# Talk:Leederville railway station

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leederville railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 16:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 17:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I have read through this very interesting article. It's well written and generally very clear. I have queries on some of the citations and some suggestions for improving the text (below). Before beginning this review, I have read Clarkson railway station, Perth and Greenwood railway station, Perth, both of which are Good Articles on Yanchep Line stations. Mertbiol (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


### Lead section
First paragraph, second sentence: I suggest adding a second reference to support "within the median strip of the Mitchell Freeway" – at the moment you are relying on the map in reference [1] (Transperth), which is not ideal.
Done.
First paragraph, third sentence: I would say that Perth Underground is "to the east" rather than "to the south".
I used "south-east" instead.
Second paragraph, second and third sentences: The word "initial" is in both sentences. I suggest removing it from "initial construction program", as it is obvious from this paragraph that the station was part of the first phase of construction.
Done.


### Description
Second paragraph, first sentence: I suggest deleting "within the Mitchell Freeway median strip" as you have said this already in the first paragraph.
Done.
Third paragraph, second sentence: I think "Oher" should read "Other"!
Done.


### History
First paragraph, first sentence: I think you need to explain what is meant by "low potential". Is this a low potential to attract passengers, a low potential to stimulate growth in the area, a low potential to attract developer funding, a low potential because of engineering challenges?
Clarified that it meant low potential patronage. Seemingly the transport planners of the 1980s didn't consider walk-up patronage to be very significant, as the source talks about providing a bus service in the future.
First paragraph, final sentence: I suggest deleting "of the freeway" to reduce repetition.
Done.
Second paragraph, first sentence: I suggest deleting "expansion's" to reduce repetition.
Done.
Second paragraph, first sentence: I suggest deleting "originally".
Done.
Second paragraph, second sentence: I suggest rephrasing the second half of this sentence to read "that Murdoch University professor Peter Newman would undertake a review of the scheme". (Please note that I suggest removing "freeway" to reduce repetition in this paragraph.)
Done.
Second paragraph, fourth sentence: I suggest deleting "freeway" from "freeway expansion". Would "widening" be a better to word to use than "expansion"?
Done.
Second paragraph, fourth sentence: Please change "to be build" to "to be built".
Done.
Fourth paragraph, second sentence: "showed up" sounds a little too informal for me, I suggest changing to "attended". I'd also consider deleting this sentence unless you can be more precise about the numbers present.
Removed. The crowds are talked about more broadly on Yanchep line#Opening. This was a high number of people at the time, with most new stations in Perth beforehand not receiving that level of fanfare.
Fourth paragraph, third sentence: There are two full stops at the end of this sentence.
Done.
Fourth paragraph, final sentence: I think you need to add "off-peak" before "frequency increase."
Done.


#### Later upgrades
First paragraph, third sentence: I suggest replacing "Along with the extensions, the platform edges were upgraded..." with "The platform edges were also upgraded..." to reduce repetition of extending/extended/extensions.
Done.
First paragraph, final sentence: I suggest replacing "Leederville was the first station to begin being extended…" with "The project began with the extension of Leederville station…"
Done.
Second paragraph: Would "reverse" be better than "turn around"?
Done.
Second paragraph: Please link Stirling station.
Done.
Third paragraph, first sentence: Please link Green CAT as this is the first use of the term in the main body of the article.
Done.
Third paragraph, second sentence: Please delete "As part of that", so the sentence starts with "A bus interchange…"
Done.
Third paragraph, final sentence: Please add "service" before "commenced on 1 July 2013".
Done.
I think you should add more on the Perth City Link. How was Leederville station affected by the construction works and when were services to Perth Underground restored?
I've added some more there.


### Proposals
First sentence: I suggest replacing "freeway" with "Mitchell Freeway".
Done.
Second sentence: Please delete "over the freeway" as you write "across the freeway" later in the same sentence.
Done.
Third sentence: Please delete "issues with" and rephrase the rest of the sentence to "The present footbridge is not sheltered and does not have an inviting entrance." I also suggest moving this sentence so that it become the second sentence in this paragraph. (i.e. you should say what the problem is before you say what the potential solutions are.)
Done.
Final sentence: You have already said that there is no shelter on the footbridge.
Removed.


### Services
First paragraph, first sentence: Reference [39] (Transperth) does not support "Leederville station is served by Yanchep line trains, which travel from Yanchep station in the north to Elizabeth Quay station in the south, continuing south from there on the Mandurah line." You need to add reference [5] (Yanchep Line Train Timetable)
Done. Don't know how I forgot that.
Final paragraph, first sentence: Are more up-to-date passenger numbers available?
No, annoyingly.


### References
I have checked the following: [1] (see note above), [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [10], [14], [16], [18], [19], [20], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] (redirects to a "timetable not found", so please mark this as |url-status=dead), [36], [37] (please add |url-access=subscription), [38], [39] (see note above), [40], [41], [42].
Done.


### Images
All appropriately licensed.


### Close paraphrasing and copyright violations
No problems detected.


### Putting the review on hold
There are some suggestions for improving the text and a few queries on a handful of references. Overall, this is a well-written article and I think it is close to passing, so I will put the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this article Mertbiol. I've addressed all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


### Final verdict
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 (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: 

Congratulations and thanks to @Steelkamp: for a very enjoyable and well-researched article, which I am delighted to promote to GA status. Mertbiol (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)