Talk:Huntingdale railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 22:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Content and prose

The article currently does not reach the standard of content and prose that is required to meet the GA criteria. As a point of reference, a suitable benchmark article for quality of prose is Caulfield railway station. Here is a list of the aspects that need to be addressed in Huntingdale railway station before a full review against the GA criteria can be completed:

• Fix multiple spelling errors including: appromixately, lenght , diplsays, precicnt

Lead

• I still suggest an amendment to improve the flow of the first sentence by removing the words "the border of", so that it becomes: " .... is a commuter railway station located adjacent to the suburbs of Oakleigh and Huntingdale in the south-east of Melbourne, Victoria in Australia". Note that Australia should not be wikilinked as per MOS:OVERLINK. The first sentence should be as concise as possible, while still providing a suitable initial introduction to the article. One of the reasons is that the first sentence of a Wikipedia article frequently appears in the infobox of a Google search result, and having a concise first sentence helps all searchers and readers.
• The first paragraph now has three successive sentences beginning with "The station". I suggest changing the second of these to: "It did not receive ..."
• The second sentence needs breaking in the middle
• The third sentence has duplicate words "the station" that should be removed
• The fourth sentence includes "Railway Parade", but later in the text there is "Railway Avenue", and this name is also what appears on Google Maps. Which is it ?
• The reference to the DDA Guidelines is probably not required in the lead, but if it is retained, it must be expanded, since this is the first instance in the text. See MOS:ACRO1STUSE
• In the second paragraph of the lead, the name is given as Oakleigh. Surely this is wrong.?
• In the same paragraph, the phrase: “the station interchanges with 5 bus routes” is odd, and should be rewritten.
• In the second paragraph, Pakenham and Cranbourne should each be wikilinked to the articles about the lines.
• "26 minute train from Flinders Street" should be "26 minute train journey from Flinders Street Station" and Flinders Street Station should be linked.

Description

• In the second sentence under "Description", the second sentence is still unclear. I suggest a revision to: "On the north-eastern side of the station is Railway Avenue and Haughton Road is to the south-west."
• In the third sentence, "ownedby" should be "owned by"
• What is the purpose of including the sentence: “On the south eastern end of the station are both North and Huntingdale roads which offer no direct entrances to the station”. What does this add ?
• The sentence: “Just a short walk north-east of the station is the shopping village in Huntingdale” seems like something that would appear in a travel guide, not an encyclopaedia
• The phrase: “the services are contracted to operate by Metro Trains Melbourne” is odd, and should be rewritten
• In the second para under Description, “Railway avenue and Haughton road” should be “Railway Avenue and Haughton Road”, but the word “pedestrian” should not be capitalised.
• "via a pedestrian subway" requires a space before the word "pedestrian"
• In the next sentence in the second paragraph, I suggest a revision to: "The length of the platform is approximately 160 metres (520 ft), long enough for a Metro Trains 7-car HCMT."
• The phrase: “a single station building which primarily serves as a waiting room and a toilet” is odd and needs rewriting. It is questionable whether stating the building has a toilet is of encyclopaedic value.
• The sentence: "The main station remained mostly the same with the exception of .." reads like history. If so, it should be in the History section. In the same sentence, " Passenger information diplays" should be "passenger information displays" (upper case is not warranted here, and the spelling of displays still needs to be corrected)
• The sentence: “The precicnt however was upgrades several times most notably the 2018 precint upgrade which converted the station into a transport hub. “ reads like history, and should probably be in the History section (but reworded and with the spelling errors fixed)
• The phrase: “ as the ramps gradients steeper than the maximum of 1:14 allowed under the Act" is still not right. It would be better to say “as the gradient of the ramps is steeper than the maximum of 1:14 allowed under the Act.”
• an unwanted line feed has appeared before "Flinders Street" in the first paragraph
• the spelling of "lenght" needs correcting in the second paragraph
• In the 3rd paragraph, "railway avenue" should be "Railway Avenue"

