Talk:Frankston line/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @ZKang123 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) 04:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZKang123 also just to give you the heads up, I've added ✅ and symbols for the subheadings for the ones I have/haven't completed. If you go and add more feedback/ a comment that needs changing, switch the symbols so I know (the review is a bit long so I don't want to miss anything). HoHo3143 (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZKang123 ok so I've finished everything except for adding some additional images and reviewing the sources (the last dot point at the very bottom). I'll make sure to do this tomorrow. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Beginning review ✅

 * Earwig's Tool show some lifting of similar phrases, e.g. "in line with modern rail systems overseas", "New interior designs including tip-up seating" etc from FN60.
 * ✅ removed/changed. hoepfully this is better now
 * Images all licensed. Though I would like to ask, why is the infobox image of Bonbeach station also repeated in the body?
 * ✅ both the photos are high quality and its a different angle anyway. Whilst there are a number of photos on wikimedia commons, its hard as plenty of photos are from the early 2010s (meaning low quality and out of date)
 * Oh I see the difference now. Ha. I admit adding some historical photos would enhance the history section. But if there are no such photos, it doesn't matter.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'll try and find some and add them in
 * ✅ done
 * Is the Melbourne Railway icon under free use?
 * ✅ yes i think so. Its been reviewed by others numerous times before
 * May I have a direct link to the file so I can double check? Thanks.
 * ✅File:Melbourne train logo.svg

More to come. --ZKang123 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

History ✅

 * The 19th century section is a little brief. Is there more information on why the line is built, or part of what project? Who operated the line in its early days?
 * I've beefed it up a bit- do you think its better now?
 * Yes I think it's more substantive that way. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ all good! I'll implement your other suggestions later this afternoon. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * FN8 is repeated for the first two consecutive sentences. Also suggest using title case for source titles instead of all caps.
 * ✅ fixed and added an aditional reference used on the mordialloc article
 * I'm assuming "quadruple" means three additional tracks being built alongside the one track on the line.
 * ✅ yes going up to 4
 * "The introduction of power signalling on the line begun in 1933" - please move this paragraph to the preceding paragraph or other.
 * why? its in order now (unless im missing something)
 * Well, as per GA criteria I wish to avoid short paragraphs with one or two sentences.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ ok good point. done HoHo3143 (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "these plans did not eventuate." - "Eventuate" sounds a little weird and unconventional. Suggest "these plans failed to materialize." or something similar.
 * ✅ done
 * "The current bridge over the Patterson River" - please move this sentence to the preceding paragraph or other.
 * ✅ done
 * "at a cost of $10 million." Would clarify firsthand that it's Australian dollars (i.e. A$10 million)
 * ✅ fixed
 * "This brought the cost of train fares down, improving system accessibility to the public. All stations between Patterson and Frankston were rezoned to Zone 2." - This sentence is uncited. Either delete or cite accordingly.
 * ✅ added a citation
 * I don't see the citation.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ it should be there HoHo3143 (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I see it now.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "In 2021, the metropolitan timetable underwent a major rewrite" - please further elaborate. FN24 is dead and doesn't explain on how services changed.
 * ✅ whilst the citation is dead, its been archived so you can still access it. PTV for some reason likes to delete pages and makes finding older information harder. I've added 2 extra sentences to further explain.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

21st century and future ✅

 * The main article tag is unnecessary given the subsequent section.
 * The last sentence of the 20th century section is repeated in the 21st century section. Please remove that sentence.
 * "no longer operated" -> "no longer operate"
 * For "Level Crossing Removals" subsection I might add a photo of an existing level crossing on the line.
 * ✅ added
 * I might further elaborate that the extension to Baxter would interchange with an existing line over there, because the accompanying photo at first glance told me the station is built, but isn't for the line. The caption could be improved saying "Baxter station of the Stony Point line".
 * Also, for image captions, fragments should not have full stops at the end. (e.g. just "The present day Baxter station")
 * FN6 needs website name.
 * I might further elaborate that the extension to Baxter would interchange with an existing line over there, because the accompanying photo at first glance told me the station is built, but isn't for the line. The caption could be improved saying "Baxter station of the Stony Point line".
 * Also, for image captions, fragments should not have full stops at the end. (e.g. just "The present day Baxter station")
 * FN6 needs website name.
 * FN6 needs website name.
 * FN6 needs website name.

