it probably was getting too technical. I have also integrated it into the opening paragraphs of the route description, rather than a separate subsection... though maybe it would be more appropriate as a subsection under the history section instead? - Evad37 (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the traffic volume does not belong under either route description or history, but should be in its own section, as it was back here.
In my opinion, that provides undue weight to the traffic volume statistics. --Rschen7754 04:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break (AKA - Nbound's WTF is going on here discussion)[edit]

  • Ugh, luckily I hadnt noticed this, I personally would have rescinded my FA support especially after already merging the EI section. I dont understand why some editors want everything condensed into the RD and History; it appears to be a road article specific anomaly (or even USRD specific), and for no good reason. Hell almost every article on wikipedia could wittled down to a description, history, and associated data/tables - but we dont do it for good reason, its impact on readability is horrible, and any link to an overriding topic or subtopic is lost. Not to mention we lose information in the merges (why on earth are we deleting information for a perceived aesthetic improvement on the behalf of some editors?). As for the undue weight arguement, UNDUE only applys to viewpoints on Wikipedia, its a mechanism to stop fringe views and so on. Besides topics and subtopics are for organisation they do not imply any kind importance, hell I know a few articles which have history sections consisting of a single sentence stating there is no history since the route was designated, or tiny future sections. By your own argument, we should be removing these sections. If there was undue weight given to the MRWA traffic data, there needs to be competing data that was not being written about from someone else. Dont even get me started on the absolute chronological order thing either. Hell, U.S. Route 23 in Michigan (Current FAC) is actually still breaking all of these supposed rules (extra sections, chronological bouncing, "undue" weight), I have no problem with that, because they arent real problems, why have we seen them pushed so hard (even at the loss of information) here? -- Nbound (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raw statistics, like a table full of traffic counts, requires a level of interpretation to be useful to the reader. These statistics come from a primary source or set of primary sources. Beyond basic comparison ("counts have gone up", "this is the highest/lowest traffic level on the roadway", etc) we should not be performing further analyses to give the numbers context beyond what our sources say. That would be called "original research", and it's something policy says we can't do. I include values for the highest and lowest traffic counts in my articles to answer the "who?" question in the form of "who uses the road?" with a "between X and Y drivers per day, on average" type answer. The reports that give me those answers offer additional details like "Design Hourly Volume Percent", "Directional Factor" and other statistics that are meaningless to a general audience. Road articles already suffer from the perception that we're performing original research to distill obvious details about where a roadway is routed through its environment from maps and travel guides; we don't need to go further in the traffic count area. If you want more information on traffic, you need secondary sources that discuss the topic, not more interpretation of the primary source(s). Imzadi 1979 → 16:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Where was the OR in the traffic volume text? All that was given was a basic written description of a simple table, and the usual average speed statistics that are available for many roads. About the only thing wrong with the section is that there wasnt comparative figures for other years. -- Nbound (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting out of hand rather quickly. There are certainly road FAs, even US road FAs, that a) have "nonstandard" sections outside description, history, and junction list. There are also certainly road FAs that do not follow the chronological road order (see California State Route 52). But that being said, there is usually a reason to back that kind of thing up, as articles should be at least somewhat similar-looking for the reader's benefit.

During the FAC process, there were concerns expressed about there being too much material related to environmental concerns. I see this as akin to too much material in either the route description or history sections: namely, turn-by-turn directions/excess scenery, or mentioning every repavement or landscaping project on a road, for example - are either of those really notable? I am neutral about the separate section for the environmental concerns; I wouldn't have pushed for integration of that section.

That being said, I did and do have concerns about separating the traffic counts section for the reason that too many level 2 sections in an article is poor organization and makes it hard to follow, and when we can reasonably condense we should do so. Traffic counts can be discussed in the "route description" section as traffic is part of the geography and characteristics of the route, and route design frequently influences the levels of traffic.