History

• The second sentence should be merged with the third, to read "The land occupied by the Hunt Club was later acquired by the Eastern Golf Club, which subsequently became the Huntingdale Golf Club in 1940"
• In the History section, the second sentence is too long and confusing. It needs splitting. The word “abolished” seems odd, and may be better as “removed”.
• "The station received it's current name " should be "The station received its current name" (ie no apostrophe)
• In the History section, use of the term “down end” in the last sentence of the second paragraph seems unnecessary when a simple geographical explanation would be more immediately understood.
• In the History section, the third paragraph is unclear and needs re-writing
• In the first sentence of the third paragraph, "Huntingdale station had became a major interchange point for students traveling to and from" should be "Huntingdale station became a major interchange point for students travelling to and from" (note deletion of "had" and spelling of "travelling")
• The third paragraph still needs improvement. Why are the bus routes mentioned and how is this relevant to Huntingale Station ? The relationship between the railway station, the bus routes, the "shuttle" and the transport of students to and from Monash University is still not clear.
• In the History section, the fourth paragraph needs re-writing and should be expressed entirely in the past tense, without the use of the conditional “would”.
• In the third paragraph, "of a brand new bus interchange " should be "of a new bus interchange" to maintain encyclopaedic tone
• In the fourth paragraph, "costed" should be "cost"
• The sentence: "Additionally the existing car park was upgraded with additional parking spots installed" can be simplified to: "The existing car park was also upgraded with additional parking installed." to avoid duplication of "additional"
• The final cost of $11.6 million published by PTV for the Huntingdale station upgrade needs to be cited, using this archive link - archived on 5 May 2018 : [1] The original link is now dead, so the reference will need to include: |url-status=dead| )

Platforms, facilities and services

• In the Platforms, facilities and services section, the mention of a coffee kiosk does not seem of encyclopaedic value
• The sentence: "The station is staffed during the morning peak hour and has toilet facilities, which are only open during this time." does not seem encyclopaedic. Is there a source that backs this up? I suggest this sentence is deleted - it is more like content you might find in a travel guide.
• The sentence: "The station is currently served by services to and from Pakenham and Cranbourne and is operated by Metro Trains Melbourne" still needs improvement to avoid "served by services". I still consider it would be better rewritten as: "Services between Huntingdale, Pakenham and Cranbourne are operated by Metro Trains Melbourne."
• In the second sentence, "Services to Pakenhan" should be "Services to Pakenham"
• In the same section, the mention of access duplicates content further up in the article, and should be removed.
• In the second paragraph, second sentence, "travel together in South-East towards Dandenong" should be "travel together south-east towards Dandenong" ("south-east" does not need capital letters)
• The sentence: "Services to the City run express from Caulfield (Malvern during off-peak) to South Yarra before stopping all stations to Flinders Street via the City Loop" should be reworded: "Services to the city run express from Caulfield (Malvern during off-peak) to South Yarra before stopping at all stations to Flinders Street via the City Loop" (note "city" with small"c"). Both Malvern and South Yarra should be wikilinked.
• Under Future services, the wikilink for Sunbury should be moved up to the first occurrence.
• The phrase: "underconstruction Melbourne Airport line" should be "under-construction Melbourne Airport rail link" ("under-construction" requires a hyphen)
• The sentence: “In addition to the current services the Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail proposes” would be better placed in a new section “Planned developments” or similar, along with the content under “Future services”
• "Future Services" should be "Future services" (Wikipedia uses sentence case for headings, as per MOS:SENTENCECAPS)

