Talk:Stony Point line/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 27 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: Voorts (talk · contribs) 23:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts 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. They should be quick however, so I'll make my way to this article relatively soon. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143: My review is below. I'm on vacation tomorrow evening (EST), so if we can't finish it before then, are you okay waiting until 8/21 to complete this? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 12:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts its better if I finish the review whilst you're on holiday and then you add any extra feedback and approve it once your back. Hope you enjoy the break. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts ok so I've finished acting on the feedback from the review. Apologies for some of the atrocious sourcing- someone else has gone and changed the original article adding in information that has shocking sourcing. The article should be ready to go once you return from your break. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts whilst yes you are still on holiday, I just wanted to provide an update. Once you get back, this article is the main priority (for any additional things you need me to fix) as the article ahead of you in the queue has been finished and promoted. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am back and will look at this now. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143, a few additional comments:

I agree that Daniel Bowen is an expert.

Y

One editor commented at RSN that they think Vicsig is not an RS, but I disagree, so that cite is fine.

Y

Given that connexmelbourne.com.au is a dead link, can you find another source to replace it?

Y

This YouTube video is not an RS: one of the sources cited in the video description is this Wikipedia article.

its a good point, but the video was only to cite the fact that the doors are locked, which he demonstrated. Otherwise i couldn't find a better source. What should we do?

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts I've fixed three points and raised a question about one. Once that's complete it should be good to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HoHo3143: RE the bathroom door point: the doors being locked on one trip are not proof that they're locked on every trip. I'm not sure how important that fact is in the article anyways and would just remove it if this is truly the only source. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts ive fixed the point about the bathrooms. Should be ready to go now. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The video is still cited as Ref 34. I don't think it's an RS for anything and should be removed. Is there another source that describes the route? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @HoHo3143. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts oops sorry. though id removed it. There's no source that does due to how under-utilised the line is. Not sure what else to put in. Otherwise should be good to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y removed

~~Starting review page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)~~ Review completed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
~~Left one tag requesting clarification.~~

Additionally, this part seems like TMI and is also not supported by the source cited: Alongside the passenger trains, Stony Point line tracks and equipment are maintained by a fleet of engineering trains. The three types of engineering trains are the shunting train; designed for moving trains along non-electrified corridors and for transporting other maintenance locomotives, for track evaluation; designed for evaluating track and its condition, and the infrastructure evaluation carriage designed for general infrastructure evaluation. Most of these trains are repurposed locomotives previously used by V/Line, Metro Trains, and the Southern Shorthaul Railroad.

- - - - Y it is supported but it requires some digging. there are other sources that back up my point but they are blogs

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
A few {{cn}} tags left throughout. The table under "Operator" also requires citations for each entry. Additionally, I do not believe that the following sources are reliable because they are self-published sources without any indication of expert or some other form of reliability:

- - - - Ref 2 – Daniel Bowen
        he is reliable as he is an expert
      - Ref 4 – V/LineCars.com
        removed
      - Ref 15 – Gwiwer's Photos
        removed
      - Ref 28 – Waking up in Geelong
        replaced
      - Ref 35 – Time Out Melbourne
        this isn't self published- so its a proper source
      - Ref 39 – Brimbank Models
        removed
      - Ref 44 – vrhistory.com
        replaced
      - I could not asses the reliability of Ref 17 – connexmelbourne.com.au.
        Connex is the former operator- so they are accurate
      - Finally, I requested an opinion at WP:RSN as to Vicsig.
        all good

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Per Earwig's tool.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
AGF that editors who uploaded photos took them.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

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.