Cranbourne 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 4, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cranbourne line article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
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. |
Cranbourne line was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 28, 2022, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cranbourne railway line to Cranbourne line. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne railway line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne railway line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The article is lacking in crucial information about the line and since the Pakenham line is currently getting a good article nomination i figured it would be best to start reworking on it NotOrrio ( talk) 13:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
-History, Doing atm -Services, Doing atm -Infrastructure -Future
NotOrrio ( talk) 01:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I have almost finished on reworking the article as much of the information is already in place, here are the final things to do before the rework is complete and the article is potentially eligable for GA status
NotOrrio ( talk) 11:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Steelkamp ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Review to come soon. Steelkamp ( talk) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I am going to quick fail this review due to criterion one of the quick fail criteria. This article is a long way from being broad in its coverage. Specific problems are listed below:
the rolling stock will consist...Why is this in future tense? Does this mean that there are other trains used on the line currently?
Initially, the Cranbourne line used a fixed-block, three-position signalling system designed for lower frequencies and less services.Was this signalling used all the way back in 1888?
These are just the issues I could find upon a cursory glance across the article. The main issue is that the article is not long enough, particularly the history, and that some sources are unreliable and some sections lack sources. Steelkamp ( talk) 10:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Responding to some of the above:
The history section is tiny. For a line that has existed since 1888, the history should be much longer. There is also an issue with recentism. The 21st century should not make up half of the entire history of this line. I suggest consulting some books as they would have much more information that is not available on the internet.- This "line" is only part of the original line. The full line (and it's history is covered under the South Gippsland railway line), the 'Cranbourne line' as such has only been around since 25 March 1995 when electrification of the line occured.
The services section talks about current and future services but does not mention past services.- Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
The notes column of the stations table could be removed and replaced with a footnote.&
The dates in the stations table need to be sourced.- Working on a new table that will fix this.
Some of the information in the rolling stock section is unnecessary on this page and only needs to be on the High Capacity Metro Train page.- Needs to mention that until December 2022, there were both Comeng and Siemens trains used on this line.
"the rolling stock will consist of 70..." Why is this in future tense? Does this mean that there are other trains used on the line currently?- Currently the High Capacity Metro Trains (HCMT) are still under construction (only 42 are currently in service).
Vicsig is not a reliable source.&
Railpage is not a reliable source.- This causes a problem with almost all pages to do with rolling stock, train lines and stations (probably 2,000+ pages) related to trains in Victoria, Australia. There is a big lack of reliable sources for these topics, if sticking to 'propper reliable sources', most of these would not have information after 1980's, and still be at just a stub article stage.
"Initially, the Cranbourne line used a fixed-block, three-position signalling system designed for lower frequencies and less services." Was this signalling used all the way back in 1888?- Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
Why is the only incident in 2012? Seems like recentism to me.- Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
-- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 01:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
As promised in this discussion, I will now begin to rebuild the Cranbourne railway line article. I can still spot numerous issues, especially pertaining to spelling, grammar, and referencing, amongst others. I will remove the article from the list of GA nominations and begin work shortly. Once this work has been completed I'll renominate the article for GA status. During this time, preferably do not edit the article, instead you can make suggestions in the talk section of the page. HoHo3143 ( talk) 03:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Sourcing appears in support of the originally proposed move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ( talk) 05:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Cranbourne railway line → Cranbourne line – WP:COMMONNAME swap with redirect ThylacineHunter ( talk) 07:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Brachy0008 ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the second GA review, after the first one, which was insta-failed. I can see that some of the stuff have been fixed by now, but I might have to let you know, there are lots of sentences that can do with a citation, I’ve noted some with the [citation needed] template. I’ll put this on hold. Don’t worry, you can do this!
Cranbourne 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 4, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cranbourne line article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
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. |
Cranbourne line was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 28, 2022, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Cranbourne railway line to Cranbourne line. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne railway line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cranbourne railway line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The article is lacking in crucial information about the line and since the Pakenham line is currently getting a good article nomination i figured it would be best to start reworking on it NotOrrio ( talk) 13:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
-History, Doing atm -Services, Doing atm -Infrastructure -Future
NotOrrio ( talk) 01:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I have almost finished on reworking the article as much of the information is already in place, here are the final things to do before the rework is complete and the article is potentially eligable for GA status
NotOrrio ( talk) 11:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Steelkamp ( talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Review to come soon. Steelkamp ( talk) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I am going to quick fail this review due to criterion one of the quick fail criteria. This article is a long way from being broad in its coverage. Specific problems are listed below:
the rolling stock will consist...Why is this in future tense? Does this mean that there are other trains used on the line currently?
Initially, the Cranbourne line used a fixed-block, three-position signalling system designed for lower frequencies and less services.Was this signalling used all the way back in 1888?
These are just the issues I could find upon a cursory glance across the article. The main issue is that the article is not long enough, particularly the history, and that some sources are unreliable and some sections lack sources. Steelkamp ( talk) 10:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Responding to some of the above:
The history section is tiny. For a line that has existed since 1888, the history should be much longer. There is also an issue with recentism. The 21st century should not make up half of the entire history of this line. I suggest consulting some books as they would have much more information that is not available on the internet.- This "line" is only part of the original line. The full line (and it's history is covered under the South Gippsland railway line), the 'Cranbourne line' as such has only been around since 25 March 1995 when electrification of the line occured.
The services section talks about current and future services but does not mention past services.- Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
The notes column of the stations table could be removed and replaced with a footnote.&
The dates in the stations table need to be sourced.- Working on a new table that will fix this.
Some of the information in the rolling stock section is unnecessary on this page and only needs to be on the High Capacity Metro Train page.- Needs to mention that until December 2022, there were both Comeng and Siemens trains used on this line.
"the rolling stock will consist of 70..." Why is this in future tense? Does this mean that there are other trains used on the line currently?- Currently the High Capacity Metro Trains (HCMT) are still under construction (only 42 are currently in service).
Vicsig is not a reliable source.&
Railpage is not a reliable source.- This causes a problem with almost all pages to do with rolling stock, train lines and stations (probably 2,000+ pages) related to trains in Victoria, Australia. There is a big lack of reliable sources for these topics, if sticking to 'propper reliable sources', most of these would not have information after 1980's, and still be at just a stub article stage.
"Initially, the Cranbourne line used a fixed-block, three-position signalling system designed for lower frequencies and less services." Was this signalling used all the way back in 1888?- Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
Why is the only incident in 2012? Seems like recentism to me.- Again this more falls under the South Gippsland railway line.
-- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 01:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
As promised in this discussion, I will now begin to rebuild the Cranbourne railway line article. I can still spot numerous issues, especially pertaining to spelling, grammar, and referencing, amongst others. I will remove the article from the list of GA nominations and begin work shortly. Once this work has been completed I'll renominate the article for GA status. During this time, preferably do not edit the article, instead you can make suggestions in the talk section of the page. HoHo3143 ( talk) 03:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Sourcing appears in support of the originally proposed move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ( talk) 05:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Cranbourne railway line → Cranbourne line – WP:COMMONNAME swap with redirect ThylacineHunter ( talk) 07:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Brachy0008 ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the second GA review, after the first one, which was insta-failed. I can see that some of the stuff have been fixed by now, but I might have to let you know, there are lots of sentences that can do with a citation, I’ve noted some with the [citation needed] template. I’ll put this on hold. Don’t worry, you can do this!