Talk:Belgrave line/GA1

GA Review

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: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta 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) 10:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta have a look at my message from the Lilydale railway line GA review. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 can you please look at the copyedits I made of the lilydale article? Please check this article for redundant words, missing commas, etc. Do your best. Try a copyediting tool like Grammarly or Quillbot. You can also paste your content into Word to detect things using spellcheck. Once you have done a copyedit, please ping me, and I will then do my own and review further. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta thank you for doing this. I'll get to it later this week as I'm a bit busy and I also have to focus on another GA that gave me feedback earlier. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta I've gone through and made some minor copyedits to the article. Hopefully this is everything that needs fixing (from the copyediting side). Whilst the article does share similarities to the Lilydale article, make sure to add changes that need to be made to both GA reviews so I don't miss anything. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta I've acted upon all of the feedback (and tags) on this article and am ready to receive further feedback/approval. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143: good work on this. Some fixes required though. Please address. In addition to other comments, please ensure all references have the author, publisher, publish date, and access date as required. Books need a page number and web sources need an access date. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta thankj you for completing the review. I'll make sure to get to it over the next few days. There's a few things I need to sort out relating to other articles that have been invalidity quick-failed... pain in the ass. I'll finish the review by the end of the week. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 take as long as you need. My personal choice is to leave potential quickfails alone and take articles I believe have the potential to pass. I’d only fail this if you ghosted me on the feedback or something. So focus on your classes or whatever for the week and please come back to me by end of Sunday this week. Don’t worry about this till you’re ready. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta the issue was that the articles were already quick failed so I just had to keep track of them and contact a few people to ensure that they don't get lost/ I forget about them. I've done that now so I'll get to this tomorrow. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta I've gone and acted on all the feedback. Hopefully this is better. Let me know if there is anything else that needs fixing otherwise it should be all good to go. I also added some extra photos. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments Y

• Copyvio looks good
  • Y
• Images are appropriate licenced or otherwise permitted including the rail logo
  • Y
• Thanks for your copyedit, I've made some more changes. Specific feedback on your writing (these are not a serious issue at all, I am nitpicking and just giving tips for the future to make your work the best it can be:

- "During peak hour" is not appropriate for formal encyclopaedia writing. There is no specific peak hour. So we use "peak hours". I've changed.

• • • Y

- Use among, not amongst where possible. Amongst is overly pompous although technically still correct

• • • Y

- "The introduction of" has been changed to "introduced" - less words for the same effect

• • • Y

- and the removal 7 out of the 9 remaining level crossings ahhh!! changed to "removed seven of the nine" (rewritten in active voice and numbers under ten are written in words on Wikipedia. My pet peeeves. Said in good fun.

• • • Y that's a good point. I usually do that now (my dad pointed out that he does all number from 1-20 so I usually do the same)

- due to the width of the trains at 3.05 metres wide I changed to "due to the trains 3.05-metre width".

• • • Y
• Quite a few more copyedits made to polish the article; please review for future learning
  • Y taken into consideration
• Please spell out all numbers under 10 per MOS:NUM
  • Y
• Generally, I would like you to spend some time going over all your references properly and checking them. Some errors were found. Also, I feel that overall there is quite a reliance on primary sources, and secondary sources should be searched for where possible. That said, you aren't writing about a controversial topic or making any claims open to challenge. Many facts and figures you drew from timetables, contracts, and government documents are overall interesting and add substance to the article. On balance, I consider the primary sources to have been used to make straightforward statements that can be verified by the sources. I mostly write articles on legal cases; often I need to interpret facts from the case and cite the case itself (primary source). This is fine in limited quantities. Do what you can to add secondary sources, but apart from points made directly in source spot-checking below we should be good to pass once you address. Per WP:PST Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, so we should be fine.
  • Y thank you. Going forward I have started adding additional sources from both primary and secondary. I also fixed a few refs

Lead Y

• Personally, I feel nothing in the lead requires citing. Only statements about living persons which could be challenged must have a citation. Recommend removing citations from lead, but per WP:MOS The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. So, this won't be a barrier to passing.
  • Y I think I'll just leave it in- not a huge issue but I'll take it into consideration for the future

Future Y

• At the end of these removals, the Belgrave line will be fully level crossing free between the city and Ferntree Gully station, with crossings at Alpine St, Ferntree Gully, and Hilltop Rd, Upper Ferntree Gully, not currently planned for removal. I've deleted this sentence. The previous sentence states the final crossing will be removed in 2025. No need to then state the line will be level crossing free if the final one is removed, that's redundant.
  • Y I've added a sentence to clarify this as the line will only be LX free till a certain point

Source spot checking Y

• [1] Not a barrier to passing, but not entirely sure why this is cited. It's a general link that does not really substantiate any claim made. It does not appear to even link directly to Belgrave. Not harmful, just possibly superfluous at worst. Not a biggie.
  • Y I like adding this in. I've updated the link as for some reason it didn't link anymore. Also corrected the ref
• [2] Be careful with this source. It is self published. Acting on common sense, I am not going to demand a change of source, as he is the head of PTUA and constantly in Parliament/on telly. But I would much prefer you find a different source for this, if one is needed at all (nothing controversial or potentially challenged, easily verifiable from even PTV website)
  • Y its a good point, but there's been a few wikipedia discussions in the past were the consensus that he is an expert in the field, therefore referencing him is ok.
• [6] good
  • Y
• [8] Primary source, but ok
  • Y
• [10] good
  • Y
• [18] Nothing in the source substantiates a claim that services operate from 5am-midnight daily. Just remove this source is my recommendation, and find another.
  • Y ive gone and chucked in the timetable from PTV
• [33] Fix title and reference format please. Also, this is another primary source, and what you wrote is very close to original research. I am going to allow this simply because it is a trivial fact about the train carriages and not something likely to be challenged. However, in the future, some reviewers may interpret the OR guidelines more strictly. Some topics, such as train stations simply would not be possible to expand to completeness without citing and interpreting some primary sources and as it is uncontroversial, I think it is fine.
  • Y
• [35] Source does not state that it complies with that act. I'd fix this but I did so on the other article, so I rather hoped it would have been fixed on this one. A primary source cannot be used to claim a government action complies with a federal statute, too interpretative, and I also do not consider that necessary either. Please remove the claim about compliance and merely assert that the stations are now accessible.
  • Y ive gone and used the same sources/layout from the lilydale article
• [40] The source does not substantiate the claim. It explains what speed signalling is. It does not discuss anything regarding the three position speed signalling being installed on this line, so a source must be found for this claim. I believe the claim to be true, but it needs a source.
  • Y I hope this is better

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.