Talk:Flemington Racecourse line/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. AviationFreak💬 17:04, 16 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: AviationFreak (talk · contribs) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak thank you for beginning to review the article! I am available to complete this during the week so I'm ready for the feedback. If I get a bit busy (with school or something else) I'll let you know. Currently there is 1 article ahead of you in the queue for me to act on their feedback. This should be quick however, so I'll make my way to this article relatively soon. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Generally good, a few things to cover:
I would add a bit on what the racecourse itself is (I don't see it linked in the article).

Y added a brief description

I'm unclear on what the meaning of serving 5 stations via North Melbourne railway station. is. What does it mean for a line to serve stations via another station?

Y no. usually when the article is longer I would write (for example) serving 22 stations via Caulfield, Oakleigh, and Dandenong as they are the notable stations along the route. I've removed this now as the line is very short and it could get confusing.

The first table has a few {{htxt}}s, which means some symbols are missing. It's also a little confusing to use a bulleted list in the legend when one of the symbols renders identically to the list bulleting.

Y the hidden stuff is just to make the stations in the table in-line with one another. In addition, the bulleted list is the same on all 13+ articles so I'd prefer to keep it this way

The engineering trains section is pretty hard to read; see MOS:LISTFORMAT.

Y hopefully this is better (let me know if it isn't)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Some duplinks in prose (North Melbourne Station, M&E Railway Company), and lead should be expanded. I think 1.5 or 2 solid paragraphs would be appropriate.
Y links fixed and added some extra bits to the lead
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:
Refs look good, nicely formatted too.
B. 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):
Despite some removals, there are a number of level crossings still present with no current plans to remove them. - This needs an inline citation, as do three paragraph-final sentences under "Infrastructure". Last sentence of "20th century" is missing a citation as well.
Y done
C. It contains no original research:
Source Spotcheck:
3 [1]: N - Don't see the line mentioned, on the linked Cranbourne and Pakenham section or anywhere else on the page.

Y fixed

8 [2]: N - It appears from both FN8 and FN9 that the first train was run in Spring of 1919, not October of 1918 (as the article claims).

Y fixed

12 [3]: ? - Source supports most of the claim, but does not indicate that this was the line's busiest period of the year.

Y whilst the article doesn't explicitly say it, its implied as the line primarily serves the racecourse

15 [4]: Y

Y

19 [5]: N - This appears to be a blog-style source that is self-published and does not meet GA reliability standards. This source is not reliable unless consensus has been established otherwise, but it does not appear that it has.

Y fixed

25 [6]: N No mention of the Comengs being the "oldest on the Melbourne rail network" or being replaced by mid-2030s.

Y removed

27 [7]: N No mention of X'Trapolis or Alstom, and I'm doubtful that a source published in 2014 is good for sourcing a claim that production ended in 2020.

Y

32 [8]: ? - Source discusses upgrades within the transit system, but there is no mention of the specific line or any of the stations on it being upgraded.

Y its a good point but there is almost nothing that occurs on this line, so a generic source is needed to say it COULD happen

33 [9]: ? - Linked PDF on page (but not source linked in article) discusses upgrade techniques, but only North Melbourne station is mentioned.

Y same as previous comment
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig has no problems; more thorough spotcheck in above section.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Appears to be on-par with GAs on similar topics. Some expansion of "History" would be welcomed, but that might not be possible.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Rolling stock and accessibility details seem pretty standard for these types of articles.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Not controversial.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Uncontroversial, nothing on talk page or in page history (except RM, but that's not relevant here).
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:
Only image is CC3.0.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Image is directly relevant and captioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold for 10 days. Prose is ok, but needs serious work on the referencing. A full in-depth source check will need to be passed before this can be promoted. I feel 7 days would be a bit small of a timeframe, so I'm going with 10 - let me know if you feel this should be changed. AviationFreak💬 21:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak thanks for doing a good job with the review. Everything should be completed now and ready for promotion (unless you have anymore fixes). HoHo3143 (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck of 50% of FNs, randomly selected

3 [10]: N - The source shows the line takes 3-4 minutes to move between stops, but the highest frequency I see is ~15mins.
4 [11]: N - See above. These are also primary sources that refer to specific dates, and are not ideal for this type of claim.
5 [12]: N - The source does not mention the line (it's about Frankston), nor does it say anything about car classes or the formations they run in.
6 [13]: N - This is just the homepage for the Victoria Racing Club, with ads for upcoming events. There is no support of claims about the line's history.
8 [14]: N - This clipping does not support the claim that Victorian Railways took over in 1867, and it was printed in 1906, so it will not be a good source for a claim about a 1918 event, as time flows linearly.
11 [15]: N - Source states the test was run from "Sandringham to Melbourne." Sandringham is located southeast of Melbourne center, while Flemington Racecourse (and the entirety of the Flemington Racecourse line) is to the northwest.
13 [16]: Y - A video source, but it's from RS and appears to support the claim.
14 [17]: N - As noted in the review above, the source does not state that the blockage occurred during the busiest period of the year. This cannot be "implied" from the source, and another source will be needed that explicitly supports this claim if the claim is to be included.
17 [18]: Y - Also a primary source, but appears to support the claim.
20 [19]: ? - Supports the claim about MTM replacing Connex in 2009, but does not support the other claim of Hillside Trains was privatised in August 1999 and later rebranded Connex Melbourne.
22 [20]: ? - Source indicates one "no priority" crossing with Ascot Vale Road, but the claim in the article is that Despite some removals, there are a number of level crossings still present with no current plans to remove them.
23 [21]: N - Both claims sourced to this article are about the Racecourse line specifically, which is not even mentioned in the link.
25 [22]: Y - Map supports opening years.
27 [23]: N - Source does not mention the Racecourse line, EMUs, door configurations, or building years.
29 [24]: N - While source does discuss the X'Trapolis 100, it does not mention the Racecourse line or the building years (besides the mention of a contract that will end in 2020).
30 [25]: N - This is a "who's who" page for Victoria Public Transport. I have no idea on what page within this directory I should find this information, if it's there at all.
31 [26]: N - This is a listing of rolling stock, and does not discuss what the trains are used for (i.e., the little descriptions given in the article) or state that any of them are used on the Racecourse line.
36 [27]: N - As noted in the previous spotcheck, the source does not mention the line. If accessibility info for this line is not available, it shouldn't be in the article. As for FN36b, the "60%" statistic is not supported and there is no indication in the source that upgrades to the line's stations will occur.
38 [28]: N - Appears to be self-published, and thus generally unacceptable as a source.
40 [29]: N - Per WP:RSPYT, YouTube videos published by individuals (i.e., not news organizations, government agencies, or the like) are considered unreliable.

Overall: Not promoted. This article displays serious problems with sourcing/verifiability that were not properly addressed after their initial identification in the GA process. Any future GA candidacies will need to go through a similarly thorough process of checking sources. AviationFreak💬 17:04, 16 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.