Talk:Alamein line/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:54, 28 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: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. I can see it had a recent failed review, so I'll read that too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham 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 (including this one) 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) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham just wanted to provide you with an update regarding the placement of this article in the queue. This article is now third in the queue due to another article being promoted, so I'm ready to receive additional feedback. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham also I forgot to mention that I haven't had the time to implement the feedback from the first GA review. If you believe that the feedback is valid, copy it into this review and I'll make sure to get to it. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HoHo3143 I haven't had time to review it properly myself yet, but I'll be sure to copy any past issues here that still need addressing. I'm not going to comment on if I think it was validly quickfailed or not. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

HoHo3143, thanks for letting me know. The only other stage I was going to do was an optional grammar check, which I've now done below too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham just to let you know, this article and the upfield one are now my main priorities as other articles have finished being reviewed. I'll act on the Alamein feedback tonight and move onto upfield later in the week. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No copyvio issues.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems to be stable.
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 fine, with appropriate licenses and captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

HoHo3143, before I do a read of the whole article, let's address the sourcing issue. Considering https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alamein_line&oldid=1170727268 -

[1] timetable, ok.

[2] self-published source, but ok, taking on good faith is a subject-matter expert. However, where does it mention the Alamein line? Rather than [1] and [2], why not directly reference https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/timetable/1/alamein/ ? (I’ve not counted to check if it’s 18 stations.)

replaced with source 1

[3] says it’s for Cranbourne and Pakenham?

replaced with source 1 but the source does go and mention upgrades to the timetable for the Alamein line- its just not linked correctly.

[4] doesn’t mention X'Trapolis 100 or Alamein line.

removed

[5] No mention of Alamein line.

replaced

[6]-[11] all from a book I don’t have, so taking on good faith they are ok.

I have taken good faith too. This information was here prior to when I rebuilt the article, so other than grammatical fixes, its the same info

[12] supports the first sentence in that paragraph, but not the 2nd. Source is from 1993. I’d just move the ref to the first sentence.

good idea

[13] as a spot check, could you tell me where in that source it mentions about 432 seated passengers, and where it mentions 212 three-car sets constructed?

I've switched the reference as it doesn't explicitly say the number. I also rephrases it to 430+ as some trains have more or less seats (depending on when they were built)

[14] link is dead, but the ref says it’s live. Couldn’t see a mention of Alamein line in the archive linked.

I've gone and removed the entire paragraph as I couldn't find anything about the upgrades to the Alamein line. I have a feeling that it has been deleted from the PTV website (and wasn't archived)

[15] no mention of Alamein. No mention of 5:00 am or 12:00 am.

removed

[16] same as [3]

removed

[17] The source says “Friday and Saturday night”, but the article says “On Friday nights and weekends”. Where does it say about the limited number of passengers?

added a source for the first sentence and kept the same one for the night network as it provides the information

[18] Doesn’t support the paragraph it’s on, no mention of Alamein.

whilst it doesn't mention Alamein, otherwise this sentence is un-sourceable. What do you think I should do instead?

N/A anymore

[19] Timetable again, same as [1] effectively? (I’ve not checked this carefully.)

yes it should be the same

[20] taking as ok on good faith as I don’t have access.

this was either here before the rebuild or recently added by another editor who has access to the book

[21] doesn’t seem to support to preceding article text, e.g. where is Hillside Trains mentioned in the source?

added some sources from another article that verify this claim

[22] this is about Richmond railway station, doesn’t seem to backup the preceding text.

replaced with a reference to show satellite view

[23] same source as [5].

replaced

[24] ok, but it’s from 2020. Maybe say in the article “As of 2020”, or find a more recent source.

[25] ok, but doesn’t mention “built-up suburbs”. Should probably find a better source ideally.

[26] a book, taking on good faith is ok.

this was either here before the rebuild or recently added by another editor who has access to the book

[27] mostly just for opening dates, taking on good faith is ok

this was either here before the rebuild or recently added by another editor who has access to the book

[28] same source as [27]

this was either here before the rebuild or recently added by another editor who has access to the book

[29] a book, taking on good faith is ok.

this was either here before the rebuild or recently added by another editor who has access to the book

[30] please reference the specific pages, as it wasn’t obvious to me.

done

[31] no mention of the 1992 Act in the source that I could see?

added an additional source

[32] what is “the corridor” the article refers to? What is “fully accessible”? For ramps for instance, the article says “they have a gradient greater than 1 in 14”, the source says “less than 1 in 14”.

should be fixed now

[33] no mention of Alamein line, not clear how the source supports the article.

[34] source mentions the 40% figure, but doesn’t seem to be specifically for this line as the article suggests.

fixed up with a different source

[35] not convinced the source supports the article. The source does say “The automatic signalling is still largely three position upper quadrant semaphore signalling”, but no mention of Alamein, and it’s from 2012, so a newer source would be better. At most the article could say “As of 2021…”

I meant "As of 2012..." -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fixed

[36] no mentions of years at all.

Overall, sourcing is very poor, but I'm not going to quickfail it myself, though I was tempted, under WP:GAFAIL#1 (failing the "Verifiable" GA criteria) or #5, to give you chance to respond. I'll put this on hold for up to 7 days, after which I'll fail it if the sourcing isn't significantly improved.. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham thank you for allowing me the opportunity to fix the sources. I will start working on these shortly. HoHo3143 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham I believe that I have no fixed the sourcing issues. Let me know what you think. If they have all been fixed, I'm ready to move on. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HoHo3143 Much better. A few outstanding issues before I move onto reading through the whole article:

For ref [1], do you disagree that https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/timetable/1/alamein/ is more appropriate than https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/ ?

good point. fixed

In the “20th century” section, the sentence the ability accommodate up to 430+ seated passengers isn’t supported by https://www.theage.com.au/national/new-trains-will-have-fewer-seats-20080509-ge722z.html - it explicitly says 456. Same in the "Rolling stock" section?

