This review is transcluded from Talk:Whiteman Park railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 07:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alachuckthebuck (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Mostly good, but in the description section, you should consider changing where the first "heritage tramway" wikilink goes, but not a must do.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Meets MOS requirements for lead and words to watch, but might need a second look on images, as they seem to be toeing the line of having too many, and I don't use a standard display size or zoom, and don't have a way of reasonably checking on a 1080p display. Thanks to user:Queen of Hearts for the help checking, definitely too many images. fixed, Now passing.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are all where they should be, still checking that all of them work. All non-paywalled sources check out, it's a little heavy on press releases, but they're mainly used to get details not in secondary sources, (I'm unable to check the paywalled sources) References 11, 31 and 35 are paywalled but don't have templates, and this should be corrected, but not worth holding up a GAN over.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	non paywalled sources all look good, I appreciate the archives, as reference 1 is only accessible via archive.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig came back clean.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Maybe consider writing about the concerns about the bus routing, but that might be somthing for the bus article rather than the train station.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article meets NPOV, but see comment about bus routing.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last major edits were in 2024.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are valid and have the correct licenses on commons. (Noting here that Australia has Freedom of Panorama for 3d sculptures.)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images all have appropriate captions (and Alt text) and are relevant, but maybe consider removing the last image? It bleeds into the references section on desktop. See note in 1b regarding images and spillover into other sections. fixed.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Steelkamp: Courtesy ping. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 23:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Alachuckthebuck. Fair enough on the images. I do love lots of images, but I have removed that last one, as its possibly the least important one there. Steelkamp (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the bus route concerns mentioned in this article, those more relate to Ellenbrook station rather than Whiteman Park station, so I have not included them on this article. Those concerns are mentioned on the Ellenbrook station article though.

Regarding the WAtoday paywalls, I'm not seeing the same paywalls as you for some reason. I normally have Javascript off on that website to bypass the paywall, so I have checked in another browser as well, and there is no paywall. It could have something to do with number of visits to the website using cookies. Steelkamp (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]