Talk:City Loop/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: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 10:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks for chosing this article i will be available to address all given feedback NotOrrio (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• Link Melbourne Central in the infobox.
• balloon loop – may need a brief explation (perhaps a note, or a few words in brackets).
• now Melbourne Central – has already been said.
• The map in the infobox would be better visible rather than hidden (MOS:DONTHIDE.

1 History

• Links made in the lead section needed to be included in the main text, so link Flinders Street here. Ditto Southern Cross; central business district (CBD), etc.
• Before the Loop – use the full name where the topic is first mentioned in the article’s text.
• Unlink congested; offices; students; government officials (MOS:OL).
• (roughly 1,700 trains a day) – duplicates the information in the sentence.
• Ten – consider ‘10’ (see MOS:SPELL09).
• past Flinders Street – unlink Flinders Street (the link is to a road, not the station)?
• turn around – can train do this?
• RMIT University - should be given in full.
• Parts of this section lack citations.

1.1 Planning

• Avoid duplicate links, by using the ‘Highlight duplicate links’ feature in the list of tools on the left (see MOS:DUPLINK).
• The caption has no full stop (this issue occurs elsewhere, see MOS:CAPFRAG for the instructions).
• The image of the logo does not help explain the text – being purely decorative, it should be removed.
• Link Melbourne Town Planning Commission in the caption.
• Victorian Railways Ashworth Improvement Plan – move these links apart.
• Jolimont station - Jolimont is a place, not a station.
• Why bluntly?
• City of Melbourne Underground Railway Construction Act – no quote marks are needed here.

1.2 Construction

• Link the stations where they first appear, e.g. Parliament links in this section.
• +four - a typo?
• A "double sleeper" floating track system – can this be briefly explained in a note?
• While the final cost was $500 million, the opening of the Loop helped reverse a 30-year trend of falling suburban rail patronage - This is a run-on sentence, and should be split.
• Consider putting the two photographs next to each, so the article has a less cluttered appearance.
• $255,600,000 – Australian dollars here, something that needs to be clear to readers (here and elsewhere).

1.3 Opening

• Unlink documentary films (MOS:OL).
• The promotional poster image, though attractive, also clutters up the article and pushes the other images down, so I would consider deleting it or moving it elsewhere.
• opened gradually - ‘opened in stages’ sounds better imo.

1.4 Recent

• The works will upgrade – needs editing.
• The upgrade was originally started – this sentence needs copy-editing, as something seems to have hone wrong.
• Avoid ballooned (see MOS:IDIOM).
• Recent– ‘Recent events’?

From this point onwards in the article, many of the issues are not just minor points.

2.1 Metro Tunnel

• The Metro Tunnel map (I cannot find the source it originates from) and much of this section is off-topic.
• The text in this section should be reduced to no more than a couple of sentences.

2.2 Reconfiguration

• again included – why again?
• The map is copyrighted, according to the source, and so cannot be used.
• Imo much of the text here (including all of the last paragraph) is excessively detailed for this topic, and should be summarised. It is about a proposal here for the City Loop and the whole network, and it hasn't yet happened.

3 Layout

• The image is purely decorative and therefore not needed (see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE).

4 Services and direction of travel

• Similarly, images in this section that do not help directly with understanding the text (like the first one) are decorative and should be removed.
• The first and third paragraphs are off topic.
• The second paragraph could be summarised to ‘ Eleven of the metropolitan lines on the Melbourne rail network serve the City Loop’.
• Much of the text in the subsections that follow is about groups of lines that serve the loop, and should not take up so much space in this article.
• I’m confused about Platform number in the table. The table itself seems only to repeat information in the text - either the text or the table is superfluous.

5 Stations

• This section duplicates information already provided, e.g. The City Loop has three underground railway stations at Parliament, Melbourne Central, and Flagstaff.
• Again, the images are decorative.
• The Main article templates are unnecessary.
• I don’t think this section needs subsections – once you have removed the templates and the duplicated information, you aren't left with much text.

7 External links

• The link to Public Transport Victoria is a general link, and so should be deleted or replaced (WP:ELNO).
• Ditto Zen and the City Loop; Metro Trains Melbourne website.

Failing the article

I will be quick failing the article.

Although a number of the above points can be quickly addressed, there are too many issues which will need some time and thought to sort out. The article needs to be improved so that that only relevant information is included, duplicated facts are removed, links are attended to, and the images used serve to help understand the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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.