![]() | Glen Waverley line was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 17, 2023, 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 is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glen Waverley 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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 10 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Glen Waverley line. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
The year open in the info box is 1950, yet the stations opened in 1930, or to Darling by 1895. Perhaps they didn't run trains? -- Michael Johnson 06:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glen Waverley 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) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I noticed that there is no line guide under the line guide section. Could someone please add one? Thanks LivingInTwilight ( talk) 05:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. (The only objections were about Sunbury line. Those have been resolved with the RM at Talk:Sunbury Line (Norfolk Southern).) ( closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 14:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
– Multiple melbourne train line articles were moved from railway line to just line as per WP:Commonname however most were kept as railway line, this move discussion is to move the 11 articles that weren't moved previously. NotOrrio ( talk) 01:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
train station. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dylnuge ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Picking this up as part of the backlog drive. This is my first GAN review, so feel free to call anything I say into question, and I'll probably ask another reviewer to do a sanity check before finalizing. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 03:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
No immediate issues: no copyvio (note to any other reviewers that Earwig picks up a junk/scam PDF that's copied from Wikipedia), prose is stable, and none of the six GA criteria are significantly far from being met. Passes 6: Images are relevant, captioned, and properly licensed. Note that I did some small copyedits while reading; feel free to double check my work.
Reference layout looks good but there are a couple of paragraphs where there are not citations at the end:
@ HoHo3143: can you add these citations? I'll put reviewing sources on hold but I can proceed with the prose while waiting. Thanks! Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Notes and questions
I plan on updating this section as I review. Feel free to answer these ad-hoc or wait until I'm finished (I'll ping you), whatever works best for you! Also, I've flagged things that aren't GA but that I found while reviewing as optional; feel free to incorporate or ignore. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 05:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Article Scope (3a and 3b)
Lead
History
Network and Operations
Infrastructure
Overall Prose: Things generally look good! You did great work organizing the article and the sections all clearly cover distinct topics thoroughly. I'm marking this as a pass on broadness, neutrality, and the relevant MoS sections (lead, organization, words to watch, and list incorporation). Prose is on hold awaiting resolution of the comments above. I noticed some sourcing issues above and I'm going to be taking a closer look there; that's probably the thing I'm most worried about but hopefully we can resolve it. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing Issues
Unfortunately, I am finding widespread sourcing issues. The first three sources I checked all fail to verify their statements; on top of having this issue every time I checked a source in the prose, I'm concerned this might be outside the scope of what can be fixed during the GAN.
"Construction commenced in 1971, and the project was completed with the opening of Flagstaff Station in 1985". It does say that
"the first station, Museum (now Melbourne Central), was officially opened on January 24th, 1981", which might be enough to verify a more precise statement that operations started in 1981 and continued to expand through 1985, but as is the text in-article implies operations commenced all at once, which contradicts the source. This is probably the easiest issue to fix of the ones I've found so far, as the others all need new sources.
I'm going to stop looking at sources now. It seems clear to me that there are pervasive issues with the sourcing in this article that are neither trivial nor limited to a single section or type of claim. Like I said at the beginning, I will have someone check my work here, but unfortunately I don't think the article is ready for GA in it's current state and that significant improvement on the sourcing is necessary to get it there. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 23:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Failed Sourcing is the primary issue. Many statements are cited to sources that do not verify the claim. In some cases, sources appear to contradict statements made in the article. The issues occur throughout all sections of the article and aren't limited to a specific source or type of claim. Any future review should include a thorough check that cited sources verify the claims being made in the article.
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits) 23:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Glen Waverley line was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 17, 2023, 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 is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glen Waverley 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. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 10 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Glen Waverley line. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
The year open in the info box is 1950, yet the stations opened in 1930, or to Darling by 1895. Perhaps they didn't run trains? -- Michael Johnson 06:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glen Waverley 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) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I noticed that there is no line guide under the line guide section. Could someone please add one? Thanks LivingInTwilight ( talk) 05:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. (The only objections were about Sunbury line. Those have been resolved with the RM at Talk:Sunbury Line (Norfolk Southern).) ( closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 14:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
– Multiple melbourne train line articles were moved from railway line to just line as per WP:Commonname however most were kept as railway line, this move discussion is to move the 11 articles that weren't moved previously. NotOrrio ( talk) 01:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
train station. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dylnuge ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Picking this up as part of the backlog drive. This is my first GAN review, so feel free to call anything I say into question, and I'll probably ask another reviewer to do a sanity check before finalizing. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 03:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
No immediate issues: no copyvio (note to any other reviewers that Earwig picks up a junk/scam PDF that's copied from Wikipedia), prose is stable, and none of the six GA criteria are significantly far from being met. Passes 6: Images are relevant, captioned, and properly licensed. Note that I did some small copyedits while reading; feel free to double check my work.
Reference layout looks good but there are a couple of paragraphs where there are not citations at the end:
@ HoHo3143: can you add these citations? I'll put reviewing sources on hold but I can proceed with the prose while waiting. Thanks! Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Notes and questions
I plan on updating this section as I review. Feel free to answer these ad-hoc or wait until I'm finished (I'll ping you), whatever works best for you! Also, I've flagged things that aren't GA but that I found while reviewing as optional; feel free to incorporate or ignore. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 05:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Article Scope (3a and 3b)
Lead
History
Network and Operations
Infrastructure
Overall Prose: Things generally look good! You did great work organizing the article and the sections all clearly cover distinct topics thoroughly. I'm marking this as a pass on broadness, neutrality, and the relevant MoS sections (lead, organization, words to watch, and list incorporation). Prose is on hold awaiting resolution of the comments above. I noticed some sourcing issues above and I'm going to be taking a closer look there; that's probably the thing I'm most worried about but hopefully we can resolve it. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing Issues
Unfortunately, I am finding widespread sourcing issues. The first three sources I checked all fail to verify their statements; on top of having this issue every time I checked a source in the prose, I'm concerned this might be outside the scope of what can be fixed during the GAN.
"Construction commenced in 1971, and the project was completed with the opening of Flagstaff Station in 1985". It does say that
"the first station, Museum (now Melbourne Central), was officially opened on January 24th, 1981", which might be enough to verify a more precise statement that operations started in 1981 and continued to expand through 1985, but as is the text in-article implies operations commenced all at once, which contradicts the source. This is probably the easiest issue to fix of the ones I've found so far, as the others all need new sources.
I'm going to stop looking at sources now. It seems clear to me that there are pervasive issues with the sourcing in this article that are neither trivial nor limited to a single section or type of claim. Like I said at the beginning, I will have someone check my work here, but unfortunately I don't think the article is ready for GA in it's current state and that significant improvement on the sourcing is necessary to get it there. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 23:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Failed Sourcing is the primary issue. Many statements are cited to sources that do not verify the claim. In some cases, sources appear to contradict statements made in the article. The issues occur throughout all sections of the article and aren't limited to a specific source or type of claim. Any future review should include a thorough check that cited sources verify the claims being made in the article.
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits) 23:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)