Talk:William Street tunnel

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Street tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mdm.Bla (talk · contribs) 01:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article for Good article status. This is my first time performing a GA review, but I will do my best. My initial assessment is that the article does not quick-fail, so a more detailed assessment will be put together in the next few days. Feel free to ping me with questions. mdm.bla 01:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Mdm.Bla: Just a reminder about this review. Steelkamp (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No excessive rambling, grammar appears acceptable assuming I didn't miss something. mdm.bla 16:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Evaluation will come point by point below, followed by an overall assessment of compliance with the MOS. mdm.bla 14:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

   • The lead section is in compliance with the Manual of Style. The structural elements present are in the proper order, no citations are required, lead content defines the subject without giving undue weight, and the length is appropriate. I do think that Esplanade should be mentioned as the former name for Elizabeth Quay railway station and used in place of Elizabeth Quay when the discussion concerns events prior to renaming in 2016 per WP:PLACE, which is the case in the body of the article. I also think that the contract dispute should be mentioned as another reason for the delay of the opening. These are minor quibbles, however, and aren't enough to make the lead fall out of compliance, in my opinion. mdm.bla 14:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

   • I've added the contract dispute to the lead, and made some other minor changes. I don't want to mention Elizabeth Quay station's former name in the lead to avoid the lead getting too long. I think its reasonable to not mention the former name in the lead; it's meant to be a summary after all. Steelkamp (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

   • Fair enough, again it is just a minor quibble. mdm.bla 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

   • The layout complies with the manual of style. Each element is properly placed. Within the body specifically, I'm not the biggest fan of the placement of the industrial action and contract disputes sections, but there isn't really a better place to put them so it's alright (ideally they'd both go within the construction section but that would quickly run into section length issues). Formatting and image placement is compliant. mdm.bla 00:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

   • Yeah, I don't want those issues to dominate the construction section and drown out the actual construction. Especially when you have court cases that take place months or years after what's being disputed, it makes for confusing writing if done chronologically, or lots of jumping back and forth in time if not done chronologically. Steelkamp (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

   • I don't see anything that doesn't follow MOS:WTW. mdm.bla 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
   • Fiction MOS is not applicable. mdm.bla 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
   • There are two embedded lists. The list in planning follows MOS:LIST, but the list in procurement has no content beyond the names of the consortia. It could be turned into prose with the preceding short paragraph per MOS:USEPROSE, however I really don't think it's that much of a problem, though. mdm.bla 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

     I think it's easier to read as a list rather than prose. As prose, it would be a blend of company names in a row. Steelkamp (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

   The article is in overall compliance with the manual of style and passes criterion 1B. mdm.bla 16:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Source list present. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All potentially disputable statements seem to be reliably sourced. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Sourced statements are backed up in the sources in question. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No signs of copyright violations. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Construction details, history, and routing would be what I want to see in an article about a rail tunnel. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article does not read too long. Byte count and word count are good. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article is neutral. Good weighing on the contract disputes. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The author is the only non-bot contributor listed in the page history. The article has not been edited since October 4 and has a total of 21 edits since its creation in May. This article is stable and passes criterion 5 of the good article criteria. mdm.bla 01:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The article has eight images, all of which are tagged with various Creative Commons tags, and each file claims to be the own work of its uploader. Images have been tagged and non-free content criteria is not applicable. The article passes criterion 6A of the good article criteria. mdm.bla 01:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I like the picture selection and the inclusion of a picture at each station in multiple places. mdm.bla 16:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Sorry about the wait. mdm.bla 18:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Sigl and Yamazaki source?

I am looking at making a schematic diagram for the tunnel. Does anyone (@Steelkamp?) have access to the Sigl and Yamazaki, 2007, source in the article:

• Sigl, Oskar; Yamazaki, Hiroshi (January 2007). "TBM tunnelling". Proceedings of the Seminar on New MetroRail City Project Tunnelling and Underground Structures. Engineers Australia. ISBN 978-1-925627-28-2.

I tried my The Wikipedia Library and Qld State Library subscriptions with no luck.

P.S.: would it be worthwhile to note that New MetroRail City Project seems to have been the technical name for the tunnel? The article mentions City Project - is that a shortening? I was a little confused. Commander Keane (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have access to that source. Is there anything specific you need, and does this map (present in the external links section) contain what you need instead?

Re New MetroRail City Project. New MetroRail is the name for the whole rail expansion project at the time, which included the Mandurah line, Clarkson extension, Thornlie line, and upgrades to Victoria Park station and others. The City Project is a specific component of that. Steelkamp (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Steelkamp.

I am looking at creating something like File:Iwate-Ichinohe Tunnel profile diagram 1.svg and that map in the external links is very helpful with the launch/retrieval box locations (although I am struggling with the 1:2000 scale as it doesn't quite equate to known lengths for streets with Google Maps and OpenStreetMap). I have rough depths from Hudson-Smith & Grinceri 2007, and ground levels from the 1999 contours. Ideally I would like access to the entire paper and anything else helpful. If electronic I am happy to email you and keep it for private study (fair dealing).

Despite the scale issue, that map shows about 740 m of bored tunnel, agreeing with Hudson-Smith & Grinceri 2007 (used in the article elsewhere) saying "The total length of bored tunnels is approximately 1.5 km". Currently the article says approximately 690 metres (2,260 ft) of twin bored tunnel and 1,158 metres (3,799 ft) of cut-and-cover tunnel but that comes from a 2002 planning document, years before construction.

Are there any reliable sources on the length? It may be difficult to get an exact figure given the open structure in the south so we will have to report what we find. Commander Keane (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

From looking at all the sources, there isn't really a good source for the total length of the tunnel. The difficulties are that a section of the southern part had its roof cut before construction to save costs, and the roof over the northern dive structure was added later.

The length of the bored section seems most likely to be 770 m. That's what all the media releases said during the tunnel's construction ( ), the ABC, and the 2008 PTA annual report. Sigl and Yamazaki doesn't even mention the tunnel's length; Hudson-Smith and Grinceri says the tunnel is either 1.4 km or 1.5 km combined (that later figure lines up with 770 m of twin tunnel). This media release from when the contract was signed in 2004 says 700 m, and the master plan says 690 m, so the length might have changed during further design.

Email me if you want the paper by Sigl and Yamazaki. Steelkamp (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

In recent edits you have resolved the length situation, thanks Steelkamp. Commander Keane (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Elevation and typical cross-section diagram.

• [1]: Start of boring from Esplanade Station launch box (excludes station)
• [2]: William Street station
• [3]: End of boring (Roe Street retrieval box)
• [4]: Inset: typical cross-section

I ended up creating File:William Street tunnel diagram bored with cross section.svg.

The elevation profile and tunnel gradients are not 100%, it was the best I could do with what I had to work with, the methodology is explained on the file's description page. Given those limitations, the choice to place the diagram in the article is up to others. Commander Keane (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this. I am thinking about taking this article to FAC though, where there are some quite stringent requirements regarding sourcing and images and everything, so unfortunately, I won't add this to the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)