Talk:Syndal railway station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 09:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Starting review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:46, 23 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * No copyvio issues.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Seems to be neutrally written.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems stable.
 * 1) 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):
 * Images fine, have appropriate license and captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

, please see my review below:
 * Lede - ok
 * Description - Where is The length of the platform is approximately 160 metres (520 ft), long enough for a Metro Trains 7-car HCMT. sourced?
 * For Although there are ramps they do not fully comply with the Disability Discrimination Act of 1992 as the gradient of the ramps is steeper than the maximum of 1:14 allowed under the Act., both refs talk about accessibility, but please could you tell me where they mention the Disability Discrimination Act explicitly? Otherwise it sounds like WP:SYNTH.


 * History - Could potentially use ref [5] here too if you'd like.
 * I feel this section needs expanding somehow. Nothing between 1930 and 2015, other than the 1989 collision. It's basically 2 sentances about it opening, a paragraph on a new car park, and a paragraph on the collision. Any nearby sidings, signal boxes, level crossings, etc. to mention?
 * I think "largerly" is a typo.


 * Platforms and services - okay
 * Transport links - okay


 * Overall, it's fairly short for a GA on a train station from my point of view, as it's under 600 words of prose. Are there any future projects planned for the station to note for instance? Other than it's creation and the crash, most sources seem to be primary. Are there any secondary sources, e.g. newspapers talking about the station or things that happened at the station?

Looking at sources, spot checking:
 * [1] Is there something better than a file on Google Drive?
 * [4] ok
 * [5] ok
 * [6] to [8] are all the same link, which redirect to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/. More specific/precise links are needed.
 * [9] ok, but would a direct link to https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/timetable/7/glen-waverley/ not be better? where does this verify the distance in the article (21 km)?
 * [13] ok
 * [14] that's just saying were the area got it's name, not the station, but given you've got [13] that's probably ok.
 * [15] failed to load for me, might be worth adding an archive link if there is one?
 * [16] failed to load for me, might be worth adding an archive link if there is one?
 * [17] ok
 * [19] ok
 * [20] ok
 * [21] ok
 * [22] and [23] are the same link, perhaps more precise links should be used, e.g. https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/route/timetable/13270/703-middle-brighton-blackburn-via-bentleigh-and-clayton-and-monash-university-from-23-09/ ?

-Kj cheetham (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Minor optional grammar suggestions:
 * "appromixately" to "approximately"
 * "Additionally the station is" to "Additionally, the station is"
 * "Although there are ramps they do not" to "Although there are ramps, they do not"
 * "four storey car park" to "four-storey car park"
 * "costed roughly" to "cost roughly"
 * "milliion" to "million"
 * "single deck car park" to "single-deck car park"
 * "2 separate stops" to "two separate stops"

I'm sure use of commas could be improved, but that's not needed for GA. I'll put this on hold to give you chance to address all the issues above, but I'm currently leaning towards a fail because I don't think it's broad enough. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

, in terms of making it a bit broader, I found, and  about an incident in 2015, but not sure if it's appropriate to include. Also http://www.gwrsc.yolasite.com/about-us.php and https://joyolneyfamily.blogspot.com/2019/09/early-memories-of-glen-waverley-as.html mention Syndal station in the 1950s/1960s, but don't seem to be overly reliable sources. If you can't find anything further about the history of the station, I wouldn't want it to hold it up becoming GA, as long as a bit of digging has been done to ensure it's sufficiently broad to meet GA criteria 3. Please do let me know if you're engaged with pursuing this GA nonetheless though, as it's been almost a week without comment from you on it. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I also noticed "Rebuilt	29 November 1964" in the infobox, which isn't supported by the text, and refs [9] and [10] appear to be the same. If you don't engage within about a day I'll have to mark this as a fail. But please don't let that stop you renominating this article again in the future. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm going to have to fail this as there's work that's still needed to get this to GA status, and a lack of response. As I said though, please do renominate again when ready. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)