Hope this helps. --Rschen7754 23:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers on all other types of WP articles, including FAs, make do with many more Level 2 headings, why are we assuming people are absolute idiots?. As I said in my opener, we can reduce almost any WP article down to a description and history, but its not done for good reason. How can the EI section have had too much information? The article wasnt WP:TOOBIG at the time, nor do any of the other balancing rules apply to it (they all work around the undue principle - giving too much attention to minor details - while the EI is the most important plannning document for the creation or extension of road). Hell, as was pointed out in the FAC, it was expected to have a comprehensive EI section, by a non-roads editor. When and if the article does approach being too big, sections can be summarised and linked to sub-articles as appropriate, not information removed. -- Nbound (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Interchange section[edit]

Should we consider moving the interchange section:

  • under the Route description (the interchanges are part of the route)
  • immediately after the Route description (the interchanges are not "part of the route", but are closely bound to it)

Mitch Ames (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Why? There are over 55 road FAs that use a structure similar to this article, and I see no reason to change this one. --Rschen7754 04:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I understand Mitch Ames' logic, however, there are probably three reasons the table is historically its own section.
    1. The organization is partially aesthetic; it keeps a big visual item of the article at the bottom. This also provides a consistency to how road articles are structured globally.
      1. A sub-reason, for some articles, is that the table provides a divider between the content of the main subject roadway and a closely related second highway that's merged to the article for other reasons. See Interstate 196 or M-553 (Michigan highway) for examples.
    2. In many cases, the table has information from multiple sections of the prose. Ohio Turnpike hasn't been developed near to the level of other articles, but the notes in the exit list table include opening dates for several of the interchanges that came after the initial turnpike construction. Other articles like Kansas Turnpike or Interstate 75 in Michigan include the locations of service plazas or significant bridges that are discussed in a "Services" or "Monumental bridges" section.
    3. It acts like the appendix to a report with all of the tables of detailed statistics. In our case, it's the table with the detailed distances and locations of various features along the roadway. Imzadi 1979 → 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect conversion of km to miles in the Jctbridge template.[edit]

There is a conversion bug in this template - perhaps we are using the US version!! Downsize43 (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: --Rschen7754 07:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably need to change the unitdef line to 
|unitdef={{#if: {{{km|}}} | km | {{#if:{{{mile|}}}|mi|}} }}
(as per {{Jctint}}) so that it is defined by the input unit rather than the state/province/country - Evad37 (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed [8] - Evad37 (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change[edit]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/21678805/kwinana-freeway-flood-fear/

interesting, perspective that may warrant inclusion. Gnangarra 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I'm moving the timeline here as a lot of it is either repetition or irrelevant. Any additional information should be appropriatley integrated into the prose history, especially for a WP:Featured article, which could be in danger of losing it's FA status do to this editing shortcut. I will look through and integrate/add relevant info to the history, or other editors are invited to do the same. - Evad37 [talk] 03:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, additional, sourced material is certainly appreciated, just the manner of editing could be improved (or suggestions left on the talk page) - Evad37 [talk] 03:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of development - including the Perth-Bunbury Highway[edit]

Kwinana Freeway[edit]

In the following, strikeout indicates the information is already present in the article
  • 1959 – The first 5.6 km of the Kwinana Freeway is opened, along with the Narrows Bridge. The original terminus was at the Canning Highway. Main Roads Western Australia believes this may have been the first controlled access highway in Australia.[1]
  • 1982 – Canning Bridge to South Street opened by the Premier, Mr R J O’Connor, MLA, on 9th May. The freeway features three lanes in each direction from Canning Bridge to Leach Highway; two in each direction from Leach highway to South Street. Initial posted speed limit of 80 km/h. The opening ceremony was held at Mt Henry Bridge, where a commemorative tree was planted.[2]
  • 1991 – Southern extension of the Kwinana Freeway is opened from South Street to Farrington Road in July, then a second stage is opened in December to Forrest Road (Beeliar Drive).[3]
    • Note: described by another source as being a single (first) stage, with Forrest Road to Thomas Road as the second stage.
  • 1994 – Completion of extension to Kwinana Freeway from Forrest Road (Beeliar Drive) to Thomas Road, September 1994.[4]
  • 1998 – Construction to begin in 1999 on new interchanges to replace traffic lights at five locations along the Kwinana Freeway, including Thomas Road, Mortimer Road, Mundijong Road, Berrigan Drive and Armadale Road.[5]
    • Note: At time of writing/publication, event were in future, so we could only say something like In 1998, it was expected that construction would begin in 1999... if using this source
  • 2009 - New Perth-Bunbury Highway (Kwinana Freeway Extension / Forrest Highway). A$705m. Opened September 2009. Design and construction of 70.5 km of dual carriageway (32 km of freeway standard and 38.5 km to rural highway standard).[6]

