Talk:Jordanville railway station/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ZKang123 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

A pretty brief article.

Copyvio concerns
- Earwig shows direct lifting from The Age. Not a major issue, but I might recommend rephrasing the quote instead of lifting the entire passage from the source.
- This shows close lifting of the following sentence: "the Jordan family, particularly John Jordan, an early settler and shire councillor" - suggest rephrasing.
Any information on who built the station? Was the station opened as part of some overall plan?
Only image used in infobox is free-use.
What's the relevance of mentioning Jordanville being a suburb of Melbourne? Doesn't seem totally relevant to the station itself. Though maybe you could put it under descriptions as you talk about the station's location.
Add a comma after "1950s" and "2014". Suggest merging those two paragraphs on the upgrades.
I might suggest moving the description section after the history section. Merge the "Platforms and services" and "Transport links" as one subsection "Services" under "description".
As per MOS, I don't think you should be using highlighted text in the body. (e.g. 767 and Glen Waverley line)
The infobox is really long. I suggest you could make the passenger numbers section collapsible. Also hide the station track layout.
Some information from the infobox could be further elaborated in the body (under descriptions, maybe a paragraph of station facilities in general), also cited. I need the sources for the bicycle facilities.
You don't have to cite stuff in the lead per WP:LEAD since they are further elaborated in station description.
Is there a better source than FN14? (Strange Melbourne Man (BlogSpot)). What makes this source reputable?

That's all for now. Putting article on hold.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most problems although I disagree with moving description and merging the services section as per the layout on other Melbourne train station articles including 4 that were succesfully nominated for GA, I am also unsure about what you mean with highlighted text I'm assuming you're talking about the route boxes though, Finally the article mentions that the station opened as part of the extension from east malvern to glen waverley (this is also reffered to as the darling to waverley rail link in one of the sources) NotOrrio (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm talking about the route boxes. The background colours don't seem necesssary. You might consider Template:Colourbox
My personal view on the sections and subsection is that for a very brief article, you don't have to split up the information that way. Plenty of my MRT articles with brevity just combine everything in one section (e.g. Canberra MRT station or Kranji MRT station). ZKang123 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying I have merged the services (train and bus) to the description section although I am in diagreement with changing/removed the infoboxes as this method is used with other train station articles in melbourne NotOrrio (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I mean to make the passenger numbers in the infobox collapsible.~~ ZKang123 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to pass regardless ZKang123 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.