Talk:Glen Iris railway station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glen Iris 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150509061630/http://ptv.vic.gov.au/route/view/903 to http://ptv.vic.gov.au/route/view/903

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Recently, I have been working on this article to improve it to Good Article status. To achieve this status, I have followed this guide. Upon completion, I have nominated this article for Good Article status on 8/1/2023. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article!

HoHo3143 I've finished my review, see the comments below. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk thank you for reviewing the article- very appreciative as I have quite a few that need reviewing! I have made the changes that you have suggested, expect for two of them that I don't quite agree with. HoHo3143 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143: Thanks for the changes you've made thus far. I still have some small issues, which I said below, but I'll summarize: the publishers/names of websites on some citations are still just links, the book citations needs page numbers, and the Parkiteer source should be replaced. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk ive fixed the issues that you highlighted and left comments for the ones that I can't fix. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

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.	This building is single story and acts as shelter and toilet facilities. This buildings were provided in 1975 as part of the station rebuild. This is grammatically odd. Perhaps rephrase is as, The single-story building, constructed in 1975 as part of the station's rebuilding, acts as a shelter and has toilet facilities. Done Cut Standard in Melbourne under "Description"; asphalt station platforms doesn't seem unique to Melbourne. This sentence isn't meant to highlight that it is unique to Melbourne, instead of telling the reader what the platform is made of. Some stations in Melbourne use tiles or something else for the platform All good then Prose is free of typos and is understandable
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The placement of "History" and "Description" should be switched. Disagree as there are a few other already approved GA articles from Melbourne and Perth that use this layout, so it would be best to keep it Article complies with standards.
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 publishers of the sources should be the names of the websites as opposed to just the link (e.g. ref 5 should be "Metro" instead of www.metrotrains.com.au) Done I don't see any of the sources with bare publishers to have been fixed. I think I've fixed them- let me know if I haven't There's a few more that need it, but I'll get those. Ref 21 needs author Done Ref 22 should be lowercase per MOS:ALLCAPS Done Almost forgot to mention this; the citations to books (3, 4, 12, 13) need to have specific page numbers. I'd suggest using sfns for this. I don't have access to these books. This information was already on the article prior to the rebuild as it was added by another user. In just reworded it. Hmm, ok. I think it's fine for now, since I can't find it on IA or Google Books.
	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).	Rome2rio and ParkMe citations need to be replaced with other independent sources. Done I see you did replace them, but I still have an issue with one source: Parkiteer. Even then, the link is just to a map, not a specific location on the map that would support the claim. Fixed this with a more reliable source Sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited; no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses everything an article about a metro station should address.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars.
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.	Two images are tagged with dedicated PD/CC tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Two images are relevant and properly captioned
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is good for GA. Nicely done!

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.