Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airport Central railway station/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2023 [1].

Airport Central railway station

[edit]
Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Transperth's newest stations (it opened on 9 October 2022) and my personal favourite design-wise. This would be my second featured article after Daglish railway station. I look forward to receiving any comments. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check needed

[edit]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article structure looks good to me I'd give it a pass for style guidelines but I'd see what other users think about it as well
Also definitely a pass 1d and e- the article appears to be stable and free from edit wars NotOrrio (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "which are the longest operational escalators in the southern hemisphere at 35 metres (115 ft) long and 15 metres (49 ft) high; although they will" - semi colon should be a comma
  • "On the southern wall is a large glass panel consisting of 50 panels" - any way to avoid repetition of "panel"?
  • "the significance of the Swan River and the Whadjuk country to Noongar people" => "the significance of the Swan River and the Whadjuk country to the Noongar people"
  • Image captions which are complete sentences do not need full stops
  • "Rita Saffioti announced the opening date of the project had been delayed from 2020 to 2021" => "Rita Saffioti announced that the opening date of the project had been delayed from 2020 to 2021"
  • "saying it will open some time later in the year." => "saying it would open some time later in the year."
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Done. Steelkamp (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson

[edit]
  • Is security needed to go from the airport to the station (or vice versa), or is it all landside? I presume airport security is not a factor in boarding/alighting the station itself, but I just wanted to make sure.

Otherwise good work; image review has already been passed, and while this does not count as a proper source review I see nothing alarming in citations. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The station is all landside. In fact, the Skybridge doesn't actually enter the airport building, it instead stops a few metres short and passengers have to walk outside. I suppose that made construction easier. Steelkamp (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, so it is. Support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was going to come do a source review here, but I'm concerned that the vast majority of the sources in use are not independent. Can you elaborate on your approach to sourcing here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've added some new independent sources where I could. The reason there is a large number of non independent sources in the history section is because the Forrestfield–Airport Link website provided the most detail on the construction process at the highest frequency. It provided construction updates every few months. For the most part, the news media only covered the signing of contracts, the start of construction, and any construction delays.
As for the services section, that is mostly non independent sources because independent sources generally don't cover that. The only potentially flattering thing there is the "no surcharge" bit, which does have an independent source. The only bit of negative coverage I could find for the services is [2], which I've added.
As for the description section, again, independent sources don't typically cover that sort of thing. I do have independent sources for the "longest operational escalators in the southern hemisphere" bit though. Steelkamp (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Platforms - 2 platform edges with 1 island platform". What is a "platform edge? How many platforms does the island platform have? I assume 2, but it would be nice to be told. Or do you mean '1 island platform with 2 platform edges'?
    • Reworded it as suggested.
  • "construction of the rest of the station started after that." Consider 'construction of the rest of the station then started.'
    • Done.
  • "It is served by trains every twelve minutes during peak hour". Should that be 'peak hours'?
    • Both seem to be correct based on the Wikipedia article for rush hour and this article from the Sydney Morning Herald. Never mind, I've done away with the issue by replacing "peak hour" with "peak".
  • "The journey to Perth station takes eighteen minutes." Perhaps expand to include how far this is? And in the main article.
    • I can't seem to find a source which says the distance to Perth. The source I used for other articles (page 13) only gives the distance of Airport Central station from the Midland line (6.2 km).
  • "On the concourse are fare gates and utilities." In this context, what is a utility.
    • Well I originally had it as "toilets, and a staff office" but I changed it following a comment from the good article reviewer. Look at the source, it doesn't actually say there is a staff office there but it does for the toilets so I've changed that.
  • "Noongar" is mentioned twice. Who are they?
    • Added an explanatory footnote.
  • "to arrive at Airport Central station in late-February and late-March 2018 respectively"> You don't need "respectively".
    • Removed.
  • "Airport Central station". Why the lower-case initial s? Ditto Perth station, Claremont station etc.
    • For consistency with the page title and for compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which says "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Official sources all seem to capitalise "station" but independent sources are mixed as to whether they capitalise "station" or not. I remove the "railway" mainly to be concise, but also because not many sources actually include that. I would prefer if the page title were changes but I know that is a requested move I will not win as established convention for Australian stations on Wikipedia is to include "railway".
If you were being consistent with the article title you would include "railway" in each station title. The MoS - "Geographical or place names are the nouns used to refer to specific places and geographic features. These are treated like other proper names and take an initial capital letter on all major elements" - seems pretty clear. I fail to see how it can be read such that Perth station complies. (Short of arguing that Perth station is not a "place".) (Or Airport Central railway station.) I am obviously open to discussion and persuasion re interpretation, but I note that even within the article "Airport Central Station" has an upper-case S.
When capitalised the way the title is now, the only part of the name that is a proper noun is "Airport Central", and the "railway station" bit is merely a description, which can be shortened to "station" when the context is clear, such as within this article. Apart from the titles of references and the initial mention of the official name in the lead, the article is consistent with using lowercase "station" and it would require an RM to change that.
  • "Transport Minister Rita Saffioti". Is that a regional or national minister?
    • State minister, which I've clarified.
  • "every twelve minutes during peak hour on weekdays". Just checking, they stop every 12 minutes for a single hour, five days a week - yes?
    • Peak hour goes for longer than a literal hour, but despite that, peak hour without the s seems to be correct as per previous comment about this. I've done away with the issue by replacing "peak hour" with "peak".
  • "At night, trains are half-hourly or hourly. The first train arrives at the station at 5:30 am on weekdays". There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • I've tried to add that services end by 2 am on weekends. Hopefully my wording is fine. Its difficult to write though because the last train is later on Friday and Saturday nights and the first train is earlier on weekdays compared to weekends. Additionally trains heading towards High Wycombe end later than trains heading towards Perth/Claremont. I don't like to mention specific times as they will change when the timetable changes every few years, but I did mention the first weekday train at 5:30 as a secondary source specifically mentions that time.
I agree re not generally mentioning specific times, but also like the mention of a specific time in the discussion of the specific dispute. How about 'The last train leaves at about 2 am with the next train arriving approximately three to four hours later – 5:30 am on weekdays in 2022 – which has been criticised ...'?
Sounds good, I have reworded as suggested.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review :) Steelkamp (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Have I adequately addressed your comments and do you have anything further to add? Steelkamp (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Do you have any other comments? Steelkamp (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the pause. This is a nice little article and I am happy with everything bar the non-capitalisation of S/station. I have been trying to research any explanation as to why this, apparently, frequently ignores the MoS, but not really getting anywhere. Do you know of an RfC or similar where this is discussed and/or agreed? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations), which is not a policy or guideline but is universally followed. Relevant discussions include Talk:Joondalup line#Requested move 8 November 2021 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/Archive 12#Station article titles. That first discussion is about lines rather than stations, but the arguments for and against are similar. Steelkamp (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. Thank you. I am deeply unhappy about this, but shall support nonetheless. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • The archive link for FN 14 doesn't work for me -- I get "failed to load PDF document".
    • I see. I've changed the archive url.
  • Suggest adding "url-access=subscription" to FN 44.
    • Added url-access=limited for WAtoday refs. It requires a subscription after a certain amount of visits. I always forget that website is paywalled as I have blocked that website's cookies,

