Talk:Maylands railway station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Panini! (talk · contribs) 12:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Dibs! Panini! • 🥪 12:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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:

Prose comments

Lead

• ...from Perth railway station Services run every 10 minutes... Is there a period missing here?
  • Yes, thanks for picking that up. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• ...and the standard gauge rail is not compatible with side platforms... Should this "is" be a "was" (past tense), or is this a general statement?
  • You've made me realise that technically the problem wasn't with the standard gauge, but with the dual gauge. It is also specific to this situation, as dual gauge lines can either be designed to always have island platforms or always have side platforms. I've reworded that whole part. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• ...in which disability access was improved, and the station and surrounding area was beautified. It seems this comma is unnecessary. This "was" should also be a "were".
  • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Description

• I seemed to have misplaced an essay I was taught about this subject, but the word "also" as it appears in It also has 81 Transperth parking bays... is redundant.
• It also has 81 Transperth parking bays, and more unofficial parking bays. I don't know all of the fancy writing jargon but I do know that a comma here is unnecessary. It's because these ideas are too similar to be separated as different thoughts but I don't know what the word for that is.
• ...and more unofficial parking bays. This statement is unsourced and also vague. In what way are they unofficial?
  • Reworded that whole sentence. I've realised there is likely no reference for the unofficial bays so that is removed. The reason I even added that in the first place is because there is a weird sign there put up by the PTA saying "this is not an official Transperth car park". Probably not an important detail though. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

History

• Could you link siding?
  • Done. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Verifiable

• ...and more unofficial parking bays. Is unsourced.
  • Removed. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Does the table under Station masters needs sourcing? This is concerning to me but I don't have a grasp on railway article etiquette.
  • Put inline citations within table. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Result

Currently placing On Hold. These should hopefully be easy fixes. Panini! • 🥪 13:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Panini!: I believe that is all complete. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Talk about speedy service! This article has Passed it's review. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 13:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)