Talk:Ellenbrook line

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joondalup railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2025 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ellenbrook line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 07:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article shortly.

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, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  • Suggest archiving sources using IA Bot.
  • Image licensing is fine.
  • I did a copyedit of the article: feel free to revert anything.
  • I replaced lots of instances of "blew out" with "increased" as I thought that was more NPOV.
    • True. I agree its more NPOV, but I feel like its not as good writing. I can't think of any way better to word it whilst remaining neutral though.
  • Sources checked with no concerns: 27, 33, 39, 40, 44, 55, 85, 86, 90, 100, 103, 105, 109, 113, 122, 168, 173, 178, 181
  • Ref 56 "Acott, Kent (2 February 2017)." Wikipedia article says that the report states a rail link would not be needed until 2050, but the source says the plan shifts the timing for the link and it won't be ready until 2050, which I do not think verifies the information.
    • I think this part covers it: "so it will be ready before Perth’s population hits 3.5 million in about 2050."
  • My interpretation of that paragraph is that the report is committing to have the line ready by 2050, not that the line is needed before 2050. I think this might be solved by replacing "needed" with "completed" in the following phrase: "said that a rail line to Ellenbrook would be needed before 2050." Another option is to find another source that explicitly verifies what is said in the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend replacing sources that are press releases with higher quality sources, if possible.
    • I believe all instances of that source being used also use another source, such as a news website. I like using that source because it often contains more details, and then the news sites can fill in their own commentary such as statements from the opposition, whether a statement is a broken promise, etc.
  • Ref 178 "Ellenbrook Line Train Timetable" Consider adding page numbers.
    • I don't think that's necessary, because that source is pretty easy to navigate without page numbers.
  • It took me a while to figure out which page I was looking for when trying to verify the information. While not required for a GA, I always prefer making information easy to find for readers. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig gives no concerns.
  • Suggest incorporating the "Further reading" sources as inline citations or removing them if they cannot be used.
    • I added those to further reading because they are a bit too technical and detailed for Wikipedia, but are still related to the Ellenbrook line topic, so I think they fit well in further reading.
  • If this article is to go to FAC eventually, I recommend using them as inline citations. While they might be technical, you can always summarise the information and use simpler language when incorporating its information in the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on hold, but once Ref 56 is addressed this can probably be passed. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Steelkamp: Some responses. The only GA concern is ref 56: other comments are just extra recommendations, especially if this article is to eventually go to FAC (which, if there are no additional sources missing, it might be ready for quite soon.) Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am indeed thinking of taking this to FAC, probably later this year. I have exhausted pretty much all sources currently available, so I think its there on being comprehensive. Steelkamp (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2025 (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.