Transport links

• In the first sentence, "Haughton road" should be "Haughton Road"
• In the section Transport links, the sentence: “ In February 2018, a new bus interchange was built in the existing northern car parking lot on Railway Avenue” should be relocated to the History section”
• All wikilinks should be reviewed, so that there is only one instance of a wikilink in the main body of the article (links in the body can also appear in the lead). Links should appear only in the first instance in the body (as an example of one that needs changing, see Caulfield)
• Marshelec (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Addressed all issues mentioned NotOrrio (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

fixed most of the problems mentioned I removed the section about route 601 as it talks more about the route than the station. just want to point out that "City Loop" should be written as it is now because it's a proper noun NotOrrio (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

i misread the suggestion of changing City to city, found the problem and fixed it that should be all good now NotOrrio (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Good work on resolving most points. I have taken a second pass, striking through points that have been addressed, and adding others that either still need attention or that I missed in my first review, or have arisen in the changes made since my first review. Once these points about the content and prose are addressed, I will move on with the review against the other GA criteria. Marshelec (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Good progress on resolving feedback. Only a few points about content and prose remain to be addressed. I will now begin a review of references.

References

• Reference [3] is not the right source for supporting mention of the ramps having a steep gradient at the end of the Description section. This website page: [2] does mention the steep ramp at Huntingdale, but does not state that it exceeds the 1:14 limit in the Act. A further citation is needed to back this up with respect to Huntingdale, or at least point to the place in the Act (or subordinate code or regulation) where the 1:14 gradient limit can be found.
• References [5] and [10] do not provide the exact date of the opening in 1927. Where is the source ? Someone must have found a source to have quoted the date exactly. ?
• References [6] and [9] have the publisher's name incorrectly placed in the author name fields
• Reference [5] currently goes to the home page of Public Transport Victoria, and does not go directly to the topic indicated by the title. The citation details are incorrect by including “Oakleigh Station” in the title field. Also note that “Victoria” and “Public Transport” are incorrectly placed in the author name fields and should be deleted. The right place for “Public Transport Victoria” is in the fields |publisher= Public Transport Victoria| or |website= Public Transport Victoria|
• Reference [6] has some issues similar to [5]. The figure of 26 minutes seems too precise, given the variation that is observable in the published timetables (needs amendment in the lead, and also under “Description”
• Reference [7] has some issues similar to [5]. Also, a full stop is needed after “Flinders Street”
• General comment: it is fine to use a citation that goes to the home page, so long as it is reasonably easy for a user to find the source of the information in the sentence. However, if you end up with multiple citations all going to the same home page, these should be amalgamated.
• Reference [8] is a mystery. How is infrastructure in Africa related to the history of Huntingdale station and the former land uses ? I haven’t tried to obtain the full text, but from reading the abstract it is hard to see that it is relevant.
• Reference [17] the source date needs correcting to 10 September 2015
• Reference [16] has some issues similar to [5]
• Reference [18] has some issues similar to [5]
• Reference [21] the source date needs correcting to 14 March 2018
• References 20 to 23: I was not able to find the source for the Bays A to E. If no citation can be found, to ensure the article complies with WP:OR I recommend consolidating the bus route references and removing the Bay codes (these may perhaps change over time anyway).

I will now begin a review against the remaining GA criteria. Marshelec (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

fixed these problems, decided to remove source 8 all together doesn't mention anything about huntingdale station in particular that would be worth keeping NotOrrio (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@NotOrrio:. Good work - getting close now, only a few points left to resolve. Marshelec (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

fixed these problems just to point out I've added a source before backing up the opening date but i forgot to copy it to both the history and the lead this source is [3] which is a website from the council the station is in mentions and exact date for the stations opening NotOrrio (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

also ive read to source 20 (now 19) and there doesn't appear to be an error with the date (the source date is correct) i believe this was just a misread with both the publishing and access dates NotOrrio (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Illustrations

• The caption for the photo in the Infobox "South-east bound view" sounds odd. It would be better to say: "Station building and platform 1 viewed from the north-west in 2021"
• The image in the Infobox is a bit dark, and would benefit from adjustment to lighting/contrast

Otherwise, the images are ok.Marshelec (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Update status of review

The only review comments above that are still to be addressed are two minor issues about the source date in 2 citations (these still need correcting), and the question about the date of opening of the station. Date of opening

• The new source [4} titled The Gippsland Railway says “East Oakleigh (Huntingdale) didn't open until 1928.”
• Source [3] titled Huntingdale says that the station opened in 1927.