Other roads[edit]

  • 1984 – The 13 km Ennis Avenue dual carriageway through Rockingham is opened. Since bypassed by the Kwinana Freeway.[4]
    → Ennis Avenue
  • 1985 – Bunbury to Gelorup. 3 km duplication completed.[4]
    → Bussell Highway
  • 1986 – Mandurah bypass. Completion of the first stage included 4.5 km of dual carriageway, 4 km of single carriageway, and the Mandurah Estuary Bridge.[4]
    → Mandurah Road
  • 1988 – Australind bypass. This 17.6 km bypass is originally opened as a single carriageway.[4]
    → Forrest Highway
  • 1989 – Halls Head to Falcon. A second 2 km carriageway south of Mandurah is completed, along with 5.5 km of dual carriageways through the suburb of Falcon. Since bypassed by the Kwinana Freeway.[4]
    → Old Coast Road
  • 1991 – Gelorup to Statham. 10 km duplication completed.[4]
    → Bussell Highway
  • 1991 – Australind bypass. 3 km of a second carriageway is completed at Glen Iris.[4]
    → Forrest Highway
  • 1992 – Bunbury Ring Road duplication is completed.[4]
    → Robertson Drive
  • 1992 – Dawesville Channel, south of Mandurah. A 4 lane bridge is opened over the channel, along with 2 km of dual carriageway approach roads. Since bypassed by the Kwinana Freeway.[4]
    → Old Coast Road
  • 1993 – Statham to Capel. 9 km duplication completed.[4]
    → Bussell Highway
  • 1993 – Capel bypass. 3.3 km of dual carriageways completed, as well as 1.5 km of single carriageway.[4]
    → Bussell Highway
  • 1997 – Eight kilometre Australind bypass duplication is officially opened by Mitchell MLA, Don Sullivan in December 1997 at a cost of A$14.2m. 5 km of the bypass duplication was originally opened to traffic on 4th July, five months ahead of schedule.[7]
    → Forrest Highway

References

  1. ^ Kwinana Freeway: an essay in long-term regional planning (September 1983). Western Roads: official journal of the Main Roads Department, Western Australia, 8(3), p.5-7. Perth: Main Roads Department.
  2. ^ 6.5 km of new freeway (June 1982). Western Roads: official journal of the Main Roads Department, Western Australia, 7(2), p.1, 10. Perth: Main Roads Department.
  3. ^ Major additions to metropolitan road network (May 1992). Western Roads: official journal of Main Roads Western Australia, 17(1), p.15. Perth: Main Roads Western Australia.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Perth to Busselton: coastal corridor to the south-west (September 1994). Western Roads: official journal of Main Roads Western Australia, 18(3), p.6. Perth: Main Roads Western Australia.
  5. ^ Positive industry response to freeway projects (July 1998). Western Roads: official journal of Main Roads Western Australia, 21(2), p.10. Perth: Main Roads Western Australia.
  6. ^ Main Roads, Western Australia, Annual Report 2010. Perth: Main Roads, Western Australia, 2010, p. 38
  7. ^ Australind Bypass to increase transport efficiency (January 1998). Western Roads: official journal of Main Roads Western Australia, 20(4), p.4. Perth: Main Roads Western Australia.
  • comment 1998-1999 Beelier/Armadale, Berrigan, Anketell and Thomas roads intersections, from memory its out by about 3-4 years that date maybe the start of the extensions from thomas road, Gnangarra 09:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kwinana Freeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Kwinana Freeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Kwinana Freeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kwinana Freeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kwinana Freeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kwinana Freeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kwinana_Freeway&oldid=1204165729"