Talk:Alamein line/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Quick fail criteria

N It is a long way from meeting any one of the six GA criteria (WP:GACR)
Y No copyright violations
Y No cleanup banners
Y Stable
Y No previous GA nomination

There is a lot to improve in the article, especially the sourcing. See the review below.

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

Reviewer: Jalapeño (talk · contribs) 11:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jalapeño 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. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I do see some sourcing issues in the article, which I will bring up. Also, I can't seem to preview any of the books in the History section, since they aren't available on Google Books or anywhere else for that matter. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jalapeño yeah I'll make sure to act on the sourcing issues. Most references with books were here before I rebuilt the article (and I kept them) or was added by users who have access to the books. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing and verifying the sources. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Criteria no. 1

Aside from some spelling mistakes and "CBD" terminology in the article which I cannot seem to understand, it's fine.

Criteria no. 2

A and B

My first concern with the page is that the page is C-class, though that may not mean much.

Sadly, after checking out the page, I see that the lead section is badly sourced, with two out of the five sources in the lead section being blog posts (one of which is by Daniel Bowen, and is supposedly known to be an expert in the field, but the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" philosophy doesn't back this up). The SMH source in the lead section never mentions the line, and neither do any of the sources in the Services section (excluding the "Melbourne Weekend Night Network Train Map" source).

In the history section, the sentence "In 1986, a one car Tait train took over the service on Sundays, with the train guard selling tickets as station staff were withdrawn from every station except Ashburton, which remained open for safeworking reasons." is sourced by a book from 1979, which would be anachronistic. The sentence "However, the Alamein line has remained open well into the 21st century." is also anachronistically sourced.

The source for "The 2000s saw the introduction of the X'Trapolis 100 rolling stock on the line. The new stock features three doors per side on each carriage with the ability accommodate up to 432 seated passengers in each six car configuration." never mentions the number 432 (except for the page number), let alone the capacity of 432 seated passengers. The X'Trapolis 100 article doesn't mention that capacity either.

There is no "corridor" mentioned before or after the sentence "Less than half of stations on the corridor are fully accessible as they haven't been upgraded to meet these guidelines."

Verification of sources: (as of revision no. 1168509344):
1. Y Source currently redirects to a timetable list, which does confirm that the Alamein line goes to central Melbourne.
2. N Daniel Bowen, the blogger that made the blog which is used as a source, has his own Wikipedia page, but no source backs up the fact that he is an expert. Also, the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" guideline exists, so even if a source is found, it has to be of very high quality.
3. N
4. N No mention of Alamein.
5. N Non-notable blog, and no mention of Alamein either.
6-11. = Cannot preview any of the books.
12. N What bothers me is that this is from the website for a political party in Australia, and the source backs up information that is anachronistic.
13. Y
14. N Dead link, even though URL status says it's live, and no option or mention of Alamein in the source.
15. N Never mentions Alamein or the timeframe it's supposed to back up.
16. N Exact same source as source no. 3
17. N Map doesn't state anything about the operating times for the entire line.
18. = No direct mention of Alamein, nor does it say directly that the entirety of Melbourne benefits from this.
19. =
20. = Cannot preview
21. N Source doesn't back up the contents from the article
22. N Same thing as 21
23. N Literally just source number 5.
24. N Does mention Alamein, but never mentions that there are 2 level crossings.
25. N The source is an opinion article. Also, much like 21 and 22, the info in the source does not back up the info in the article.
26. = Cannot preview, since it is a book
27/28. Y
29. = Cannot preview, since it is a book
30. = No mention of Alamein
31. Y
32. Y
33. N
34. Y Checks out.
35. N Source is low-quality, and never mentions Alamein.
36. N No mention of Ashburton or 1962.

Article is very badly sourced.

C and D

No OR or plagiarism to be found.

Criteria no. 3

The article does focus on its own operations, networks, infrastructure, etc.

Criteria no. 4

Nothing of importance, other than the fact that the article is neutral.

Criteria no. 5

Nothing of importance, other than the fact that the article is stable.

Criteria no. 6

The article is illustrated by images and interactive maps.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/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.