Talk:Malvern railway station, Melbourne
![]() | Malvern railway station, Melbourne has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 11, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | Malvern railway station, Melbourne was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 12, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Good Article nomination
editRecently, 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 21/12/2022. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Malvern railway station, Melbourne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a quickfail. The concern is that your sourcing is not of sufficient quality to pass criterion 2a. It is fairly dependent on transit blogs and primary sources with two flagrantly bad sources: the itinerary site Rome2rio and TripAdvisor, along with some other user-generated and social media sites. The article needs more secondary sourcing (newspapers, magazines, etc.) before it can reasonably pass that GA criterion. I see you have several additional station pages at GA, and a look at them shows the same issues plus some others—notably bare URLs—permeates the set. Please upgrade the quality and quantity of your sources before nominating these pages again.
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Malvern railway station, Melbourne/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I am planning to review this article over the next week. Please let me know if you are not going to be available or are heavily committed, so that I know when I can expect responses to points raised during the review.Marshelec (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Marshelec thank you for beginning to review the article! I am available to complete this during the week so I'm ready for the feedback. If I get a bit busy (with school or something else) I'll let you know. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Review of sources and citations
|
---|
I have referred to the previous GA review Talk:Malvern_railway_station,_Melbourne/GA1 and noted that the nomination was failed at that time because of improper sourcing. There have been some changes and improvements since then, but I will first review sources, before commencing any other work on the GA review.
Summary and recommendations The article currently has numerous deficiencies in sourcing and citations. At this stage, it does not meet the criteria 2b. The article is also excessively reliant upon primary sources. So far, I have only identified two secondary sources that provide significant coverage. My recommendations are to undertake significant review and improvement of existing citations, and to find additional secondary sources. I did a quick search for "Malvern Railway Station" in Trove (excluding the word East). There were almost 1,162 hits. Based on a quick sampling, the vast majority of these appear to be trivial mentions, or off-topic. However, I am sure that there are still some stories about Malvern Railway Station that could be useful as sources for additional content. I also searched in ProQuest, and found a few hits, including a report of a fatality in 2014. This seemed to have had a lot of coverage. Incidents like this might be worth considering as additional content under a new heading. Significant work is required to improve sourcing before the article will meet the criteria 2b. I will put the review on hold for 7 days, and await improvements before proceeding any further. Marshelec (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
|
Lead
|
---|
|
Description
|
---|
|
History
|
---|
June 2014 fatality
I've gone and shortened it a bit more. If you feel it needs to be shorter, go ahead and change it to your desired length |
Additional sources
|
---|
|
Platforms and services
|
---|
|
Transport links
|
---|
Given that you have other GA nominated articles under review at present, it seems only fair to allow a reasonable amount of time for response to these points about content and sources. How about a target of 2 weeks from now (20 August 2023) ? Let me know if that isn't achievable, although I am naturally keen to keep up some momentum. Marshelec (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
|
Images review
|
---|
|
External links
|
---|
|
- @Marshelec I've finished acting upon the review with completed sections crossed out. I also have a few questions/comments which you can find around the article. Once those are read/addressed, it should be ready to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Getting close now. Not far to go, but we do have some differences still to resolve.Marshelec (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Good to hear! @Marshelec I've gone and fixed the two points that you made. There's just 2 preference comments and one comment for you to look at. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @HoHo3143:I have worked through the article for a last time, and made a wide range of minor improvements, including relocating some content, adding a citation, and rewording to minimise close paraphrasing from the VHD source. I also obtained and uploaded a higher resolution image of the early map of a subdivision adjacent to the station. I removed two sentences that were not supported with citations. This completes my review and I am now passing the nomination. Good work on this article. I hope there are useful points from this review that you can apply to other GA nominations. Marshelec (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Good to hear! @Marshelec I've gone and fixed the two points that you made. There's just 2 preference comments and one comment for you to look at. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Getting close now. Not far to go, but we do have some differences still to resolve.Marshelec (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Images
edit@Marshelec I've gone and added some additional images in- it definitely makes the article betyter. Thanks to @Wongm for uploading the photos to Commons! HoHo3143 (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)