Talk:Glen Waverley railway station/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:46, 5 September 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.

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

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 11:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No copyvio issues on Earwig.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrally worded.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Image in the infobox is ok.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Some initial minor grammar suggestions, before I review the article more properly:

"single station building which" to "single station building that"

"Although there are ramps they" to "Although there are ramps, they"

"began on the station site, as part" to "began on the station site as part"

"mid 2014" to "mid-2014"

"entranance, accesibility improvements" to "entrance, accessibility improvements,"

"line expect to open" to "line expected to open"

"Glen Waverley line which is operated" to "Glen Waverley line, which is operated"

-Kj cheetham (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sections:

Lede - okay

Description - okay. Is there anything further to say about the station building itself?

History - when was the old station building was relocated to Epping?

Almost nothing between it's construction and 1995 - did anything of note happen, e.g. other upgrade works? (This is making me think the article might not be broad enough)

Anything of note happen between 1995 and 2012?

Early works on the project have already commenced, as of when? May want to use the {{as of}} template (as per WP:ASOF)?

Platforms and services - okay, though quite basic

Transport links - okay, though quite basic

NotOrrio, I've made a start on the review, please see above. I've not looked at sourcing yet though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing spot-checks:

[2] I've not checked the numbers, but noting this is a blog. Can you not link to the primary source for this at https://discover.data.vic.gov.au/dataset/annual-regional-train-patronage-station-entries ? (I've not checked the actual numbers).

[4] How does it verify connected to Kingsway via a ramp on the station's eastern end?

[6] and [7] are the same link. Would a direct link to say https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/stop/1078/glen-waverley-station/0/train/ not be better?

[8] this is a timetable ref, would a direct link and archive link to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/timetable/7/glen-waverley/ not be better?

[9] same as [3]?

Where does this confirm the statement about the waiting room?

For the statement about the Disability Discrimination Act of 1992, ref [9] doesn't mention ramps and [10] doesn't mention Glen Waverley railway station. Is this WP:SYNTH?

[12] a book I don't have, so taking on good faith is ok

[14] the link is dead, so I suggest looking for an archive link to add

[16] ok, noting my previous comment about works commencing above.

[18] I couldn't easily see where 2035 is mentioned on that page.

[20] ok

[25] ok

NotOrrio, I'll put this on hold now to give you chance to address the points. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NotOrrio, P.S. Looking some more, I'm not convinced this is broad enough overall. For a station regularly getting over a million visitors a year and is almost 100 years old I'd expect more of a history.

For instance, Rebuilt 29 November 1964 from the infobox should be explained in the main text.

What does upgrading to a premium station entail, and why was it done?

More recently, is there anything from https://shape.monash.vic.gov.au/srl/suburban-rail-loop-glen-waverley-srl-station-and-glen-waverley-station-not-connecte worth including in the article?

The sentance The length of the platform is approximately 160 metres (520 ft), long enough for a Metro Trains 7-car High Capacity Metro Trains (HCMT) also needs a source. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NotOrrio, please could you confirm if you want to continue with this GA? If not, I'll mark it as failed tomorrow. But please don't let that stop you renominating this article again in the future. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to actively wikipedia for a while so you can mark it as a fail NotOrrio (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.