Talk:Lilydale line

Early text

Be good to check the order of the stations and any that are missed out.

History of line, current uses etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 July 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the notes, Rick. I don't think you missed anything out. It's what you didn't miss out that is a bit worrying! (Far as I know, anything BEFORE East Ringwood is never on the Lilydale line-see main railway line page). I would like to install my image (LilydaleLine.jpg) right about now. It's about as satisfactory as I can get it. There is a good resource on the history of that particular line at Lilydale Station itself-they have a museum and pub, which is a good place to wait of an afternoon. EuropracBHIT 08:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outer Circle Intersection with Lilydale Line

AxSkov, Good work on updating the line guide. However, I believe the outer circle railway intersection still requires clarification. I once had access to an old Victorian Railways book, (can't remember the title or anything else but could probably get hold of it again) which showed the Outer Circle Railway crossing the Lilydale line at East Camberwell with two loops: one providing access from the south to the west (existing Alamein line) and one from the north to the east (from Deepdene towards Canterbury. There was no direct access from Camberwell to the northern section of the Outer Circle loop. Anyone know any more about this? I'll try to track down that book... Cheers - Rick69p (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 05:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta thank you for beginning to review the article! I am available to complete this during the week so I'm ready for the feedback. If I get a bit busy (with school or something else) I'll let you know. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 I’m doing a few of yours. I’m not a rushed reviewer. We can take however long it takes to get them all passed. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta as a few of my other articles have passed GA review, I'm ready to focus on the other 3 that are currently being reviewed (your two takes priority over the last one due to the date that the review was started.) HoHo3143 (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta just to give you an update. I have 3 articles being reviewed right now, 1 by another user and 2 by you. The one from another user takes priority as they've provided all feedback and placed it on hold, so I'll be working on that first. Whilst I'm working through that, can you begin to provide more feedback for this and the Belgrave one so I can move onto these articles once I've finished implementing the feedback from the other article? Thanks. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, yes. I’ll give you more feedback tomorrow. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 When you say you are busy with school, do you mean secondary school? If you are still in secondary school, I must commend you for having such a great level of writing ability at your age. This is a very good piece of work. Please fix the two stated issues and also the tag I placed within the article, and then we should be good to go. I don't see the need to formally place the article on hold. If an article is not quick failed, I am happy to keep the review open for however long it takes to pass, provided the nominator is willing to act on the feedback. I do not fail articles unless the nominator ghosts me and the issues aren't fixed. So please don't worry about timing. Take as long as you need. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll look at Belgrave tomorrow, I too have a lot on at the moment so I can take a bit of time to review things — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta thank you! I'm in Year 11... so not long left! That's also another reason why I get a bit busy sometimes. As mentioned in the Belgrave chat, I'll get to this later this week as I'm busy with school and also have to finish implementing changes on another GA. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 amazing. In year 11 I was up to much less productive activities. We are lucky to have you. Take your time and ping me when you’re done. Cheers — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta thank you! I've almost finished acting on the feedback for another article and will be fully ready to work on these two once it's ticked off and fully finished. I'll make sure to keep you notified. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta I've acted upon all of the feedback (and tags) on this article and am ready to receive further feedback/approval. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Barriers to passing, please address

• The Lilydale line uses three position signalling with automatic block signalling (ABS) and automatic and track control (ATC) safeworking systems I believe this needs two fixes. First, a citation is required. Second, please briefly explain what ABS and ATC are to ensure a broad audience understands.
  • Y fixed
• Alongside the passenger trains, Lilydale line tracks and equipment are maintained by a fleet of engineering trains. The four types of engineering trains are: the shunting train, designed for moving trains along non-electrified corridors and for transporting other maintenance locomotives, for track evaluation, designed for evaluating track and its condition, the overhead inspection train; designed for overhead wiring inspection; and the infrastructure evaluation carriage, designed for general infrastructure evaluation. fails criteria 1a - not well written or clear, way too long. please cite this also.
  • Y I've added some punctuation to make it easier to read and there's already a source there

Possible barrier to passing

• I feel as though this sentence could be improved: "The Comeng trains were introduced to the Melbourne railway system in 1981": Understandable to a broad audience? How about, The Comeng train, a (Few words introducing the train)... was introduced...
  • Y Changed to make it a bit better
• I'd like a source for: "The Level Crossing Removal Project has announced the removal of all 9 remaining level crossings on the Lilydale line, to be completed in stages from 2016 to 2025."
  • Y added a reference that talks about both. The statistic is more basic addition rather than a claim
• " In 2016, 2 level crossings were removed at Mountain Highway and Scoresby Road, Bayswater, through the rail under method." Looks like it should be "rail under road" method? Not rail under?
  • Y sorry that was just a lazy shortening- fixed now

Questions, but not a barrier to passing

• "The section from Mooroolbark to Lilydale remains a single track": is that relevant? Source?
  • Y yes relevant as theres discussion further up about duplicating the final bit of single track. Also i added a reference

Source checking

• [6] Y
  • Y acknowledged
• [7] Y
  • Y acknowledged
• [14] Y This is a really good use of referencing. Source integrity is good, but you also took quite a lot from a lengthy article and summarised it into two short sentences. Outstanding demonstration of summary style.
  • Y acknowledged and thank you!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Glen Waverley railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)