Talk:Sandringham line/GA1

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

Reviewer: Golden (talk · contribs) 20:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'll be reviewing this article. — Golden  talk 20:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Golden 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) 01:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I regret to inform you that I have to quickfail this article. I was halfway through reviewing before I made this decision. The article is a long way from meeting the criteria 2b, 3a, and 3b, and has many issues with 1a and 1b. The article is not broad enough: much of the article is about information that is irrelevant to the Sandringham line. The article also lacks sufficient information about the Sandringham line itself, apart from some signal trivia in the History section. Moreover, the article has a whole section without any sources and many unsourced statements elsewhere. However, please do not be discouraged. You can still improve this article and make it a GA. Below are some suggestions I wrote before quickfailing the article. You can use them if you want to renominate the article in the future. — Golden  talk 13:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead & Infobox

 * in the city of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. - "Victoria" is an unnecessary disambiguator here, and you don’t need to wikilink Australia. I suggest replacing it with "in Melbourne, Australia."
 * The line operates -> "It operates" to avoid two consecutive sentences starting with "The line".
 * Link Brighton at first mention in the lead.
 * Melbourne, Elsternwick, and Balaclava are linked twice in the lead. (Brighton too, if you link it before; Relevant guideline: MOS:OVERLINK)
 * Melbourne, Victoria, Australia in the infobox should be replaced with "Melbourne, Australia" (including the wikilink)

History

 * Why is the entire 19th-century section unsourced?
 * Melbourne and Suburban Railway Company are linked twice.
 * I don't see the relevance of anything in the 19th-century section, except for the last sentence, to the focus of our article on the Sandringham railway line. We don't need to know so much about the Brighton rail to understand Sandringham.
 * In light of my previous point, I suggest removing the subsections in the History section and shortening the entire 19th-century section to one or two sentences that provide relevant background information about the Sandringham line. For instance, any prior plans or discussions about the Sandringham line would be more relevant and interesting than two paragraphs about a different line.
 * the first line in Victoria -> "the first line in the state of Victoria" and wikilink Victoria since this is the first mention of this state in the article body.
 * When the underground City Loop line was designed - Specify when.
 * City Loop is linked twice.
 * Main article: Sandringham railway line § Future - Remove this.

Future

 * I suggest merging this with the History section.
 * there will be a reorganisation - Add "planned to" or something similar, as well as the name of the entity that announced the plan. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball.
 * City Loop is linked again.
 * The second and third sentences are irrelevant to the article.
 * I stopped reviewing after this point.