Talk:Upfield line/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 10:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Starting review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham just to give you the heads up, I've got a busy few days coming up so I'll be getting to this towards the end of the week. Feel free to complete further stages of the review in the mean time and I'll get to it shortly. If you prefer to do it stage by stage, I'm find with that too. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

HoHo3143, thanks for letting me know. I'll add my grammar check below, but I still want to do a further read-through too, which I'll do within the coming days. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi HoHo3143, I see you've made some progress below, good work. I've just responded to a few points in the short-term (I've not looked properly yet at everything). I'll probably not be online much in the next few days, so sorry if I'm slow to respond. I should get to it by Monday or Tuesday though! -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham all feedback has been acted upon. Unless there's anything else that needs adding, the article should be good to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham all the final feedback has now been acted upon. hopefully it can pass now! HoHo3143 (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

HoHo3143, you hadn't removed the sentance starting "Statistically, the Upfield line" yet, but I didn't want that too hold up progressing this to GA status, so I'm going to mark this as a pass. Good work! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems to be stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are relevant, with appropriate captions and licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

HoHo3143, I'll look at this properly in the coming days, in the meantime I noticed the sentance A report for the Cain government concluded that the line had too few passengers, that it duplicated Route 19 tram, that its antiquated signals and staffed boom gates were too old, and that the line would need significant investment to bring it up to modern standards. is a bit too similar to the one from https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/not-the-end-of-the-line-how-people-power-saved-the-upfield-rail-line-20160602-gp9web.html according to Earwig. It's a minor issue, but I wanted to flag it nonetheless. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Y fixed

HoHo3143, as a first pass, just looking at a large sample of the the sources already present on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Upfield_line&oldid=1171009139

[1] This is an indirect link to the timetable. Would a more direct link to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/timetable/15/upfield/ not be better? Used in various places, but a spot check was okay.

Y

[2] Same ref as [1]?

Y

[3] used in a few places, spot check okay.

Y

[4] This is a source from 1989, so can’t be used to fully support the sentence Operations on the Upfield line were in serious doubt in the late 1980s and early 1990s with proposals for the line to be converted into a light rail line or a full closure as that mentions early 1990s.

Y

[5] This is a source from 1891, so shouldn’t be on the sentence In 1961, the section from Upfield to Somerton was closed, and remains this way into the 21st century. It’s okay for the other sentence it’s on in the “19th century” section though.

Y

[6] For the sentence There have been proposals to reactivate this section of track, however, no significant progress has been made other than minor mentions in planning documents., it should say “As of 2018”, and that’s when this source is from.

Y

[7] Spot check ok, though doesn’t fully support the sentence it’s on in the lede (but the lede doesn’t need fully referencing).

Y

[8] okay.

Y

[9] okay, but only confirms the amount, not the date in the sentence The line was opened by the Governor of Victoria Henry Loch in September 1884, with the line costing £53,000 at the time.. Maybe include a ref to [8] here as well?

Y

[10] okay

Y

[11] okay

Y

[12] Doesn’t mention 1915. Should the article say December or November for the electrification? Maybe “with the line electrified by December”?

Y

[14] okay

Y

[15] used in a few places, one spot check okay, but doesn’t support In June 1961, that arrangement was extended to apply for the whole of Sunday and in October 1961 it was further extended to include services after 7:30pm between Monday's and Saturday's..

Y

[16] a book, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[17] a book, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[18] not looked carefully, but might be worth adding a page number, as it’s hard to search?

Y

[19] okay

Y

[20] I don’t have this, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[21]-[23] all similar about different level crossings, are okay.

Y

[24] okay

Y

[25] okay

Y

[26] okay

Y

[27] how does this verify “a small amount of attention”?

Y it more so verifies who is involved and then due to the lack of progress there are no sources to show that nothing has happened

I'd remove that phrase then, as that's your interpretion rather than verified.

Y

[28] article says “On Friday nights and weekends”, source says “Night Train network runs every Friday and Saturday night”, which doesn’t agree.

Y me too fixed

[29] doesn’t seem to support the paragraph it’s on.

Y added some sources similar to how it was done with the alamein line article

[30] same timetable as ref [1]?

Y

[31] I don’t have this, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[33] okay

Y

[35] I don’t have this, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[36] I don’t see where this verifies the length of 20.1km?

Y think its fixed?

[37] a book, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[40] not looked carefully, but seems like the right sort of source to verify the dates

Y

[41] a book, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[42] a book, taking on good faith is okay.

Y me too

[43] article says “mid 2030s”, source says 2026?

