Talk:Clayton railway station, Melbourne/GA2

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: JML1148 (talk · contribs) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

thank you for taking this review

ive addressed criteria 1 and 2, I will begin to address criteria 3 and general feedback as well NotOrrio (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@NotOrrio: It's been nearly 2 weeks since I first reviewed this article, and there have been very minimal changes from you; the sole meaningful change to prose was made by another editor. I have been rather lenient with the timeframe, yet the main problem with the article (the lack of detail in some areas) has not been even touched. As such, I will fail this GAN shortly. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is an article that excels in some areas and falls short in others. It is clear that some effort has been placed into improving the article since the first GAN, so I am placing this on hold pending further improvements.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some rather obvious grammatical issues that need to be fixed. See comments below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   See comments below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments below.

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:

Comments

Criteria 1

• The first sentence in the history section should be split up into at least two sentences.
• These two buildings were originally constructed with timber. As in they are now made of a different material? The 'originally' implies so.
• Services to the city run express to Caulfield, run express from Caulfield to Richmond, then stopping all stations to Southern Cross. This is a rather confusing sentence that also needs to include stopping patterns before Clayton. The existing sentence should be rewritten as "From Clayton, services to the city run express to Richmond, with the exception of Caulfield, before stopping all stations to Southern Cross."
• set down only is a confusing phrase that could be replaced with the significantly more common phrase, "drop off only".
• proposes linking the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines to both the Sunbury line and under-construction Melbourne Airport rail link, via the Metro Tunnel. The use of 'proposes' suggests that the metro tunnel is a proposed project that has not started construction, which it is not. However, the Melbourne Airport rail link is less certain and has faced delays. This should be made clearer.

Criteria 2

My main concern here is the reliance upon primary sources, particularly the 'Victoria's Big Build' website. There are many, many articles out there about the Suburban Rail Loop that could be used in lieu of the Big Build Sources, which are essentially promotional press releases. Ideally all of the PTV/Big Build sources would be removed, but this might not be the case for all of the sources.

Criteria 3

This is the big shortcoming of this article. The history section barely contains any actual history pre-LXRP. When the level crossing removal and heritage building paragraphs are removed, there is just one paragraph that deals solely with station naming. As Sammie Brie said in the first GAN, "This station has operated since the 19th century and this is all we can get?"

General feedback

• What exactly is a premium station? This needs to be explained.
• The 'passengers' section of the infobox is far too long. It should either be made collapsible or be cut down to start around 2015.
• There is multiple examples of weasel words with 'some media outlets' and 'many residents'. Ideally these should be removed.

• @NotOrrio: Just a reminder - after around 7 days, if none of the issues are addressed, I will fail the GAN. It's already been 2 days with no response or edits, and it would be a shame to fail an article that is almost at GA level. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 5 January 2024 (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.