Talk:Hurstbridge line

Hurstbridge line was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 18, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurstbridge line article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Australia: Melbourne / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Hurstbridge line is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Passenger trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 10 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Hurstbridge line. The result of the discussion was Moved.

Early text

The map of the railway line needs revision. It has no compass direction, there is a break in the rail line, and Eltham and Greensborough stations are transposed. --B.d.mills 02:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hurstbridge - premium?

Does anyone know if Hurstbridge station is a "premium" station? Last time I was there, there was someone working there with the little office open selling tickets/etc..., but it doesn't appear as a premium station on Wikipedia or various other places. Is it just part-time staffed, or is it a 'premium' station? Somebody in the WWW 04:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No it's not, at least according to all the maps I've seen. Eltham is the last premium station on the Hurstline. Maybe its status changed recently, maybe it's a 'host station', (the official Metlink maps aren't always right), but I doubt it would be staffed full time, considering it's literally out in the countryside. The Connex website seems to say there is a convenience store or something like that at the station though. If that's the case, they could be selling tickets there independently of Connex, like milkbars and newsagents do almost everywhere. T.PK 07:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a convenience store, there was someone there in Connex uniform working at the station last time I was there. According to [1] there is a BoM at Hurstbridge for selling tickets, as well as the usual Metcard machines/validators. There used some "part time" staffed stations with similiar facilities to premium stations, most of those have become host stations now, perhaps Hurstbridge is still a part-time staffed station? Somebody in the WWW 07:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I guess it must be an unofficial, part-time-premium station then? I've never actually been out that way myself, so I can only go by the maps... T.PK 06:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History

The history section is missing some works near Watsonia station that occurred in the 1970's or 1980's when the Greensborough bypass was built. Has Watsonia station been lowered, or has it always sat in a deep cutting? The road overpass was also not there; the Greensborough-Watsonia section now includes a road tunnel for the Bypass that wasn't always there. It may be helpful to provide some history of these changes. --B.d.mills 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Glen Waverley railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:59, 18 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.

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

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 08:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:03, 18 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 (reference section): b (inline 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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Starting with sources spot check:

[2] doesn’t mention Hurstbridge line

[3] says it’s for Cranbourne and Pakenham?

[4] doesn’t mention X'Trapolis 100 or Hurstbridge line.

[5] says it’s a live link, I don’t think it is anymore. Archive link works fine though. Doesn’t support the last line of the lede it’s tagged onto though.

[6] this is from 1890, but please could you point me to where it mentioned May 1888 specifically?

[12] this is just about proposed electrification and an inspection, doesn’t support the sentence in the article.

[13] doesn’t mention June 1949 or December 1951 at all. This source is from 1947, so it can’t tell the future.

[14] this is from 2017, saying the plan is for completion in 2019, but this cannot be used to support the article saying “This bridge was upgraded again in 2019”.

[19] no mention of 432 seated passengers that I can see. It’s also using an archive copy from 2014 to support something that happened in 2017.

HoHo3143 I'm afraid I'm going to stop there and quickfail this as per WP:GAFAIL #1, given it seems to be a long way from "Verifiable with no original research". This has some of the exact same issues with sourcing from Alamein line I previously reviewed, with the exact same erronous sources, like parts have been copy and pasted from that article. Feel free to put this article up for nomination again, but only after sourcing issues have been correct. I recommend looking at all the sources again to be on the safe side. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:59, 18 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.