Talk:Armadale railway station, Melbourne

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 22/12/2022. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armadale 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.

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.

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armadale railway station, Melbourne/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 09:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Starting review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 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:

Images are ok, with captions and proper licensing. No copyvio issues.

Before I read it more carefully, let's look at sourcing spot-checks:

[1] this is a blog post, what evidence is there it's reliable? If this is the same data as from [2], I'd recommend just using [2].

[2] This is ok, I verified the 244,650 figure.

[3] this just redirects to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/ - I recommend a more precise link, maybe https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/stop/1008/armadale-station/0/train/ ?

[5] no mention of platform numbers

[6] no mention of "multiple steep access ramps". The article says "There is no car-parking available at the station.", but the source has a tick by "Parking Available". No mention of "assisted access".

[8] dead link

[9] ok

[10] this is a blog post, no mention of a ramp, or Metro Trains 7-car HCMT.

[13] no mention of a new platform canopy.

[16] broken link, also looks suspicious

[17] unclear what the corridor is, which the article mentions

Given the large fraction of sources which don't seem to support the text, and that GA1 for this article also had concerns that sourcing is not of sufficient quality, I'm sorry but I'm going to quickfail this one under WP:GAFAIL, mostly #1, but also partially #5, given it's still a long way from being "Verifiable with no original research". Feel free to put this article up for nomination again, but only after sourcing issues have been corrected. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:48, 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.