Talk:Glen Waverley line/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:59, 17 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: Dylnuge (talk · contribs) 03:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylnuge 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 are 3 articles 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. Recently, two of my articles that I've nominated have been invalidly quick-failed. I am ready and willing to act on all feedback, even if it is extensive. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Definitely no rush or pressure from my end; feel free to take your time. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Picking this up as part of the backlog drive. This is my first GAN review, so feel free to call anything I say into question, and I'll probably ask another reviewer to do a sanity check before finalizing. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No immediate issues: no copyvio (note to any other reviewers that Earwig picks up a junk/scam PDF that's copied from Wikipedia), prose is stable, and none of the six GA criteria are significantly far from being met. Passes 6: Images are relevant, captioned, and properly licensed. Note that I did some small copyedits while reading; feel free to double check my work.

Reference layout looks good but there are a couple of paragraphs where there are not citations at the end:

2nd paragraph in "20th Century", starting from "In 1929, the Glen Waverley line began construction..."
- Y
Under "21st Century", the sentence starting "With the removal of 2 level crossings..."
- Y
Under "Accessibility", starting from "These works have made significant strides in improving network accessibility..."
- Y

@HoHo3143: can you add these citations? I'll put reviewing sources on hold but I can proceed with the prose while waiting. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylnuge done these citations and will do the rest of the recommendations tomorrow (Australian time). HoHo3143 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Y done now

Notes and questions

I plan on updating this section as I review. Feel free to answer these ad-hoc or wait until I'm finished (I'll ping you), whatever works best for you! Also, I've flagged things that aren't GA but that I found while reviewing as optional; feel free to incorporate or ignore. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Scope (3a and 3b)

If you can find a source for it, some info on usage (e.g. daily ridership) would be nice. User:Vaticidalprophet mentioned to me that this is one of the less used major urban lines in Melbourne; anything comparative to other Melbourne lines would be very nice.
- Y in Melbourne, there's no patronage stats for lines, only individual stations
Focus is a pass!
- Y
Optional: In my search for external info to verify nothing was missing, I didn't find anything glaring, but found a few interesting tidbits you might want to incorporate. This ABC article notes that Glen Waverley had less late trains than any other line. This article in The Age has a reader letter criticizing the cost of the line; it's not much of a source on its own, but might indicate there's something interesting to say there if there's more coverage of the cost.
- Y the age article talks about the Suburban Rail Loop which is a different project that only interchanges with the line at Glen Waverley station so its not worth mentioning. Understandable mistake though... this stuff gets confusing. I've also added a mention of the data
  - You're correct, my mistake!

Lead

...serving 20 stations via Burnley, Kooyong, East Malvern, and Jordanville — should "via" be "including" here instead? It's not clear to me what makes these specific four stations unique among the 20 and the source next to it ([1]) doesn't mention any of them (in fact, that source doesn't seem to be relevant to the statement at all).
- Y fixed
During peak hours, headways of up to 10 minutes are operated with services every 10–30 minutes during off-peak hours. — "up to 10 minutes" during peak hours and "10–30 minutes" during off-hours overlap in a way that lacks distinction; is there a way to clarify (maybe something like "The train operates with headways of up to 10 minutes during peak hours and as long as 30 minutes during off-peak hours"?)
- Y good idea. done
I didn't see anything in the article body regarding why the line was built, and the claim it was built to connect Melbourne to rural towns seems unsourced in the lead.
Different packages of works have upgraded the corridor to replace sleepers, upgrading signalling technology, the introduction of new rolling stock, and the removal of 2 out of the 6 remaining level crossings. — This doesn't read clearly; the tenses disagree ("upgraded" vs "upgrading") and I'm not sure what "different packages of works" means. It might read better as a sentence that starts e.g. "Upgrades have included..." or even split into multiple sentences.
Optional: The parenthetical time might read more cleanly as a comma-separated clause instead (...approximately 19 hours a day, from approximately 5:15 am to around 12:00 am, with...).
Optional: The first sentence in the third paragraph reads more cleanly if you swap it around to not need a separated clause, i.e. Since the 2010s significant improvements and upgrades have been made to the Glen Waverley line due to heavily utilised infrastructure.
A bit more detail on the history of the line in the second paragraph would be nice to have. Overall lead contents looks good, though and provides an accessible overview of the topic.

