Jump to content

Talk:Bayswater railway station, Perth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bayswater railway station, Perth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this review, though I might not have most of the comments up till the weekend. On first look the article looks to be good quality, so it shouldn't be a terribly long review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

[edit]
  • My chief complaint with the infobox is that it's very long - on my screen, it reaches well into the history section. Not all of my suggestions here are essential, but shortening the infobox a bit should be a goal.
  • Five lines of text for the location is a lot. I would recommend using a street address (or reducing the number of streets listed), and moving Bayswater to the |borough= field along with Western Australia.
  • Is the Midland line both the line (physical infrastructure) and service?
  • For platforms, "2 (1 island)" is a bit confusing. Are both sides of that single island counted as separate "platform"s? I would definitely link island platform.
  • Are counts of parking spots and bicycle spots available?
    • The number of parking spots listed here seems to be from before the upgrade commenced. There is less than 100 bays there now, but I have no reference which says the actual number. No reference that says the number of bicycle bays either. Steelkamp (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text seems to imply that the station is only partially accessible, but the infobox just says "yes".
  • Remove the electrification parameter - that should not be used for stations. The line is electrified; the station is not.
  • Are daily passenger counts (rather than annual) available? Daily counts are much easier to wrap one's head around.
    • No. It was quite hard to find even the yearly count. Transperth/the government does not publish individual station patronages. Only reason we even have the yearly patronage from 2013-14 is that a question was asked by a politican during question time in parliament. Steelkamp (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Morley–Ellenbrook line appears to be in active construction - it should go under the same subheader as the Airport line then, no?
  • I don't see a need to mention the adjacent stations in the lede; they don't have much relevant to the station itself, only for navigation purposes in the infobox.
  • The station layout and the partial accessibility should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lede.
  • 12 minutes, or 6.7 kilometres (4.2 mi) reads awkwardly. Perhaps something like {{tq|is 6.7 kilometres (4.2 mi) and takes 12 minutes.))
  • Move the modern history (starting with Since January 2021) to a third paragraph.
  • this time to the south of the station as an elevated station is awkwardly phrased. Perhaps something like A reconstruction of the station began in January 2021 as part of the state government's Metronet project, with the new station located slightly to the south.
  • among other things is very colloquial; I would either enumerate other important factors or just end the sentence after hit it.
  • I don't see a need to mention the complaints during construction - those occur with any construction project, and don't seem noteworthy enough for the lede.
  • Reword to The station is planned to become a junction station again when the Airport railway line opens in 2022; the Morley–Ellenbrook railway line will also split at Bayswater when it opens in 2024. or something similar.

Description

[edit]

History

[edit]

Second rebuild

[edit]

Redevelopment

[edit]

Services

[edit]
  • Move the future frequencies to a separate paragraph, and put the ridership in the first paragraph
  • Given that Wikipedia is explicitly not a travel guide, I don't think including stop numbers is necessary here. Both the rail and bus stop tables seem like more detail than needed. Something like Route 48, 998, and 999 use bus stops on Coode Street; route 48 diversions and route 91 (rail replacement service) use stops on Railway Parade should be sufficient.
    • I couldn't remove stop numbers from the platforms table, as that uses a specific template which would have to be changed. I removed the bus routes table and added the text you suggested to the paragraph. Steelkamp (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword to ...with bus interchanges – Midland and Bassendean – are at capacity, it is...
  • I would combine the rail and bus service sections into a single section.
  • Are you able to get a photo of a train or bus at the station? Not required, but would be a nice addition here.

References

[edit]
  • Ref 74 needs a date
  • Most references are live links. Unless you need a specific version of a page that has or is likely to change, preemptive archiving just adds to the page size and scroll length. (You can always archive all the links using IAbot, and then self-revert, to ensure they're all saved should they go offline.
[edit]

Overall

[edit]
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 (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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    An additional images for the Services section will be nice, but nowhere near essential for GA
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Excellent work on this article - I'm happy to pass it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the platform shelters in the Bayswater railway station, Perth redevelopment concept design were criticised for looking like a trestle table? Source: [1] "Angry Bayswater residents are calling for a redesign of the suburb's soon-to-be-built train station after the plans were mocked on social media over their resemblance to a Bunnings trestle table."
  • Comment: No need for QPQ as I only have three other DYK nominations

Improved to Good Article status by Steelkamp (talk). Self-nominated at 09:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: As the article became a good article on 29 September 2021 it qualifies for dyk. The hooks are good as well. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P7
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bayswater_railway_station,_Perth&oldid=1199683035"