This is a frustrating but not uncommon problem. In New Zealand, newspaper of those times frequently carried coverage of public events such as the opening of buildings. There is an online archive of scanned New Zealand newspapers that is particularly helpful for finding details like this, going from around 1860 up to the 1970’s (for some newspapers anyway). Is there anything similar in Victoria that you could search? The date of opening is an important fact for this article, and warrants further effort to get supporting evidence. I will put the review on hold for 7 days to give you time to try and find a reliable source that gives a definite date. If no source can be found, we can then agree on what to do with the article.

Further suggestion for additional content about history

In a brief search for historical information about the Huntingdale railway station, I accessed ProQuest, and found multiple newspaper references and articles. Some of this could be usefully added to the History section, to provide some background to the major upgrade that took place around 2018. I suggest adding a couple of sentences covering the issues in these sources (although there are lots more in ProQuest):

• April 2011 – continuing problems with people illegally dumping rubbish at Huntingdale Station [4] (there are reports of illegal dumping through to at least 2014)
• In August 2011, a survey of commuters rated Huntingdale as one of the worst stations in Melbourne. [5] and [6]
• In 18 March 2013, the station was described as: “unsafe, run-down and poorly lit.” [7]
• On 29 April 2013, Huntingdale station was described as “the gateway to Monash University” [8]

Note: if you haven’t previously accessed ProQuest, you can do it via the Wikipedia Library at: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ Just login with your WP credentials, and then find the ProQuest portal and access the collection.

@NotOrrio: I hope you can add something along the lines I have suggested above in the History section, and resolve the question about the date of opening. It will then be possible to complete this review and pass the article nomination. Marshelec (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

i've added a published book as a reference after checking several other sourcess i found that the date opened was 25 June 1927 and the book does mention this as the correct opening date. Also I've added the information about the problems with the old bus interchange and illegal dumping. NotOrrio (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Final round of feedback

@NotOrrio: Good work on finding a source for the opening date. The two remaining minor issues with previous citations still need to be addressed:

• Reference [19] - the source date needs correcting to 10 September 2015
• Reference [24] – the source date needs correcting to 14 March 2018

A few tidy-ups are needed for the most recently added content in the History section, to improve the prose. I recommend the following changes:

• replace: “Metro Trains Melbourne cleaned 60 square metres of rubbish on 18 March 2011, the works costed about $7000” with “Metro Trains Melbourne cleaned 60 cubic metres of rubbish on 18 March 2011, at a cost of around $7000” (note cubic metres, not square metres)
• delete the sentence: “After the incident fines of up to $600 were issued for those who continued to leave their garbage at the station.” My reading of the source is that the provision for such fines was already available – ie this is a standard fine for littering. The source does not actually say that these fines were imposed.
• replace the sentence: “In August 2011 Huntingdale was considerd among the worst stations in Melbourne as a result of the consistent dumping occuring at the station” to become: “A survey of commuters in August 2011 rated Huntingdale among the worst stations in Melbourne because of rubbish and graffiti at the station, unsafe access and flooding of the subway”
• merge these two sentences: “In 2013 Monash University, Clayton campus has made several complaints about the state of the station. The station was considered to be unsafe and was in need of fixing” to become: “In 2013 there was a lobbying campaign by Monash University, Clayton campus seeking improvements to the Huntingdale station and bus interchange.”
• amend: “This was a major to Monash University, Clayton campus concern as Huntingdale station was a major gateway to the university through bus route 601” to become: “The condition of the station and bus interchange was a serious concern for Clayton campus, because Huntingdale station is a major gateway to the university through bus route 601”

This is hopefully the final round of feedback.Marshelec (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

addressed all the feedback here NotOrrio (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Summary

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. (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 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:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)