Talk:Clayton railway station, Melbourne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clayton railway station, Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. There is a path to get this to GA, but the page needs significant extension and expounding on obvious details. Not seeing any work on the Victorian Heritage side at all despite it being an obvious source of expansion and additional content to meet 3a kind of sealed the deal. Do that and then come back and renominate the page; ideally it'd be at least 50–75% longer than it is now given all the available content (so about 1200–1400 words). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:09, 18 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Clayton railway station, Melbourne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 03:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (references):
    b (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.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Clearly, this is a high-volume station. I would like to see more newspaper discussion about it and its history; right now, it's a bit thinner on content than its traffic volume and years of operation suggest it should be. It's a bit concerning that the article is so reliant on primary sources like the PTV website—which appears to be dead link city. This one will take content expansion, not just copyediting, to get it to GA and get over the WP:GACR 3a hump. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • Additionally, the station is also served by the Gippsland line, which is a part of the Victorian regional railway network. Additionally, the station is served by eight bus routes, including SmartBus route 703. These two sentences should be combined.
  • The lead section should include a couple of sentences on the station's history. I did not realize that it had been changed radically from at-grade to elevated until I read one of the image captions.

Description[edit]

  • Clayton station consists of a single island platform which is located above the road, and is connected to Clayton Road through either a lift and an escalator. The length of the platform is approximately 160 metres (520 ft), long enough for a Metro Trains' 7-car HCMT.

History[edit]

Consider longer, less choppy paragraphs. More detail here seems necessary. This station has operated since the 19th century and this is all we can get? It also seems to be a critical junction on the planned SRL; perhaps that should be discussed in more detail.

There is a Victorian Heritage Register item in the infobox, but the body does not discuss this. Presumably this applied to the now-demolished at-grade station. Why was it heritage-listed?

Platforms and services[edit]

  • The station also served by missing an "is"

New items[edit]

  • From 2035 onwards, Clayton will be connected to the Suburban Rail Loop, which will operate from Southland to Box Hill. Consider reusing one of the SRL references here. @NotOrrio: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks[edit]

  • 1: Victorian Heritage Database. This contains substantial information that could be incorporated about the old station. As it is, it's only being used for the address and a reference number. Was this all demolished to make way for the new station? So many questions are just left plain unanswered. checkY
  • 7: This link is dead. Is there a link on the PTV website to help me find Clayton on the Gippsland line?
    • Driveby coord comment: here's V/Line's timetable for the Traralgon line, and here's Bairnsdale. "Gippsland line" is used as a combined term for the two (Gippsland being the area they're both in); Traralgon is the core line, Bairnsdale an extension that runs less frequently. Vaticidalprophet 04:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19: Network Development Plan overview. p19: Sunbury, Cranbourne and Pakenham services via the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel checkY
  • 21: Another dead PTV link. The only archive is from 2012 which would strike me as very out of date to use as citation material. Please help.
  • 25: This one at least loads. "Clayton Station/Carinish Rd" is on the bus route. checkY

Images[edit]

The article has three CC-licensed images. The "Main entrance" image probably should be normal size in the article; it is quite small. Encouragement: Add alt text.

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.

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 22:24, 16 January 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Clayton railway station, Melbourne/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JML1148 (talk · contribs) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for taking this review
ive addressed criteria 1 and 2, I will begin to address criteria 3 and general feedback as well NotOrrio (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NotOrrio: It's been nearly 2 weeks since I first reviewed this article, and there have been very minimal changes from you; the sole meaningful change to prose was made by another editor. I have been rather lenient with the timeframe, yet the main problem with the article (the lack of detail in some areas) has not been even touched. As such, I will fail this GAN shortly. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
This is an article that excels in some areas and falls short in others. It is clear that some effort has been placed into improving the article since the first GAN, so I am placing this on hold pending further improvements.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Some rather obvious grammatical issues that need to be fixed. See comments below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    See comments below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See comments below.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

Criteria 1[edit]

  • The first sentence in the history section should be split up into at least two sentences.
  • These two buildings were originally constructed with timber. As in they are now made of a different material? The 'originally' implies so.
  • Services to the city run express to Caulfield, run express from Caulfield to Richmond, then stopping all stations to Southern Cross. This is a rather confusing sentence that also needs to include stopping patterns before Clayton. The existing sentence should be rewritten as "From Clayton, services to the city run express to Richmond, with the exception of Caulfield, before stopping all stations to Southern Cross."
  • set down only is a confusing phrase that could be replaced with the significantly more common phrase, "drop off only".
  • proposes linking the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines to both the Sunbury line and under-construction Melbourne Airport rail link, via the Metro Tunnel. The use of 'proposes' suggests that the metro tunnel is a proposed project that has not started construction, which it is not. However, the Melbourne Airport rail link is less certain and has faced delays. This should be made clearer.

Criteria 2[edit]

My main concern here is the reliance upon primary sources, particularly the 'Victoria's Big Build' website. There are many, many articles out there about the Suburban Rail Loop that could be used in lieu of the Big Build Sources, which are essentially promotional press releases. Ideally all of the PTV/Big Build sources would be removed, but this might not be the case for all of the sources.

Criteria 3[edit]

This is the big shortcoming of this article. The history section barely contains any actual history pre-LXRP. When the level crossing removal and heritage building paragraphs are removed, there is just one paragraph that deals solely with station naming. As Sammie Brie said in the first GAN, "This station has operated since the 19th century and this is all we can get?"

General feedback[edit]

  • What exactly is a premium station? This needs to be explained.
  • The 'passengers' section of the infobox is far too long. It should either be made collapsible or be cut down to start around 2015.
  • There is multiple examples of weasel words with 'some media outlets' and 'many residents'. Ideally these should be removed.


  • @NotOrrio: Just a reminder - after around 7 days, if none of the issues are addressed, I will fail the GAN. It's already been 2 days with no response or edits, and it would be a shame to fail an article that is almost at GA level. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 5 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clayton_railway_station,_Melbourne&oldid=1206717188"