Talk:Challis railway station/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 01:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Steelkamp, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi Arajakate Talk 01:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Tayi Arajakate: Reminding you in case you have forgotten. Steelkamp (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]- Comprehension:
- Verifiability:
- Comprehensiveness:
- Neutrality:
- Stability:
- Illustration:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) | The reviewer has left no comments here |  Undetermined
|
| (b) (MoS) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (c) (original research) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (b) (focused) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | The reviewer has left no comments here | Undetermined
|
Some comments (not a review):
- The history section is lacking - it gives minimal information about the station's establishment at all (compare Butler railway station for the kinds of things not mentioned, though given the station's age obviously that length would not be expected). If anything has happened at the station in 50 years, that's also not mentioned.
- It could use a minor reorganisation - mashing history and a description of the station doesn't fit together very well, and there's a little bit about zoning that seems a bit random appended to the "services" section. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think a better comparison would be to Daglish railway station. It is of a similar scale to Challis station. I will do further research this week. Hopefully I can find the contractor, construction cost and the date for commencement of construction. Even then, I expect this article to be slightly shorter than the Daglish article. Steelkamp (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at Daglish but refrained from commenting on that one as, while I think it's on the short side, it covers the key points at least. I used the Butler example because it's a modern outer suburban station (whereas Daglish has other notable aspects, such as the development of the surrounding estate) and illustrates things that are missing, but even Daglish still includes the specific reasons for its construction there and the sources of pressure to do so, the construction process (beyond the date of opening) and pressure to do it, and subsequent developments in the decades since.
- I think a better comparison would be to Daglish railway station. It is of a similar scale to Challis station. I will do further research this week. Hopefully I can find the contractor, construction cost and the date for commencement of construction. Even then, I expect this article to be slightly shorter than the Daglish article. Steelkamp (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- For another example, the Butler article makes clear that a station at that site had been long-planned and goes through how the Barnett government came to build it. All of that sort of context is missing here - it's just said to have appeared in the 70s because of suburban development. Going off the opening date, it seems to have been built during the Tonkin Labor government, which may explain why it was built at all considering the subsequent Court government's hostility towards public transport (I don't know enough about Brand, before Tonkin) - I find it hard to believe things about this weren't published at the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- In regards to sources, I was able to find some information in the local newspaper, the Armadale-Gosnells Comment News. I was also able to find some information in Hansard records. The changes made since the above comment are here.
- I checked the following sources with no success:
- The West Australian and The Sunday Times for the dates surrounding the station's opening. I would be surprised if those newspapers had more information than the local newspaper anyway.
- Western Australian Government Railways and Westrail annual reports for 1969 to 1975.
- MTT Quarterly magazines for that time period.
- The Australian Political Chronicles in the Australian Journal of Politics and History.
- Tales from Boomtown: Western Australian Premiers from Brand to McGowan
- – Steelkamp (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- For another example, the Butler article makes clear that a station at that site had been long-planned and goes through how the Barnett government came to build it. All of that sort of context is missing here - it's just said to have appeared in the 70s because of suburban development. Going off the opening date, it seems to have been built during the Tonkin Labor government, which may explain why it was built at all considering the subsequent Court government's hostility towards public transport (I don't know enough about Brand, before Tonkin) - I find it hard to believe things about this weren't published at the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Steelkamp: Do we need a new reviewer here? I'm willing to step in and review this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes we do need a new reviewer, that would be appreciated. Steelkamp (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Alright, here we go. This should go pretty quickly, the article is already in good shape. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- No further issues with this criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- All concerns addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Looks good to me, acceptable format. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- I see government sources, a few articles from newspapers or other news services, and a citation to a specialist book. All reliable to me. I don't see anything that needs citations that isn't cited to a reliable source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- C. It contains no original research:
- Everything requiring citations has them. No original research present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Article is original writing, no copyright violations present per an Earwig check. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- History is a little skinny, but based on comments above I am satisfied the nominator has done due diligence in looking for sources for this section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- No concerns here. Article remains focused on the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- No concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- History shows consistent improvements. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- We have one image, released into the public domain by its uploader. I think a second image would be helpful, but I see there aren't any other images on Commons right now, and it's not a major issue for a short and sweet article like this one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be able to get some images this week. Steelkamp (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- We have one image, released into the public domain by its uploader. I think a second image would be helpful, but I see there aren't any other images on Commons right now, and it's not a major issue for a short and sweet article like this one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- No concerns on this criterion. Caption is simple and the image is relevant. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I am now satisfied the article meets the GA criteria and will promote it. Congratulations! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Prose comments
[edit]- Is it worth mentioning the bus services in the infobox? There are parameters for this.
- Since the only bus route is a rail replacement bus service, I don't think it is worth putting in the infobox.
- Suggest mentioning in the lead that the station was opened to fill a gap between two other stations, as you discuss in the body.
- Done.
- Also suggest mentioning plans for expansion.
- Not sure what plans you were talking about, but I mentioned the land rezoning in the lead.
- Rail replacement bus service can be linked.
- Done.
- Worth mentioning the station has bike racks? It's kind of a minor detail, but reference 15 mentions it.
- Done.
- I could not access references 7 or 12. I have verified that references 5, 14, and 15 support the text cited to them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- There seems to be something off about those numbers. Are you looking at a different revision of the page? Steelkamp (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings: I have added images and I believe have addressed everything else. Steelkamp (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I had a death in the family and haven't been editing for several days. The new images look good. I think this article is ready to be passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)