Talk:Armadale railway station, Melbourne/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:48, 18 August 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) 09:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 18 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):
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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Images are ok, with captions and proper licensing. No copyvio issues.

Before I read it more carefully, let's look at sourcing spot-checks:

[1] this is a blog post, what evidence is there it's reliable? If this is the same data as from [2], I'd recommend just using [2].

[2] This is ok, I verified the 244,650 figure.

[3] this just redirects to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/ - I recommend a more precise link, maybe https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/stop/1008/armadale-station/0/train/ ?

[5] no mention of platform numbers

[6] no mention of "multiple steep access ramps". The article says "There is no car-parking available at the station.", but the source has a tick by "Parking Available". No mention of "assisted access".

[8] dead link

[9] ok

[10] this is a blog post, no mention of a ramp, or Metro Trains 7-car HCMT.

[13] no mention of a new platform canopy.

[16] broken link, also looks suspicious

[17] unclear what the corridor is, which the article mentions

Given the large fraction of sources which don't seem to support the text, and that GA1 for this article also had concerns that sourcing is not of sufficient quality, I'm sorry but I'm going to quickfail this one under WP:GAFAIL, mostly #1, but also partially #5, given it's still a long way from being "Verifiable with no original research". Feel free to put this article up for nomination again, but only after sourcing issues have been corrected. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:48, 18 August 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.