Glen Iris railway station 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: April 4, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glen Iris railway station. 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) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Recently, I have been working on this article to improve it to Good Article status. To achieve this status, I have followed this guide. Upon completion, I have nominated this article for Good Article status on 8/1/2023. HoHo3143 ( talk) 10:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this article!
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Prose is free of typos and is understandable | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Article complies with standards. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. 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). |
Sources are reliable. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article is well-cited; no OR visible. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses everything an article about a metro station should address. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article is focused. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No bias visible. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Two images are tagged with dedicated PD/CC tags. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Two images are relevant and properly captioned | |
7. Overall assessment. | This article is good for GA. Nicely done! |
Glen Iris railway station 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: April 4, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glen Iris railway station. 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) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Recently, I have been working on this article to improve it to Good Article status. To achieve this status, I have followed this guide. Upon completion, I have nominated this article for Good Article status on 8/1/2023. HoHo3143 ( talk) 10:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this article!
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Prose is free of typos and is understandable | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Article complies with standards. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. 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). |
Sources are reliable. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article is well-cited; no OR visible. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses everything an article about a metro station should address. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article is focused. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No bias visible. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit wars. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Two images are tagged with dedicated PD/CC tags. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Two images are relevant and properly captioned | |
7. Overall assessment. | This article is good for GA. Nicely done! |