Talk:Malvern railway station, Melbourne

Good Article nomination

Recently, I have been working on this article to improve it to Good Article status. To achieve this status, I have followed this guide. Upon completion, I have nominated this article for Good Article status on 21/12/2022. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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:Malvern railway station, Melbourne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a quickfail. The concern is that your sourcing is not of sufficient quality to pass criterion 2a. It is fairly dependent on transit blogs and primary sources with two flagrantly bad sources: the itinerary site Rome2rio and TripAdvisor, along with some other user-generated and social media sites. The article needs more secondary sourcing (newspapers, magazines, etc.) before it can reasonably pass that GA criterion. I see you have several additional station pages at GA, and a look at them shows the same issues plus some others—notably bare URLs—permeates the set. Please upgrade the quality and quantity of your sources before nominating these pages again.

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malvern railway station, Melbourne/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article over the next week. Please let me know if you are not going to be available or are heavily committed, so that I know when I can expect responses to points raised during the review.Marshelec (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Marshelec thank you for beginning to review the article! I am available to complete this during the week so I'm ready for the feedback. If I get a bit busy (with school or something else) I'll let you know. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Review of sources and citations

I have referred to the previous GA review Talk:Malvern_railway_station,_Melbourne/GA1 and noted that the nomination was failed at that time because of improper sourcing. There have been some changes and improvements since then, but I will first review sources, before commencing any other work on the GA review. Reference 1 is a blog. Not usually acceptable as a reliable source. However, it is only used to support statistics on passenger numbers, and so has limited impact on the article overall. However, it is not a reliable source, in the sense that independent fact-checking seems unlikely. Is the author a noted and published expert on Australian transport topics ? fixed with reference 2 Reference 2 is a primary source. Provides Annual metropolitan train station patronage (station entries) Reference 3 is from Public Transport Victoria - a primary source. It currently goes to the home page, so it not particularly helpful in locating where the cited information comes from. fixed the link. not sure why it was changed References 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22 are all from Public Transport Victoria - a primary source. They provide service timetable information, but little if any information about the station. these still need keeping to provide accurate information about the services that stop at the station Reference 4 appears to be a secondary source (but is not online, so I can't verify the content) this was used by someone else prior to when I rebuilt the article, so I kept the source and info Reference 5 is a high quality secondary source containing significant coverage of the subject. I note that the usage of this source in the article could be significantly expanded. For instance, it would be appropriate to include the name of the designer, James W Hardy, plus some mention of the architectural similarity with other stations, as mentioned in the source. Also, the citation needs to be changed to the deep link: [1] expanded upon by mentioning the architect and the similar MATH stations Reference 12 does not appear to support the statement where is placed, I could not find any mention of the ramp or pedestrian bridge in the source (ie it fails verification) removed Reference 13 also seems to fail verification. I could not find mention of the 1915 signal box. Overall, I had difficulty finding content about the Railway Station on the site. If it is there, then a deep link should be provided, eg something like: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~malvern/history/gallery/transport/ found a reference that talks about the signal box Reference 14 is a secondary source, but contains little significant coverage of the subject (also, the citation needs filling out) kept as it talks about the history of the estate Reference 15 is a useful secondary source, providing significant coverage. However, the link must be changed to the PDF report hosted on the website. It is too difficult for readers to easily get to the useful content with a link only to the website. Here is the appropriate link: [2] An Rp template should be added to the modified citation, giving the page numbers 45-48. The authors named in the PDF report must be acknowledged in the citation. fixed the citation Reference 16 is a newspaper source via Trove, from 1921. It provides support for electrification in progress, but not the date of completion, or the mention of signalling. It does not specifically mention Malvern this one should be better Reference 17 is a piece via Trove, from The Argus, dated 1915. It is placed at the end of a sentence describing signalling upgrades in 1993. This is clearly a wrong reference. removed the reference and sentence Reference 18 is a primary source. There are 27 pages, and I couldn't immediately find the part that was relevant. (I am unclear about the sentence it supports anyway - what is the reason for the certification for only two platforms ?) If the source is retained, please add an Rp template giving the page number added page number as its important to discuss as the trains are different to ones we've ever had Reference 19 is a primary source, but provides minimal information about the station kept it and added a secondary source as the point is notable to increase capacity/ development around the station References 23 and 24 are primary sources. They focus on broader issues than the station These references are still needed to verify the future changes to services Reference 25 is a primary source. The link goes to a home page, making it difficult to locate the cited information removed as it wasn't necessary Summary and recommendations The article currently has numerous deficiencies in sourcing and citations. At this stage, it does not meet the criteria 2b. The article is also excessively reliant upon primary sources. So far, I have only identified two secondary sources that provide significant coverage. My recommendations are to undertake significant review and improvement of existing citations, and to find additional secondary sources. I did a quick search for "Malvern Railway Station" in Trove (excluding the word East). There were almost 1,162 hits. Based on a quick sampling, the vast majority of these appear to be trivial mentions, or off-topic. However, I am sure that there are still some stories about Malvern Railway Station that could be useful as sources for additional content. I also searched in ProQuest, and found a few hits, including a report of a fatality in 2014. This seemed to have had a lot of coverage. Incidents like this might be worth considering as additional content under a new heading. Significant work is required to improve sourcing before the article will meet the criteria 2b. I will put the review on hold for 7 days, and await improvements before proceeding any further. Marshelec (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC) @Marshelec thanks for providing the feedback for the referencing. Currently I am receiving feedback for 5 GAs so I'm a bit busy! I will begin to review your suggestions about sourcing tomorrow by placing {{ticks}} next to the references that I've fixed or kept (and I'll provide a reason as to why). Once I've finished I'll let you know so you can move onto the other aspects of the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) OK, thanks for the update. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting you necessarily need to remove lots of primary sources, only that the balance needs changing, so that there are considerably more secondary sources. Is there a published history of railways in Melbourne ? In addition to anything more you might find in newspaper archives, what about any independent reviews of the Melbourne rail sector by (government) asset management auditors or safety regulators perhaps, or consultants reports about planned changes or developments either to the railway network or in the immediate environment that might include some significant coverage of the station ? Marshelec (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) @Marshelec I've gone and updated the article. I've sorted through and acted on the recommendations related to referencing and added a section about the fatality you mentioned. I'm surprised I've never come across the fatality. It never came up when I researched the station and I've never heard about it despite it being my local station. If you have any further recommendations relating to referencing, let me know otherwise we can move onto the other criteria. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the upodate. I have a full day today, so won't be able to look at this again until tomorrow.Marshelec (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC) @Marshelec understandable. Two of my other articles are being reviewed too so I'll start acting on those today whilst a wait. Look forward to hearing your comments. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