History

with the Burnley to Waverley Road section of the line closing back to Darling in 1895 is an unclear description; "Burnley to Waverley Road section" isn't treated as a noun phrase elsewhere which makes this a description of a line segment mentioning three stations. If this is contiguous track, it's probably clearer to just describe both endpoints, and then maybe mention a significant station included along them to illustrate location, e.g. (if factual) the Burnley to Darling section of the line closed in 1895, which included the end of service to Waverley Road.
On the above sentence, I went to the source ([2]) to get the details for trying to write an example sentence above and didn't find anything about Waverley Road, Burnley, or Darling—all it says is that "Oakleigh to Ashburton" closed in 1895. An archived version from 25 November looks identical, so I doubt this is an access date issue. I haven't started examining sources in-depth yet but that's the second time I went to a source to get clarification so I could recommend clearer prose and the second time the source didn't contain the cited info at all. Both those sources need fixing, and I recommend doing a sourcing pass on your own if possible, since this is the kind of thing that's likely to hold up or fail the GAN if it's an extensive issue.
Electrification of the line to Glen Waverley — Should this say "Electrification of the Glen Waverley line"? I can't quite tell if it's describing the entire line or just a segment of track that includes Glen Waverley, but it appears to be the former, in which case for consistency it should use the same name.
Optional: with the remainder of the line converted in stages from 1922 to 1964 — Seems like a long time period; I assume there's not more detail in the source but if there is it could be nice to include.
The Outer Circle line previously begun its curve south towards Waverley Road and Oakleigh. — It's not clear to me what changed. Does it no longer include Waverley Road and Oakleigh? Does it still include those but the extension initially brings it in a different direction before it turns South?
...the Monash Freeway which runs alongside the route for part of the journey might be good to state where, e.g. from "X station to Y station".
Since the level crossings were removed on-schedule, it might be better to just say they were completed in 2016 and 2020, instead of writing "to be completed".
For the second paragraph in "21st century," might be good to mention what (if any) service/routing was discontinued with the timetable change.
Optional: resulting in all Glen Waverley line trains... tense is a bit awkward here; maybe write Following schedule changes in 2021, all Glen Waverley line trains operate via...
Nice to see the on-time stats in here! I'd drop the sentences on the other two lines though, since they're not about the Glen Waverley line (they might be good in their respective articles).
For the last sentence, On the positive side is a weird phrase since it's not contrasting an issue with the Glen Waverley line but cancellations on a different line; boasting is also a bit of puffery. Maybe try something like The line reported 97.1% of trains arriving on schedule and a cancellation rate of 0.7%, among the lowest of the lines surveyed. for this sentence.

Network and Operations

"Peak hours" is used as a phrase a lot here without clarification; when are peak hours?
This says peak frequency is 5 to 10 minutes but the lead says "up to" 10 minutes. Assuming 5-10 minutes is correct, I'd recommend use the shortest headway (5 minutes?) in the lead, since it best illustrates the range of headways on the line.
Some express services do occur during peak hour by skipping unpopular stations. — This is pretty generic; it'd be good to describe the express service for the Glen Waverley line more (when do they happen? when they're running, does the track still also run local trains, and if so, what's the proportion?). I'd also recommend something like "less trafficked" or "less utilised" instead of "unpopular".
On Friday nights and weekends, services run 24 hours a day, — Phrasing is a bit confusing; the lead suggests this just covers Friday and Saturday evenings but "weekends" is ambiguous here. Maybe reword as 24-hour service runs on Friday and Saturday nights, with trains between midnight and 5:15 AM coming at 1-hour frequencies or similar?
Both private operators have had a combined operational period of 23 years — This will become outdated; I think it's fine to just say that the train has been privately operated since 1999.
The tables in this section are very good! I also think you made good decisions on what to collapse by default here.

Infrastructure

I'm not personally sure what a two three-car configuration means. From later in the sentence it sounds like this is a way of organizing six cars together? Is there a way to word this that would make it more clear to someone who isn't a subject matter expert?
The trains were originally built between 2002 and 2004 as well as between 2009 and 2020 — did something happen between '04 and '09 to stop production? Might be worth mentioning explicitly if so.
The first sentence of the second paragraph is somewhat tricky to read; maybe break it up into several sentences (e.g. Shunting trains are used for moving trains along non-electrified corridors and for transporting other maintenance locomotives. Overhead inspection trains are used for...).
In the same sentence, for track evaluation; designed for evaluating track and its condition appears to be a typo; presumably you want the name of the train type in there?
Is the Glen Waverley line unique in its use of some or all of these trains?
I directly made a few edits to the Accessibility section; feel free to check my work.
Potential future station upgrade projects will continue to increase the number of fully accessible stations overtime. — this needs a source; it also doesn't seem to say anything. Specific planned work should be mentioned, as should specific attributable statements about the possibility of future work (e.g. a politician or rail administrator saying on record that funding exists or future projects will be planned).
Is there an article that can be linked to for "three position signaling"? A reader curious about what the signaling system entails might want to read more, but since it's not specific to the Glen Waverley line, there's no need to expand it here.

