Talk:Mount Waverley railway station

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Waverley railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429154750/http://ptv.vic.gov.au/route/view/904 to http://ptv.vic.gov.au/route/view/904

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 17:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out Malvern station is a different article and was doen by another user

Aside from that gone ahead and re did some of the ptv sources that werent working properly NotOrrio (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes thanks DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

After a cursory glance over the article, it seems to not need a quickfail (no maintenance tags or etc)

Review of sources and citations

Reference 1 is a primary source. Provides Annual metropolitan train station patron* Reference 1 is a s) Reference 2 is a blog. Not usually acceptable as a reliable source. However, it is only used to support statistics on passenger numbers, and so has limited impact on the article overall. References 5,6,7,8,18,19 are from Public Transport Victoria, a primary source. It should be noted that 5,6, and 7 lead me to the same page and I needed to look up the link on the search function, but I attribute that mostly to link rot and PTV restructuring the page References 4 and 9 point to the same link, metrotrains. The source seems to be reliable. Reference 5 points to a book which seems to be reliable

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and consice, and clearly describes the topic to a broad audience
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article meets MOS standards in formatting and layout
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The citations in the article are consistent throughout and formatted in the reference section
	2b. 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).	The article makes use of a variety of reliable primary and secondary sources (see citation check for sources)
	2c. it contains no original research.	All claims are backed up inline by citations
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The article does not contain any plagiarism nor copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article addresses the main aspects of the topic (history, operations, etc)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article remains focused on the subject and does not go into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article does not give any one opinion and complies with NPOV
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article does not have any edit warring as it is relatively quiet
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image is tagged with its copyright status (own work)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image is appropriately captioned and is relevant to the topic
	7. Overall assessment.	I believe the article meets GA standards, passed

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.