Talk:Wonthaggi railway line, Victoria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Wonthaggi railway line, Victoria is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Edits
I have made some edits attempting to clean up some awkward expression. Some material appears to have been copied from the South Gippsland railway line, Victoria page and it is not clear whether it refers to that article or this one. I am inclined to delete the following section from this article...
- The line was well known for its sharp curves and spectacular scenery, it was also one of the last lines to offer a 'Mixed Passenger and Goods' service in Victoria. This service continued to Yarram until the early 1980s.
...unless the 'Mixed Passenger and Goods' service travelled along the Wonthaggi line to Yarram (I suspect not). Also considering the Wonthaggi line closed in 1978 it would have made on time running in the 1980s difficult. I look on a map and the line looks fairly straight, unlike the South Gippsland Railway line. Some clarity here would be appreciated.Bleakcomb (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Edited Bleakcomb (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The part about the mixed passenger service, sharp curves and scenery is to offer some more background into the line it branched from, but hey its wikipedia where anyone can edit so jump right in! --Dan027 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Though you can get that from following the link to the South Gippsland line article. Certainly your edit to refer to the "main line" was helpful. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History section
Can I suggest that considering the line is closed that the whole article is historical to some extent. Could not the History section heading be removed along with any redundant text and the article tidied up? Bleakcomb (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly by this --Dan027 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The line is now closed; there will be very little or no new events occurring and the article as it stands doesn't refer to current events, so the whole context of the article is historical. This causes a History section to be redundant. If there is a History section there should also be a section describing current events or information and as suggested there are few or none - it's all history.
The information about the line joining the main line at Nyora is repeated in the introduction and the History section. I'll give it an edit to show you what I mean. If people don't like, they can revert. My aims are clarity, avoiding redundant information and interesting articles.Bleakcomb (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ... after Nyora
'after' is not very informative is this context. Could I make an uninformed stab and offer "east of" instead? Bleakcomb (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I am asking is it factually correct to say "east of"? I am looking at this from the outside - I don't live in Victoria, so some geographic reference would add more value to the article.Bleakcomb (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
