Overall, this is a really nice article. Hardly any problems with the prose, the added video and audio media is great, the referencing looks solid, and there's nothing obvious missing. I do have a few queries on the text in the History section, below, mostly about my hesitance regarding criterion 3b (unnecessary detail). Once you've addressed these comments, I would be happy to promote to GA. Keep up the good work! Moswentotalky15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History
You introduce Main Roads at the end of the first paragraph, but wikilink their full name in the third paragraph. These should be switched.
To me, the environmental paragraph is teetering on the edge of excessive detail, compared with the length of the history section overall. I would consider (but not insist on) cutting, for example:
"The survey would be repeated prior to construction"
"The EPA concluded that the road could be designed and managed to an acceptable standard." - don't we take this as a given?
On a similar note: "Specific plans were developed regarding fauna, vegetation, dieback and weeds, and revegetation and rehabilitation. Other areas with specific plans included topsoil management, drainage, construction (covering dust, noise, and vibrations), foreshores, and both Aboriginal and European heritage" - Do we need separate descriptions of their 2000 and 2006 plans, where the areas covered are the same? (revegetation, drainage etc.)