Talk:Hurstbridge line/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: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 08:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Starting review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2023 (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 (inline 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:

Starting with sources spot check:

[2] doesn’t mention Hurstbridge line

[3] says it’s for Cranbourne and Pakenham?

[4] doesn’t mention X'Trapolis 100 or Hurstbridge line.

[5] says it’s a live link, I don’t think it is anymore. Archive link works fine though. Doesn’t support the last line of the lede it’s tagged onto though.

[6] this is from 1890, but please could you point me to where it mentioned May 1888 specifically?

[12] this is just about proposed electrification and an inspection, doesn’t support the sentence in the article.

[13] doesn’t mention June 1949 or December 1951 at all. This source is from 1947, so it can’t tell the future.

[14] this is from 2017, saying the plan is for completion in 2019, but this cannot be used to support the article saying “This bridge was upgraded again in 2019”.

[19] no mention of 432 seated passengers that I can see. It’s also using an archive copy from 2014 to support something that happened in 2017.

HoHo3143 I'm afraid I'm going to stop there and quickfail this as per WP:GAFAIL #1, given it seems to be a long way from "Verifiable with no original research". This has some of the exact same issues with sourcing from Alamein line I previously reviewed, with the exact same erronous sources, like parts have been copy and pasted from that article. Feel free to put this article up for nomination again, but only after sourcing issues have been correct. I recommend looking at all the sources again to be on the safe side. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:59, 18 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.