# Talk:Eglinton railway station, Perth

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eglinton railway station, Perth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 07:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I have read through this very interesting article. It's well written and generally very clear. I have some suggestions for improving the text (below). Mertbiol (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)


### Lead section
First paragraph, final sentence: I suggest deleting "for feeder bus services" to eliminate the repetition of "bus". Additionally, the term "feeder" is not used in the main body of the article. (Presumably most local bus services that stop at a train station could be described as "feeders", so this is probably not worth using this term unless these routes operate differently (e.g. significantly higher capacity\frequency, timetable arranged for connections to trains) to others in the region.)
Done,
Second paragraph, first two sentences: I suggest rephrasing to "When the line was planned in the 1980s, the intention was to for it to eventually reach Yanchep. After the extension to Butler opened in 2014, the project to continue 14.5 kilometres (9.0 mi) to Alkimos, Eglinton and Yanchep, was authorised* in 2017." (*see next point)
I've partially reworded this, but I felt it was important to keep the mention of the line's renaming.
Second paragraph, second sentence (*): You've written "The Yanchep Rail Extension project began in 2017", but the only mention of this year in the main body is a pre-election promise by a party that was not yet in power. Was there a formal statement/authorisation after the election to begin the design/procurement process? Clearly construction did not begin until mid-2020.
Agreed. I have said "detailed planning" instead, to distinguish it from the earlier planning that lead to the land being acquired.
Third paragraph, final sentence: None of the bus routes serve both Alkimos and Yanchep, as I think this sentence currently implies. I suggest changing to "Eglinton station is linked by bus to Alkimos station to the south and Yanchep station to the north."
Done.


### Description
Reference [1] directs to a 404 "file not found" error and there is no archive.
I've updated that URL. That URL does tend to go out of date, but for some reason I can't seem to archive it right now. I'll keep an eye on it.


### History
First paragraph, third sentence: I suggest changing "Since planning for the line began in the 1980s, it has been planned to eventually reach Yanchep" to "When planning for the line began in the 1980s, the intention was that it should eventually reach Yanchep."
Done.
Is the construction cost of the station publicly available?
No. The whole Yanchep Rail Extension was constructed under a single contract (which seems to be what happens nowadays) and there are no details on how that was divided up.


### Services
First paragraph, first sentence: I suggest expanding "PTA" and/or providing a wikilink. Is Public Transport Authority (Western Australia) the appropriate link here?
Yes, done.
First paragraph, fourth sentence:  Picking out services at random from reference [3] (the timetable), it seems that the 44 minute journey time is not consistent throughout the day, so I would suggest changing to "around 45 minutes". (The 2:10 pm departure arrives at Perth Underground at 2:55 pm for example.) I think you should also say "to Perth Underground" rather than just "to Perth".
Good catch, done.


### References
I have checked the following references and have found no issues: [2], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [10], [12], [13], [14], [15], [17], [19], [20], [21], [22], [24], [28], [29], [35], [38], [46], [47], [49].


### Images
All images are the nominator's own work and have a CC0 license.


### Copyvio
Earwig highlights no issues and I have detected no instances of plagiarism.


### Placing the review on hold
There are very few issues to fix – mostly just minor rephrasings, so I will put the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: Thanks for the review. I've addressed each comment. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2025 (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) 17:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)