Talk:Sandringham line

Sandringham line was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 13, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sandringham line article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Australia: Melbourne / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Sandringham line is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Passenger trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 10 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Sandringham line. The result of the discussion was Moved.

Early private companies[edit]

The early private companies are a little confusing...

Melbourne and Suburban Railway Company (MSRC) was sold to Melbourne Railway Company (MRC) on 31 March 1862
Operations of St Kilda and Brighton Railway Company (StK&BRC) was taken over by MRC on 1 May 1862
MRC amalgamated with Melbourne and Hobson's Bay Railway Company (M&HBRC) forming Melbourne and Hobson's Bay United Railway Company (M&HBURC) on 30 June 1865
The StK&BRC still existed (without locomotives) until sold to the M&HBUR on 1 September 1865

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated stations[edit]

The article says "The majority of stations are at ground level, with elevated or lowered stations constructed in conjunction with historical level crossing removals works." This may be true of Richmond, South Yarra and Elsternwick, but Balaclava and Gardenvale stations seem to be in their original locations even if bridges have been built north and south of Gardenvale, as far as I can tell from their articles.--Grahame (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Glen Waverley railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. — Golden ^talk 13:11, 13 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sandringham railway line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Golden (talk · contribs) 20:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'll be reviewing this article. — Golden ^talk 20:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden 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. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143: I regret to inform you that I have to quickfail this article. I was halfway through reviewing before I made this decision. The article is a long way from meeting the criteria 2b, 3a, and 3b, and has many issues with 1a and 1b. The article is not broad enough: much of the article is about information that is irrelevant to the Sandringham line. The article also lacks sufficient information about the Sandringham line itself, apart from some signal trivia in the History section. Moreover, the article has a whole section without any sources and many unsourced statements elsewhere. However, please do not be discouraged. You can still improve this article and make it a GA. Below are some suggestions I wrote before quickfailing the article. You can use them if you want to renominate the article in the future. — Golden ^talk 13:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & Infobox[edit]

in the city of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. - "Victoria" is an unnecessary disambiguator here, and you don’t need to wikilink Australia. I suggest replacing it with "in Melbourne, Australia."
The line operates -> "It operates" to avoid two consecutive sentences starting with "The line".
Link Brighton at first mention in the lead.
Melbourne, Elsternwick, and Balaclava are linked twice in the lead. (Brighton too, if you link it before; Relevant guideline: MOS:OVERLINK)
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia in the infobox should be replaced with "Melbourne, Australia" (including the wikilink)

History[edit]

Why is the entire 19th-century section unsourced?
Melbourne and Suburban Railway Company are linked twice.
I don't see the relevance of anything in the 19th-century section, except for the last sentence, to the focus of our article on the Sandringham railway line. We don't need to know so much about the Brighton rail to understand Sandringham.
In light of my previous point, I suggest removing the subsections in the History section and shortening the entire 19th-century section to one or two sentences that provide relevant background information about the Sandringham line. For instance, any prior plans or discussions about the Sandringham line would be more relevant and interesting than two paragraphs about a different line.
the first line in Victoria -> "the first line in the state of Victoria" and wikilink Victoria since this is the first mention of this state in the article body.
When the underground City Loop line was designed - Specify when.
City Loop is linked twice.
Main article: Sandringham railway line § Future - Remove this.

Future[edit]

I suggest merging this with the History section.
there will be a reorganisation - Add "planned to" or something similar, as well as the name of the entity that announced the plan. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball.
City Loop is linked again.
The second and third sentences are irrelevant to the article.
I stopped reviewing after this point.

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.

In response to failed GAN[edit]

In relation to the above statement regarding the 19th-century section and reference to the Brighton line.
From 1859 to 1887 the Sandringham line was the Brighton line. The sections of the Sandringham line between Flinders Street and Brighton Beach are practically the original alignment (with minimal divergence as a result from line upgrades). Any mention of the "Brighton line" is therefore relevant to this line (or does every time a line gets extended/shortened mean we need to create a separate article?)
WP:RS for the early history of the line is a bit patchy due to the "revolving door" of the early private operators (4 before the governmental Victorian Railways took over). The fact most of these companies were only around for 3 years, and this was 158 to 164 years ago, there is not too much on the operations of these companies and what does exist and is easily accessible to general public is not from a RS. I hope to in the future to try and access the limited records on this time period located in the railway archives. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]