There are two principal station buildings located on the central platform (platforms 2 and 3) and on platform 4, consisting of a small two and one-story brick buildings. This sentence in the lead is difficult to read, and needs reworking. I suggest an alternative that would follow the relevant content in the body: "The station has two red brick Edwardian-era buildings." (The location of these buildings on the island and side platforms is a detail that isn't needed in the lead, and can be left in the body) in the convert templates for the distance, put |abbr=on into the template to make the expression more concise. (Also make the same change for all other usages of the convert template in the body of the article).

Description

The station is located nearby to the Glenferrie Road shopping precinct, Malvern Central Shopping Centre, and the future Malvern Collective apartment building. The word "future" in the last phrase doesn't sit well in this sentence. If the Malvern Collective apartment building is relevant to the article (perhaps because of close integration of housing and public transport), then adding some brief content about this towards the end of the description section might be best. What is the current state of the development ? I have found this source from 2019 that says the development was planned to be finished by late 2021. [3] If the apartment development is not particularly notable or relevant to the railway station, then just omit. The station consists of a single island platform and two side platforms, with a total of four platform edges. Is the last phrase really necessary ? The word "edges" seems unusual in this context anyway. Standard in Melbourne, the platform has an asphalt surface with concrete on the edges. Would be better reworked as: "The platforms are of standard design for the Melbourne commuter rail network, with an asphalt surface and concrete edges". Is there a source that supports this ?? there's no source but almost all stations have this design. the only that don't are the city loop and flinders street station .. enough for a Metro Trains 7-car HCMT. This is the first instance of the use of the abbreviation HCMT, so it should be expressed in full. The second use of the term later in the article could use the abbreviation instead. The station features two principal station buildings, both former ticketing offices which are now heritage listed staff facilities.. To avoid the use of the word "features" in four successive sentences, and to clarify the sentence I suggest expanding into two: "The station has two heritage-listed station buildings that were former ticketing offices. Both of these buildings are now used as staff facilities." These features are alike to the adjacent stations of Armadale, Toorak, and Hawksburn, with a similar style featured at other stations constructed in eastern Melbourne at the time. I suggest reworking to: "These features are similar to those of other stations constructed in eastern Melbourne in the same period, including the nearby stations Armadale, Toorak, and Hawksburn." The signal box was constructed in 1915 and is also of made of red brick with the original fittings retained in the room. The citation currently shown after this sentence is to a signalling diagram, and does not support the sentence.   My understanding is that the signal box is built into the station, and is now used for something else. This is evident through the diagram as the source The station building, platform, and overpass are largely the same as when originally built, with the main change being updated signage, technology, and the addition of two new platform canopies amongst other minor building and platform upgrades. This is really a comment about history, and possibly should be moved into that section, where there there is a similar statement anyway. It also needs a citation.   I'd like to keep this here as it sums up how the station hasn't changed since the rebuild and that the original features are still in-tact. There is no car-parking available at the station The cited source actually says there is car parking available. added a clarification sentence The station is listed as an "assisted access" station on the Metro Trains website, as the access ramp is too steep and would require assistance for wheelchair customers to traverse. The cited source does not appear to support this statement, although it does say there is no lift. I've added an additional reference. It says assisted access... if you hover over the symbol on the Metro Trains page A point about coverage: The source [4] describes some aspects of Malvern Railway Station as "poor" (see the summary table on page 32) and has critical comments on pgae 45. Some of these aspects should be covered in the description section, to ensure balance.

History

I have just found the History link at the VHD source [5]. This contains interesting content that can support a few more sentences in this section of the article. I think it is important to include the mention of the lobbying by the Malvern Shire Secretary in 1874 to get the Gippsland railway to run through Malvern, and the subsequent land development and building boom in the vicinity of the station. Ideally, this theme of development close to the station can be re-stated in relation to the current major developments. These aspects re-inforce the fundamental role of rail (and the railway station), in stimulating development. added a section discussing this Malvern railway station was opened on 7 May 1879, with the station consisting of a single platform and track for commuter and freight service. Needs a citation. ..who named the estate after the Malvern Hills in Herefordshire, England Remove wikilink from England, as per MOS:OVERLINK are u sure? No many people know where Malvern Hills is- its not like wikilinking london or tokyo sorry!!! misread what u said. The station has mostly stayed the same since 1914, with only minor upgrades taking place.. Is there a source for this ? no- this is more just an observation based off of historical developments Need to be aware of WP:OR. May be best to just delete this. In September 2021, High Capacity Metro Trains used on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines were certified to stop at platforms 3 and 4 only.. I don't really understand what lies behind this. Does it say something about design/ dimension deficiencies of platforms 1 and 2 at the station or the use of "gap-fillers" ?? This should be clarified if possible. I don't specifically know why. Looking at the station last week (when I visited) I didn't notice any additional infrastructure on the different platforms. My only assumption is that the HCMTs can only stop at Cranbourne, Pakenham, and Sunbury line platforms. Platforms 3 and 4 are Pak/Cran vs 1 and 2 being Frankston. I've gone and added a sentence explaining June 2014 fatality Y Notable incidents at the station are of some relevance, but it is important to be aware of WP:COATRACK, and avoid extensive content that is "tangential". The description is far too long, given that this article is about the station, not railway accidents. On re-reading this section, I have also realised that the style of this content is too much like a news story. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. My suggestion is to cut the content about this fatality down to only one or two sentences, and not include the name of the person killed. In a similar vein, the content about the 1936 incident should be reduced, and the name of the person removed, as per WP:NOTNEWS. I've gone and shortened it a bit more. If you feel it needs to be shorter, go ahead and change it to your desired length

Additional sources

I have collected a range of sources from Trove detailing some facts and some incidents at the station. Only some of this is worth including. See what you think. The collection is in a sandbox here: User:Marshelec/sandbox2 added some mentions in around the article One possible approach to incidents at the station is to put them all into a table, where each incident has a date, a few words of description, and a link.

