# Talk:Preston railway station, Melbourne

In the past few months, I've been working on expanding and improving this article for GA status. I've followed Wikipedia:Good Article nominations and HoHo3143's guide to achieve this status. I've nominated this article for GA status on 25 October 2024. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@PEPSI697, I briefly skimmed over the article and I couldn't see any mention that the new station has one multiple awards. Did I read past it? I'd suggest that if it isn't there, it needs to be. TarnishedPathtalk 10:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe you're thinking about Bell railway station, Melbourne if I'm correct? PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 12:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
The project apparently. So both.
https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/news/level-crossing-removal-project/preston-adds-two-awards-to-the-trophy-cabinet TarnishedPathtalk 14:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Preston railway station, Melbourne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: PEPSI697 (talk · contribs) 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I thought it would be interesting to review a train station GAN despite regularly working on MRT station articles. I will be a little bit busy next week so I'll try to make it quick (I've already spotted several things that could be improved). I'll be using this essay as a reference point for what a GA for a Melborune train station should look like (along with my own knowledge of MRT station GAs), though some parts may be overridden by my judgment. Given that I'm relatively inexperienced for reviewing GANs and the guidelines for MRT station articles are a bit different compared to train stations in Victoria, I would appreciate some patience! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  14:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll go through all the suggested or required improvements at 09:00 (UTC). See you then. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Just going to let you know that I'll run out of time today to do the remainder of the improvements. I'll do more improvements tomorrow. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 09:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
No problem. I'll also have to add more comments for the Level Crossing part of the history section. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  13:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@PEPSI697 looking good! I'm really pleased with your edits. Sorry if I wasn't able to respond to your queries in a timely manner... anyways, just carry out the rest of those changes and that GA status will all be yours! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  14:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
How is the article looking? Just completed all the lists of improvements from here. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
It's looking good. Note that [2] in the infobox is missing several parameters and thus needs to be added. I would like citations for coordinates as well. I would also like to see some of these images removed, see my suggestions below. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  23:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Alright, just fixed source no. 2. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 09:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Q: Can I use Google Maps for the coordinates as a source or is Google Maps not allowed to be used in that case? I've had a look at WP:RSP and is marked as No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
You may use it. I would prefer to use government-based sources such as Vicplan but it seems to be out of date as it doesn't list the station as one property, instead just four separate properties (unless there seems to be a consensus on Vicplan within the Victoria community?). Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  04:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
I've had a look at VicPlan, it will be great to use that source and defiantly looks reliable and there is no consequences I could see but unfortunately I couldn't see anywhere for the coordinates, so I've used Google Maps instead. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 09:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Just done all of the suggestions provided. Is there any more suggestions or anything else I could improve or anything else I could remove/add? Anyways, how is the article looking? PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 09:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Very happy with your efforts. Congratulation, you now have another GA after Bell station! I'll pass it :) Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response  15:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC).


### Images
### Infobox
Citations are needed for information in the infobox not already mentioned in the body  Done


### Lead
### Sources
### Description
### History
#### Original ground level station (1888-2022)
#### Level Crossing Removal Project
### Platforms and Services
### Transport links
Trying to avoid tagging and running, and I'm not all too familiar with the standards required of railway station articles, but most sources here appears to be directly associated with the Victorian state government (the exceptions being 1 Seven News source, 2 Newsrail sources, 1 from the Signalling Record Society, 1 from the Herald Sun, 1 from Victorian Places, 1 from Phillip Mallis, 1 from Parkiteer, 1 from Google Maps, 1 from the City of Darebin -- a total of 20 out of 30 sources are either from Public Transport Victoria, Victoria's Big Build, Metro Trains, or just straight out of the Premier's office). While obviously it is difficult to find sources that describe in detail the features of Melbourne's railway stations, I worry this inevitably leads to WP:PUFFERY, given so much of the description of the station is only cited from government PR pieces. For example, open spaces are described as expansive, the new station creates newer and safer connections, and the colours of the station facade are vivid. It is stated that the new station design will use sustainable features to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the source for this is the Level Crossing Removal Project, a branch of the State Government of Victoria.
All of these things could be true, heck, you could even say they are true. Those colours in the images look pretty vivid, the open spaces look expansive, etc. But I think there is inherently an issue with relying so heavily on sources that have an inherent motivation to spruik up the government's upgrades to Preston station (see WP:PRIMARY), even if it might conflict with the reality of the situation. I think that language on this article ought to be cut and trimmed to limit the references to primary sources and avoid making statements of judgement on the niceness or quality of the station that have not been independently verified. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: I've removed most of the puffery, although the issues with reliance on primary sources remain. This article should probably be a lot shorter, less crufty. 49.183.93.101 (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Please note this article is GA status. The reviewer would've verified them hence the article managed to get to GA status in June. Please speak to the reviewer directly. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)