Talk:Stony Point line

Stony Point line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 27, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stony Point line article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Australia: Melbourne / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Stony Point line is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Passenger trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	July 9, 2012

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 10 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Stony Point line. The result of the discussion was Moved.

The Langwarrin Station article mentions that part of the line was briefly closed in the early 1980's. I think that this should be included in this article.

I have updated each of the station pages with the new ticketing details starting as of tomorrow. Please don't remove them temporarily. Somebody in the WWW (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locomative trains are still used on the Sunbury line, this is a metro train so Stony Point railway line was not the last metro line in Australia to use locos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muggers74 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stony Point railway line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 23:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts thank you for beginning to review the article! I am available to complete this during the week so I'm ready for the feedback. If I get a bit busy (with school or something else) I'll let you know. Currently there are 3 articles ahead of you in the queue for me to act on their feedback. They should be quick however, so I'll make my way to this article relatively soon. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143: My review is below. I'm on vacation tomorrow evening (EST), so if we can't finish it before then, are you okay waiting until 8/21 to complete this? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 12:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts its better if I finish the review whilst you're on holiday and then you add any extra feedback and approve it once your back. Hope you enjoy the break. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts ok so I've finished acting on the feedback from the review. Apologies for some of the atrocious sourcing- someone else has gone and changed the original article adding in information that has shocking sourcing. The article should be ready to go once you return from your break. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts whilst yes you are still on holiday, I just wanted to provide an update. Once you get back, this article is the main priority (for any additional things you need me to fix) as the article ahead of you in the queue has been finished and promoted. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and will look at this now. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143, a few additional comments:

I agree that Daniel Bowen is an expert.

Y

One editor commented at RSN that they think Vicsig is not an RS, but I disagree, so that cite is fine.

Y

Given that connexmelbourne.com.au is a dead link, can you find another source to replace it?

Y

This YouTube video is not an RS: one of the sources cited in the video description is this Wikipedia article.

its a good point, but the video was only to cite the fact that the doors are locked, which he demonstrated. Otherwise i couldn't find a better source. What should we do?

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts I've fixed three points and raised a question about one. Once that's complete it should be good to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143: RE the bathroom door point: the doors being locked on one trip are not proof that they're locked on every trip. I'm not sure how important that fact is in the article anyways and would just remove it if this is truly the only source. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts ive fixed the point about the bathrooms. Should be ready to go now. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video is still cited as Ref 34. I don't think it's an RS for anything and should be removed. Is there another source that describes the route? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @HoHo3143. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts oops sorry. though id removed it. There's no source that does due to how under-utilised the line is. Not sure what else to put in. Otherwise should be good to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y removed

~~Starting review page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)~~ Review completed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
~~Left one tag requesting clarification.~~

Additionally, this part seems like TMI and is also not supported by the source cited: Alongside the passenger trains, Stony Point line tracks and equipment are maintained by a fleet of engineering trains. The three types of engineering trains are the shunting train; designed for moving trains along non-electrified corridors and for transporting other maintenance locomotives, for track evaluation; designed for evaluating track and its condition, and the infrastructure evaluation carriage designed for general infrastructure evaluation. Most of these trains are repurposed locomotives previously used by V/Line, Metro Trains, and the Southern Shorthaul Railroad.

- - - - Y it is supported but it requires some digging. there are other sources that back up my point but they are blogs

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

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):
A few {{cn}} tags left throughout. The table under "Operator" also requires citations for each entry. Additionally, I do not believe that the following sources are reliable because they are self-published sources without any indication of expert or some other form of reliability:

- - - - Ref 2 – Daniel Bowen
        he is reliable as he is an expert
      - Ref 4 – V/LineCars.com
        removed
      - Ref 15 – Gwiwer's Photos
        removed
      - Ref 28 – Waking up in Geelong
        replaced
      - Ref 35 – Time Out Melbourne
        this isn't self published- so its a proper source
      - Ref 39 – Brimbank Models
        removed
      - Ref 44 – vrhistory.com
        replaced
      - I could not asses the reliability of Ref 17 – connexmelbourne.com.au.
        Connex is the former operator- so they are accurate
      - Finally, I requested an opinion at WP:RSN as to Vicsig.
        all good

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Per Earwig's tool.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
AGF that editors who uploaded photos took them.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Glen Waverley railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]