Spotchecks:

  • FNs 23 and 24 cite "During this, several archaeological discoveries were made, including a headstone from the 1890s." Verified, but this relies on "pieces of broken dinnerware and bottles dating from the 1950s" being considered to be archaeological discoveries, which while technically true is not what a reader thinks of when seeing the phrase. I would suggest cutting this to just "During this time a headstone from the 1890s was discovered" and dropping the other cite.
    • Reworded as suggested.
  • FN 1 cites "Under the Perth Airport master plan, terminals three and four near Redcliffe station will be replaced by new terminals in the Airport Central precinct." Can you point me at the text that supports this? The citation gives three pages that clearly are relevant but I can't spot fully supporting text.
    • On page 123:
    • "After 2025, when all regular passenger transport services consolidate in the Central Terminal precinct, ..."
    • "With the future consolidation of terminals to the Airport Central Precinct by 2025, ..."
  • FN 32 cites "This also caused the second TBM, Sandy, to stop on 28 March." Technically this is correct, but what the source is saying is that the second machine stopped because it came closer to the first machine than best practices dictate. This was because of the ground disturbance, so it's not wrong as you have it, but since Sandy didn't encounter the ground disturbance I would suggest rephrasing.
    • Added some text to clarify.
  • FN 7 cites "although they will be overtaken by 45-metre (148 ft) escalators at Sydney Central station in 2024". Verified.
  • FNs 59 & 60 cite "Following the state budget on 12 May 2022, the government changed its position on the line's opening date, saying it would open some time later in the year." Verified.
  • FN 29 cites "Excavation was completed in January 2018 and construction of the concrete base slab commenced the following month." Verified.

One request for the text above, and two suggested changes, neither of which I regard as a problem with the spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. Steelkamp (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for both the source review and the spot check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, can I just double-check that you're quite satisfied with reliability/quality of sourcing, viz. Nikki's and Steelkamp's earlier discussion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's OK. I didn't see the non-independent sources used for anything non-neutral -- for example this, which mentions "a cheering crowd of excited team members", is only used to support the length and installation date of the escalators. The other concern would be if the article included material that is not notable enough for inclusion, by using what could be considered a primary source, but the material covered seems to me to be in line with what I see covered in other transit station articles -- a lot of this sort of content gets covered in third-party sources in the articles coming through FAC on Singapore MRT stations, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, tks Mike. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Do I need another prose review or are the ones I've already got enough? I've got four and I assumed that only the first one wouldn't count, but I would understand if I need more. Steelkamp (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're okay, the nom has been open a month and has had experienced eyes on it; naturally I've given it the once-over myself as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Airport_Central_railway_station/archive1&oldid=1146038780"