Talk:Cranbourne line/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review to come soon. Steelkamp (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a passing editor:

Of 46 references:

8 references come from Victoria’s Big Build which is a primary source from the project web site of the Government.
10 or so additional primary references from the Premier, Public Transport Victoria, etc.
Extensive use of authors such as "Victoria, Public Transport", "Build, Victoria’s Big" which aren't actually authors.

Gusfriend (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 lead is tiny. It needs to be much longer, preferably three or so paragraphs. The lead should make mention of all major sections of the article. That includes history, services, route, infrastructure, future.
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.
There are a bunch of towns you could link, such as Miraboo North, Port Albert, Toora, Yarram and Dandenong, Leongatha. Same with Carnegie, Murrumbeena, Hughsdale, Clayton and Noble Park stations.
There are several instances of distances that have no conversion to miles.
The services section talks about current and future services but does not mention past services.
The services section does not mention Metro Trains Melbourne.
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.
Proposed stations has no source.
There are a bunch of other sourcing issues in the rest of the article.
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.
the rolling stock will consist... Why is this in future tense? Does this mean that there are other trains used on the line currently?
Vicsig is not a reliable source.
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?
Why is the only incident in 2012? Seems like recentism to me.
Future could be moved directly below history.
Railpage is not a reliable source.
The formatting of several references is poor. Some have no website name and Ref 24 has no title.

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)[reply]

I've had a look at this feedback and agree with Steelkamp. Also there are a lot of spelling and grammar errors. I recently nominated Pakenham railway line for GA status (and I can see this article has taken heavy 'inspiration' from it (formatting is fine but coping and pasting entire chucks maybe not)). Steelkamp- would you like to review the Pakenham line article and see if it is at GA status? If you do review it and it passes, I would be able to fix this article to align it with the Pakenham line article. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at that article tomorrow. Steelkamp (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! HoHo3143 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

most of the history up to 1995 shouldn't really go into detail since the line opened in 1888 was the south gippsland line with the actual cranbourne line opening in 1995. Atleast in my opinion only the important parts of the south gippsland line's history should go here with additional details going to the seperate South Gippsland railway line article NotOrrio (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You should also remove Cranbourne east and Clyde from the proposed stations table. Yes they are proposed, but the project hasn't entered extensive planning or construction yet (and probably won't for a long while). HoHo3143 (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ive fixed most of the problems and im pretty sure some others have fixed additonal problems i won't fix a few of the mentioned problems for the following reasons

History section is tiny and half of it is the 21st century- The line that opened in 1888 is the South Gippsland line with the cranbourne line opening in 1995, only the important parts of the south gippsland line should be mentioned here with details mentioned in the seperate South Gippsland railway line. Also I struggled to find reliable sources when researching on the 19th and 20th centuries.

-Since the cranbourne line opened in 1995 any incidents that happened on the line before are considerd as incidents of the south gippsland line

-The rolling stock will consist, this line implies that hcmts are still being delivered

- I won't remove the rail page and vic sig sources for now because no reason was specified as to why they aren't reliable in addition i struggled to find any good replacement sources NotOrrio (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The history for the 21st century needs fixing. 2 sentences don't require their own subheadings. The 21st century needs rewriting with more details and description. Cranbourne Stabling Yards, Lynbrook Station Opening, and Level Crossing Removals sections need to be combined and written in chronological order. The Cranbourne Line Duplication section should stay its own subheading but it needs heavy expansion similar to North South MRT line's woodlands extension. Also the Clyde rail extension needs expansion. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Also there isn't too much information easily available on railway accidents in Victoria (will require going through every page of every available newspaper on Trove)--ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest considering something like the following for the history section (possibly even removing the history heading) as a way to more closely link it to the South Gippsland page?

==The South Gippsland railway line==

There was a need for transportation which was provided by the new line.

==Electrification and renaming==

It closed, then opened refreshed and renewed in 1995.

==Recent upgrades==

Some good stuff recently.

Gusfriend (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]