Y they will first be introduced in 2026 and then the comeng will finally be fully retired sometime in the 2030s

[45] okay

Y

[47] okay

Y

[48] no mention of Disability Discrimination Act of 1992, beyond this GA this is an issue I’ve seen on multiple similar articles using this source.

Y added the same sources from the alamein line article

[49] unclear what “the corridor” is. No mention of myki?

Y I've added an extra source for the Myki bit. for the majority bit, I've counted up the number of accessible stations and divided by the overall number to find the percentage which was used to back up the statement

[51] no mention of Upfield line?

Y this is a source that backs up the general statement that the LXRP upgrades stations and makes them more accessible

I'll put this on hold to give you chance to address these before I do the next pass. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham thank you for this. I'll begin over the coming days. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Minor optional grammar suggestions: Y

"During peak hour" to "During peak hours"

Y

"a two options were floated" to "two options were floated"

Y

Should "gate keepers" be one word?

Y

"remove 4 level crossings" to "remove four level crossings" (as per MOS:NUMERAL)

Y

"The final batch of crossing" to "The final batch of crossings"

Y

"business case would be completed for to" to "business case would be completed to"

Y

"further investigate the positivity" - did you mean "possibility"?

Y yes... sorry!

"there has been little developments" to "there have been few developments"

Y

"with 60 minute frequencies" to "with 60-minute frequencies"

Y

"rebranded M>Train" to "rebranded as M>Train"

Y

"stops at 3 underground stations" to "stops at three underground stations"

Y

"line has been elevated" to "line have been elevated"

Y

"three position signalling" to "three-position signalling"

Y

I'm sure use of commas could be improved, but that's not needed for GA. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

if you have anymore comma related suggestions let me know

Read-through of the text by section, I'll try not to repeat any of the issues already mentioned above. This is my final pass before you make corrections:

Lede mentions "the city's fifth shortest", but not mentioned in the main body of the article.

Y added

19th century - does the £ symbol really need a wikilink?

Y removed. this was were previously so I initially kept it

Upfield—Somerton link (1950–1970) - some overlinking, e.g. "dual guage".

Y should be better

21st century - Doesn't need a "main article" link. Does need a ref.

Y id prefer to keep this. its the same across all other articles with things being built in the future and has been ok-ed by other editors

  From my point of view it's just incorrect. That section is about 21st century history, explicitly not things in the future. I'd encourage other editors who ok-ed using it like that to look at Template:Main. It's for pointing to other articles, not other parts of the same article.

Y ok done

Future - the table note says "there hasn't been any recent progress", but when was that as of?

Y

Services - The Upfield line has one of the least-frequent peak-period services in Melbourne's railway network needs a ref, unless it explicitly says that somewhere on the timetable ref at the end of the sentance.

Y

The phrase usually on selected Fridays and Saturdays needs a ref, as the ref at the end of the paragraph doesn't mention it.

Y fixed

Operators - I'm assuming it's covered by the refs in the paragraph, but the table having a ref would be nice (not essential).

Y this table was done by another editor with the same sources

Route - who says "Interestingly", is it in the source?

Y I wrote interestingly as its something that isn't very common in Australia (or even in other parts of the world). I can reword it if need be

  I'd reword it, as even though it's interesting to us, it's not for Wikipedia articles to show our opinion.

Y done

Stations - does it need to say the length of the track again, when it was said in the Route section?

Y it doesn't need to, but it provides good context for the distribution of stations.

Accessibility - second paragraph is unreferenced except for the first sentance.

Y fixed

-Kj cheetham (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi HoHo3143, this is very close to being a pass now, so I thought it would be easier to just list the final issues here:

I can't see a source to verify it's 20.1 km (e.g. in Route section)?

ive added in a source. its the same one that has been used for the infobox so it would be correct

In the "Rolling stock" section, it talks about the Comeng EMUs from the 1980s, then "and subsequently will be replaced by the mid 2030s", but the sources cited say about new rolling stock being introduced 2026, and nothing about them being retired in the 2030s.

added sources and fixed

When you say I've counted up the number of accessible stations and divided by the overall number to find the percentage which was used to back up the statement, that sounds a lot like WP:ORIGINAL research to me. As as per WP:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". However, there is also WP:CALC to consider, which may allow you to calculate a simple percentage, but you need an actual source to support the sentance Statistically, the Upfield line has a much higher percentage of fully accessible stations in comparison to other lines. I'd just remove the latter sentance if it's not supported.

this would fit into the calc policy. Ive removed this sentence as although its true (as I've done calculations for all of the lines) it would be hard to find a ref

As an additional comment, I'd be tempted to change "Future station upgrade projects will" to something like "Future station upgrade projects are planned to", to avoid any hint of WP:CRYSTALBALL.

done

-Kj cheetham (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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.