Network and operations ✅

 * The "operators" subsection could be in the history section instead of here. Just mention the present operator under the "services" subsection.
 * ✅ as you can probably tell, these articles are heavily inspired by what you've done for the Singapore mrt articles. I felt that the operators section best fit into the network and operations due to how the history is layed out, that being the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. I think it still makes sense for it to be kept in the network and operations area
 * Yeah but I felt it could be integrated into the history section, since the line being under various operators is pretty significant up there than here. I def see the inspiration; my main reference points actually have been 1 Line (Sound Transit) and MAX Red Line.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @HoHo3143 there's still this ZKang123 (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ZKang123 I still think it's best left as it is. It would stuff up the order of the 19, 20, 21 business. In addition, all of the other 13+ articles I've done so have this same layout so for continuity I think its best kept the way it is. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright if you insist. But truthfully find it odd and unconventional. ZKang123 (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do get where you're coming from but its worked well and not been mentioned by other reviewers HoHo3143 (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the station wikitable could be merged with the Frankston services table, much like 7 (New York City Subway service). If possible, like Victoria line, add images of each station in the wikitable.
 * ✅ for continuity reasons, I think its best kept how it is. All of the other 13+ articles I've rebuild have been done this way with numerous being approved for GA status without this change. Whilst it is a good idea, maybe it should be left for when/if the article gets nominated for featured article status. One user started doing this for the Pakenham line article but it was then promptly abandoned and hasn't been finished.
 * Alright. This wouldn't be a major hindrance against me granting a pass if that's a convention for rail lines in Australia, but I do suggest considering reorganizing the table if it comes to FA. You can also use the visual editor to easily edit tables instead of using source editor.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ yeah don't worry I always use visual editor... think this is best left for FA due to the inconsistent quality of photos

Further comments ✅:
 * "These operators, Victorian Railways, the Metropolitan Transit Authority, the Public Transport Corporation, and Bayside Trains have a combined operational length of 118 years." - missing citation.
 * ✅ added. also a bit of addition from the table
 * Stations subsection: "across 42.7 kilometres (26.5 mi) of track" is unnecessary given alr previous section alr stated the length.
 * ✅ fixed
 * For former stations you can consult how London Underground lines also mention about former stations on the line. Frankly don't find a table necessary.
 * ✅ I'd prefer to leave this as we have it on all other articles about the lines. this is especially important for the more complex articles with a more confusing history. also this is something that ThylacineHunter thinks works well (and I agree)

Infrastructure ✅

 * On the passage on engineering trains, are there other sources? Again, FN64 needs website name. (Please check other sources)
 * ✅ unfortunately not. Some information is available from fan blogs (mentioned in signalling) but not much elsewhere. not credible / allowed to be used by the Wikipedia community
 * "Planned rolling stock" has plenty of lifting directly from the source. Suggest rewording those points and rewrite into a succient paragraph instead of a list.
 * ✅ done
 * "there are some stations that haven't been upgraded to meet these guidelines" -> "Some stations have not been upgraded."
 * ✅ done
 * Also avoid contractions. Recheck the article for such contractions.
 * ✅ I did a search by ' and fixed those. If you notice anymore fix them or let me know
 * Signalling section is very brief. No other information?
 * ✅ not a lot unfortunately! There is some information from blogs like vicsig but it never passes GA reviews so I didn't bother including it as a source
 * Oh alright. Personally find it strange. Maybe you can check where the blogs got their technical information from. Otherwise, if there's no official documentation you can leave as is. But this will be a significant issue brought up in a potential FA.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Source formatting ✅
As per this revision
 * FN13 is missing title
 * ✅ fixed
 * As per previous comments, please add website name. E.g. FN6: Transport for Victoria. Similar for FN45, 73
 * ✅ fixed
 * FN49, 52 please use Template:Cite news
 * ✅ fixed
 * Ref 49 isn't yet.
 * FN61: Title should be "Commuters get to try new look Connex trains", website/work name as "Herald Sun". Archive.ph URL should be under "archive-url" parameter with the archive date, with the original URL in the "URL" parameter. Also mark "url-status" as dead.
 * ✅ fixed
 * FN30: "Melbourne's Public Transport Gallery" should be under website name.
 * ✅ fixed
 * The source formatting do really need work. Please bear in mind:
 * Book references need the author, publishing date and page number. (GA criteria)
 * Book references preferably should include the publisher, city of publication and ISBN.
 * Web references need the author, publisher, publishing date and access date. (GA criteria)

Addendum: ✅
 * FN 70, 71: Remove name parameter.
 * ✅ fixed

The article looks to be in good shape. I'm putting the article on hold while the above issues are addressed.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @ZKang123 everything should be finished now, including adding the additional images. Let me know if there is any final critiques you have before its approved. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)