Overall Prose: Things generally look good! You did great work organizing the article and the sections all clearly cover distinct topics thoroughly. I'm marking this as a pass on broadness, neutrality, and the relevant MoS sections (lead, organization, words to watch, and list incorporation). Prose is on hold awaiting resolution of the comments above. I noticed some sourcing issues above and I'm going to be taking a closer look there; that's probably the thing I'm most worried about but hopefully we can resolve it. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Issues

Unfortunately, I am finding widespread sourcing issues. The first three sources I checked all fail to verify their statements; on top of having this issue every time I checked a source in the prose, I'm concerned this might be outside the scope of what can be fixed during the GAN.

N it is the city's fifth shortest metropolitan railway line at 21.3 kilometres — Information only appears in the lead, so would need to be cited there. There's a citation near this, but it goes to the timetables site, where I can't find any details about the track length. (also as a minor note [3] is a more direct link to the Glen Waverley timetables and might be preferable to use)
N A rail connection from Princes Bridge station to Punt Road (Richmond) was built by the Melbourne and Suburban Railway Company in 1859, with a branch line from Richmond to Burnley opening in 1861. — The archived map ([4]) is says "1857 - 1862" and is not a valid source for when any of the extensions or lines were built or opened (it does say Punt Road closed in 1859). The current Museum Victoria site has better information here; I recommend using it as a source instead: [5]. That source disagrees with the facts in this sentence: it notes that the connection was between Princes Bridge and Hawthorn and Brighton, that construction began in July 1858, that the Windsor line opened in 1860. I can find no specific mention of Burnley in any of these sources.
N Electrification of the line to Glen Waverley occurred in three stages between 1922 and 1930 — Two soures provided. [6] is an electrification plan dated 30 June 1908. I don't see any specific reference to Glen Waverley in it, though I did not read the whole document thoroughly and the OCR text search might be unreliable. At any rate, it would not be able to source that the electrification actually began in 1922, just that it was planned (and that does seem like a substantial gap in time from the plan to the execution, though not totally unbelievable). [7] is a contemporary news article about trains being run more frequently in the aftermath of the pandemic and says nothing historical or about electrification at all.
N The Glen Waverley line uses three position signaling which is widely used across the Melbourne train network. — [8] appears self-published. It is an examination of the signaling at Gunning railway station, which is part of an entirely different rail network, and does not appear to mention the Melbourne network or the Glen Waverley line at all.
N In compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act of 1992, all stations that are newly built or rebuilt are fully accessible — [9] is the website of an independent organization pushing for accessibility reform, which would be a good source. Unfortunately neither this page nor the PDF linked on it ([10]) have anything to say about the 1992 Disability Discrimination Act or new construction. I'm sure this organization has useful sources about rail accessibility, but this link is not one of them.
N The Glen Waverley line uses X'Trapolis 100 electric multiple unit (EMU) trains operating in a two three-car configuration, with three doors per side on each carriage, and can accommodate up to 432 seated passengers in each six car configuration — Template is missing some info but that's not relevant for GA. Source is a lengthy primary document reporting on the entire rail system but the claim is not controversial and seems fine to pin to a primary source if there's nothing else available ([11]). The problem is the document does not validate the sentence. X'Trapolis vehicles are mentioned four times in the document—two tables reporting on reliability (under "Train Schedule 24" on pp. 241 and 242, which are 247 and 248 in the PDF), a table on scheduled maintenance, a table on rolling stock upkeep (both in Annexure E on p.396, digital page 402). None of those pages mention what lines individual trains are in service on, and all of them list other vehicles along with the X'Trapolis. The number "432" does not appear in the PDF.
N Also in 1981, Glen Waverley line services commenced operations through the City Loop, after previously terminating at Flinders or Spencer Street stations. — Source ([12]) is collections entry for a map circa 1978. The summary provided by Museums Victoria says "Construction commenced in 1971, and the project was completed with the opening of Flagstaff Station in 1985". It does say that "the first station, Museum (now Melbourne Central), was officially opened on January 24th, 1981", which might be enough to verify a more precise statement that operations started in 1981 and continued to expand through 1985, but as is the text in-article implies operations commenced all at once, which contradicts the source. This is probably the easiest issue to fix of the ones I've found so far, as the others all need new sources.

I'm going to stop looking at sources now. It seems clear to me that there are pervasive issues with the sourcing in this article that are neither trivial nor limited to a single section or type of claim. Like I said at the beginning, I will have someone check my work here, but unfortunately I don't think the article is ready for GA in it's current state and that significant improvement on the sourcing is necessary to get it there. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Failed Sourcing is the primary issue. Many statements are cited to sources that do not verify the claim. In some cases, sources appear to contradict statements made in the article. The issues occur throughout all sections of the article and aren't limited to a specific source or type of claim. Any future review should include a thorough check that cited sources verify the claims being made in the article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:58, 17 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.