I've found that some sources have different numbers depending on when they were produced. Doing it as '430+' is better to avoid confusion

Then add additional sources to support this as a range (with a maximum), as currently it's not verifiable and sounds like WP:OR. Or change the article to reflect that one source reports 456. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ive just written 456 as its easier for readers with limited knowledge of the network to understand (without going into confusing detail)

The “Services” section still says On Friday nights and weekends, though you have changed it in other places to say Friday and Saturday.

fixed now

For Train services on the Alamein line are also subjected to maintenance and renewal works, usually on selected Fridays and Saturdays. Shuttle bus services are provided throughout the duration of works for affected commuters., which now has ref [12] on it. If something is unsourceable, it should just be removed. That source talks about replacement busses in the area generally, but doesn’t support “usually on selected Fridays and Saturdays” at all, for instance.

i could try and find a source to show the works as an example but its more of an un-sourceable comment. We know that this is when they are usually scheduled as its out of the working week peak period

How do you know that? I don't know that, and verifiable information is critical to Wikipedia. If it's unverifiable, the statement should be removed. An example isn't sufficient to verify something is "usually" the case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three sources in to back up the claims

In the “Route” section you’ve got “As of 2023” instead of “As of 2020”, which is when the source is from. It’s not appropriate to use {{Year}}, as that’s just the current year.

For In compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act of 1992, all stations that are new-built or rebuilt are fully accessible and comply with these guidelines, you’ve got two sources – one is basically the law itself, and the other is about Accessibility of public transport. This seems like WP:SYNTH to me, as the sources don’t explicitly verify the article text.

I'm still not convinced that https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/third-review-disability-standards-accessible-public-transport-2002-transport-standards.pdf verifies all stations that are new-built or rebuilt are fully accessible and comply with these guidelines., but given the statement basically says they'll follow the law, it's just about ok. It's better to include that ref than not. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

[14] and [15] are the same, and [24] and [25] are the same?

fixed

-Kj cheetham (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a second pass, not including things I’ve already mentioned above:

Lead - okay
- Y
  - Just to note, "lede" wasn't a typo, it was just an American spelling for lead paragraph. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea! thanks for the correction

19th century – short, but I don’t know what else to suggest adding.
- Y me neither as this bit of history is more related to the outer circle line
20th century – mostly okay, but the sentence staring “In 1986” seems to have a ref from 1979, which can’t be right. I don’t see why it needs to link to Outer Circle railway line again.
- this was here before the rebuild so not sure what to do. what do you think?
  - If you can't find another source to support it, remove the sentence. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removed as I can't find another

21st century – short
- Y yeah its a bit of a useless line so not a lots happened
Services – what is CBD?
- Y fixed
Stopping patterns – okay, I’m taking on good faith it’s correct. Is that ref the same as the timetable in [1] too?
- Y another user made this table and im guessing its the same reference
Operators – okay, though the table should ideally have a ref.
- Y another user made this table. I'm guessing its from the same references as in the paragraph
Route – okay. The route map is both here and in the infobox, I’m not sure what the convention is for that.
- Y they are two different things. one is the route map and another is a track map
  - Good point. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stations - okay, I’m taking on good faith it’s correct.
- Y
Rolling stock – do you know why the trains were built in two batches (2002-2004 and 2009-2020), did something happen in 2004 or 2009?
- Y no idea as it why. im guessing they just needed more to replace older stock but nothing too notable
Accessibility – okay, but the sentence Future station upgrade projects will continue to increase the number of fully accessible stations overtime. is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Could you talk about upgrade projects are planned, with a ref?
- Y theres no projects atm (of course 🙄). its more of a sentence to say that it could happen
  - Then it's unsourced speculation as should be removed, as Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removed

Signalling – short, but okay.
- Y
External links – mostly okay, but as per WP:ELCITE, probably shouldn’t be linking to the timetable if that’s one of the refs.
- Y i think its fine to leave it. Theres 6+ articles that have passed with no issues

I'll leave this on hold, as I think we're getting closer to being able to pass this now. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor optional grammar suggestions:

"During peak hour" to "During peak hours"

- Y

"1890 till its closure in 1897" to "1890 until its closure in 1897"

- Y

"Melbourne with the suburbs towns" to "Melbourne with the suburb towns"

- Y

"Camberwell to the terminus was single line" to "Camberwell to the terminus was a single line"

- Y

"six car configuration" to "six-car configuration"

- Y

"Services on the Alamein line operates" to "Services on the Alamein line operate"

- Y

"non-peak hours drops to 20–30 minutes" to "non-peak hours drop to 20–30 minutes"

- Y

"later rebranded Connex Melbourne" to "later rebranded as Connex Melbourne"

- Y

"predominantly doubled tracked" to "predominantly doubled-tracked"

- Y

"ground level designs" to "ground-level designs"

- Y

"The Alamein line uses three position signalling which is" to "The Alamein line uses three-position signalling, which is"

- Y

-Kj cheetham (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham all changes have been implemented with some comment left. I'll move onto the upfield article shortly HoHo3143 (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HoHo3143, thank you for your work on this! It's getting very close to a pass now, just a few unresolved issues still. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheetham all remaining issues have now been fixed. Hopefully its all ready to go! HoHo3143 (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HoHo3143, all looks fine to me, good work on this! It's not ready to be passed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:53, 28 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.