Talk:Gardiner railway station

News-stand Building

It's probably not notable - but would it not be at least as notable as the mention of the metcard vending machines? It's a permanent wood structure just outside platform 1 (about 2 metres from the entrance), not something that a vendor wheels in every day to sell papers. Jwoodger (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point - I've deleted the detail on the metcard vending machines as I agree it is similarly non-notable minutiae. I'm familiar with the news-stand; in my view it's simply not something of note at the railway station; permanent news-stands are a familiar site across the suburban network and I'd suggest this example is no more noteworthy. Murtoa (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Jwoodger (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any other Gardiner stations?

I found a pic labelled M-class steam locomotive No.226 at Gardiner Station. This pic doesnt really look like Gardiner station, but does anyone think it is at all possible (since I cannot find any other suburb or train station by the name of Gardiner)? It ALMOST looks like the Burke Street intersection in the distance and the train is travelling towards the city on what would be Platform 2... Jwoodger (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it is Gardiner station (and I agree there were no other Gardiner stations) but I reckon it's heading away from the city with the photo taken near Burke Rd. Murtoa (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the direction too (had a quick look this morning) and landscape looks very similar - of course without the footbridge or other buildings/carpark in the distance. Jwoodger (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Recently, I have been working on this article to improve it to Good Article status. To achieve this status, I have followed this guide. Upon completion, I have nominated this article for Good Article status on 6/1/2023. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gardiner railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry for the long wait! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 thank you for choosing to review the article! Apologies for the lack of response since you started reviewing the article. I did get an email about it but ended up forgetting to take action- sorry for this! I'll make the edits that you have recommended now whilst I wait for you to add any additional points. Thank you and sorry! HoHo3143 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I've gone ahead and added ticks next to the things that I've fixed and am now awaiting any further feedback. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I will be wrapping up this review today and tomorrow. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 thank you- ive made some edits but will do the rest tomorrow. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 everything is done now so should be ready to go (unless you have anymore suggestions) HoHo3143 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on the article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pass, minor issues addressed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Y Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Y Pass, no issues here. Y After source review, I've gone through and added some citation needed tags where information is no longer cited. Please add citations or remove the sentences in question.
	2b. 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).	(for the data its hard to find it elsewhere as i couldnt find it on data vic) Phillip Mallis' blog is not a reliable source, as far as I know. He seems to be citing reliable primary sources, which can be used sparingly while making sure to avoid WP:OR. Y If Mallis can't be shown to be a reliable source, then the information will have to be removed if it can't be found elsewhere. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Y I am AGF about the Level Crossing removal project brochure, as it is offline, the reference could be trimmed down to avoid redundancy Y The Annual metropolitan train station patronage reference could use more info, such as a publisher (State of Victoria), date of access, date of publication, etc etc Y Cites #6 and #7 from Public Transport Victoria could use access dates and other additional info as available. Y Cite #8 (Rome2Rio) should probably be called "Gardiner to Southern Cross" or similar Y Cite #9 (Glenarm Square) needs an author name Y (he is an expert and has been approved in previous articles) Can you make a case for DanielBowen.com being a reliable source? Y Can you link to some articles where this issue has come up before? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Y somewhere in here Talk:Pakenham line/GA1 Y Cite #12 (Dusk) is a photo from 2014 being used to support information from 2016. Not only does this seem like WP:OR, it appears to involve time travel. Please rectify with a better source and don't use the photo source at all. Y Can you make a case for "Waking Up in Geelong" being a reliable source? Y (its the official website for the service, so should remain) Do we know for certain that Parkiteer is comprehensive? It's also 6 years old when first accessed. Y Can you make a case for Vicsig.net being a reliable source? It appears to be a hobbyist website, but that doesn't preclude reliablility. Y How is Clay Lucas' TheAge article from 2011 being used to cite information from 2017? More time travel. Y Cite #20 (Crossing safely) doesn't appear to actually include the information it's used to cite. Y Cite #21 (Herald Sun) needs to be formatted properly, include author information, newspaper, etc etc Y If all page are included (Cite #22), no need to include that parameter Y Cite #23 (Major Construction) needs a publisher/source (Premier of Victoria's Office or similar) Y Cite #29, 'Victoria' and 'Public Transport' are not first and last names, they should all be together in the 'Last Name' parameter. Other source issues: Y Cites #4, 20, and 23 are all updates from the Level Crossing Removal Project. I don't have strong feelings on which one is best, but they should all be cited with the same format/parameters in a consistent manner. Y The Age should be italicized in all references - fix cites #25, 26. Y (i think ive fixed it now- feel free to correct) Cite #2 (Annual metropolitan) still needs a publisher/source in the citation (presumably State of Victoria), as well as a date of publication/data, date of access, etc. Y The "Big programme" article is a 1954 source being used to support 1955 and 1957 information. Additionally, its source should be The Age, not just Age. Y Typo in McKay source (should be Herald Sun) Pass, after a few further tweaks.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Cn tags addressed, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Y A borrowed sentence here ("government planned to remove") - please rephrase. Y Nothing else found by Earwig, hold for manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Y Cannot find anything major not covered here. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Y No significant areas of overdetail, any tweaks can be made during prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Y No issues of neutrality found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Y Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Y (ive added a different tag) File:M-class steam locomotive No.226 at Gardiner Station.jpg I think should have an Australian copyright tag, and might need a different US one. Was it published in the US before 1928? Or was it published in Australia and is US public domain because it was PD in Australia before 1996? Y This still needs a US public domain tag. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Pass, issue addressed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.