Platforms and services
Malvern has two side platforms and one island platform with four faces. This is already stated in the Description section, and could be deleted. Flinders Street Station is currently wikilinked three times in this section. Based on MOS:DUPLINK if helpful to the reader, it is permissible to link once in the body, in addition to the lead (and in addition to any links in the Infobox)

Transport links

The station has an accessible platform tram stop for routes 16 and 64 on adjacent Dandenong road. The Route 16 stop outside the station is not wheelchair accessible, instead, this stop is operated through an on-street tram stop Is there a source for the accessibility of trams near the station ? Given that you have other GA nominated articles under review at present, it seems only fair to allow a reasonable amount of time for response to these points about content and sources. How about a target of 2 weeks from now (20 August 2023) ? Let me know if that isn't achievable, although I am naturally keen to keep up some momentum. Marshelec (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC) @Marshelec thank you for finishing the rest of the review- much appreciated! I currently have 4 of my articles being reviewed- this one, one that I've almost finished, and two that have stalled a bit (I've acted on the feedback and am waiting for more). As one is very close to being finished, I'll be focusing on that one first and should finish that tonight (or tomorrow). Once I've finished that yours takes priority. I'll get it done as quick as possible and should be able to get it done within the next week. If for some reason it blows out towards the two weeks, I'll let you know why but this rarely happens. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) @Marshelec just to give you the heads up, I've finished implementing the recommendations from another article and am now ready to fully focus on this one (as this one now takes priority). I'll get started on this tomorrow. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Images review

The image in the Infobox is not great. It is gloomy, and shows little if any of the detail of the heritage-listed station buildings. I imagine it is difficult to get a good photograph of a railway station, but I think this article deserves better. Not a reason to fail the GA review of this article, but I still consider that a better image is needed. Caption is OK. I've put in a request to Wongm to see if he can release 3-4 of his images of the station into the public domain. It may take a while for this to happen so I'll keep monitoring it even once the article is approved The image of the map of the housing estate is not suitable because: (a) it is not linked to the article content in any significant way, and is essentially "off-topic" - it adds nothing useful about the history of the station because it is about a housing estate, not the railway station (b) it is not dated (c) it has poor resolution and cannot be read when blown up. I recommend it is removed. I'd prefer to keep this image. I've tried looking and can hardly find any images of Malvern station that are out of copyright, so this image is basically the only one. Whilst yes it isn't 110% related, its still important as the station was built in conjunction with the nearby housing development. The image of the Comeng train (of the type involved in the 2014 fatality near the station) gives WP:UNDUE weight/importance to this incident in the context of the article being about the railway station. (See separate comments about the content of this section, and my suggestions for an alternative way of presenting incidents at the station as a table). I recommend this image is removed. However, if there is an image of a train arriving or leaving Malvern Station, that might be useful to place in the article.

External links
the link to Wikimedia Commons is currently not helpful, because the linked category does not actually exist. The image in the Infobox is from C:Category:Malvern, Victoria Marshelec (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Marshelec I've finished acting upon the review with completed sections crossed out. I also have a few questions/comments which you can find around the article. Once those are read/addressed, it should be ready to go. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Getting close now. Not far to go, but we do have some differences still to resolve.Marshelec (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear! @Marshelec I've gone and fixed the two points that you made. There's just 2 preference comments and one comment for you to look at. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143:I have worked through the article for a last time, and made a wide range of minor improvements, including relocating some content, adding a citation, and rewording to minimise close paraphrasing from the VHD source. I also obtained and uploaded a higher resolution image of the early map of a subdivision adjacent to the station. I removed two sentences that were not supported with citations. This completes my review and I am now passing the nomination. Good work on this article. I hope there are useful points from this review that you can apply to other GA nominations. Marshelec (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Images

@Marshelec I've gone and added some additional images in- it definitely makes the article betyter. Thanks to @Wongm for uploading the photos to Commons! HoHo3143 (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)