Talk:Level Crossing Removal Project

Sources

True Believers: Your edits to the crossing table have been good for clarity and information, thank you. However, the "preferred solution" column should be sourced for each level crossing or left blank if a reliable source does not exist. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Triptothecottage It's on the Level Crossing Removal website. Here is the link to the general 25 extra crossings. https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/news/More-level-crossing-removals-on-the-way If you have a look at the fact sheets in each individual one or watch the videos, they show a preferred solution.

Sorry I forgot to add that in. I will do it now True Believers (talk) 06:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

New article sections

I have added some sections of topics that need to be added and expanded upon to allow the article to be given B-class status. Please feel free to expand upon these sections with text, photos, and media. DO NOT remove these sections even though they are blank- I will be adding to the sections in the near future alongside other members of the wikipedia community. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Is there a guide somewhere for how these articles (or B-class status articles) should be structured and why those particular sections need to be included? Also, do you think the Reception and Criticism sections should come after the lists? I was thinking for this particular article the LXR lists are the more important information that visitors will want to see first. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a structure guide, however I have followed layouts from the Suburban Rail Loop and Metro Tunnel articles. I'd keep the reception and criticisms before the lists, as the lists are quite long and could disengage the reader from reading further. If you'd like to, could you please start on some of the empty sections in Reception and Criticisms and/or expand the Media area of the Reception section. Thank you! HoHo3143 (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Level Crossing Removal Project/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 04:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will be your reviewer for this article. I have a bit of pre-existing knowledge of this project but I certainly don't know most of the details. This caught my eye because I am working on Draft:Victoria Park-Canning Level Crossing Removal Project in Perth which I hope to take to GAN one day. On my initial glance through, the article looks pretty good so I don't think there will be many things holding the review up. Expect to see my comments soon. Steelkamp (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning to review the article! I'll update the article as per your recommendations as they come through. I also a read through of the page you are currently making and its looks great so far. If you ever need any help feel free to reach out! HoHo3143 (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think the article is ready to be upgraded to Good Article status, or is there anything else that needs reviewing? I'd like to wrap this up soon (if that's ok with you). HoHo3143 (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Well written

• In 2022, the Andrews government announced the removal of an additional 25 level crossings on the Upfield, Ballarat, Sunbury, Frankston, Werribee, and Hurstbridge lines by 2030, extending the lifespan of the project. I suggest simplifying this sentence to In 2022, the Andrews government announced the removal of an additional 25 level crossings by 2030. as the previous sentences don't mention which specific lines and the "extending the lifespan of the project" is self-evident and not needed. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• There is an inconsistency between "Andrews Government" and "Andrews government". Same with "the Government" vs "the government". I suggest per consensus at Talk:Gillard government#Requested move 26 January 2022 that government be lowercase in both instances. This doesn't apply to phrases such as "State Government" or "Government of Victoria". Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• As traffic levels increased, these began to become bottlenecks, both for road traffic as well as limiting the number of trains that can be run, especially at peak times. This sentence could be rewritten to As traffic levels increased, these became bottlenecks for road and rail traffic, limiting the number of trains that can be run. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• If you're wondering why I did this, it's because the body should stand on its own independent of the lead, and that includes spelling out any acronyms used. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Makes sense! HoHo3143 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Although the majority of crossings announced by Andrews were included... Daniel Andrew's name is not written out in full prior to this statement. Steelkamp (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Replaced with "Although the majority of crossings announced by Daniel Andrews were included in the priority list, ten of the crossings..." HoHo3143 (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Surprising that 2018 Victorian state election is not linked at all in the 2018 election commitments section. Steelkamp (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Added "In the lead up to the 2018 state election, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews pledged to remove..." HoHo3143 (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• There are two paragraphs that have In late October 2022. Presumably those two annoucements weren't made on the same day so I suggest specifying the date each announcement was made. Steelkamp (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Many of these removals would be delivered together and included a number of closures. Change this to Many of these removals will be delivered together and include a number of closures. Steelkamp (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• In July 2021, the State Government announced... This doesn't fit in that section, as it's not relating to the 2018 election commitments. Steelkamp (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Where should I move them to? HoHo3143 (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe change the sections to be "2014–2021 commitments" and "2022–present" commitments or something similar. At the moment, the section titles just don't make sense. Steelkamp (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done! HoHo3143 (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• What's the difference between a level crossing "removal" and a level crossing "closure"? Steelkamp (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Y A level crossing "removal" is counted in the 110 by 2030 stat and is the action of separating the road from rail. A level crossing closure isn't included in the 110 by 2030 and is instead closing the crossing for good with no actual removal (literally putting up a concrete barrier with a sign saying road closed (obviously in a fancier way with landscaping, a pedestrian crossing, etc)). HoHo3143 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Also this is how the government and the project define the difference. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Is this the same Latrobe Street as La Trobe Street? If so, should be linked. Steelkamp (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

N Different streets in different parts of Melbourne. HoHo3143 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

• As of October 2022, 67 crossings had been removed and 34 train stations had been rebuilt as part of the project. Reference is dated 14 September 2022. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Replaced source with one from the Big Build site. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• In 1983, the level crossing at Station Street, Box Hill, was removed. Other level crossing removals include Dorset Road, Boronia, in 1998 and Middleborough Road, Laburnum, in 2007. Citation needed. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Added two new sources. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Those sources seem to be blogs / self published sources, aka non reliable sources. In fact, I now notice that there is another citation for vicsig.net for the following sentence which should be removed. Steelkamp (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Fixed! HoHo3143 (talk) 8:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 11 seems to be dead. I tried using the Wayback Machine but that did not work. You should replace the reference or find the new url if that exists. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Fixed with new sources. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 13 seems to have moved somewhere else. If you can't find the new address, then an archive url from the Wayback Machine would suffice. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Fixed the link through the new database. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• In June 2014, six months prior to the Victorian state election... Seems to be closer to five months. 17 June 2014 to 29 November 2014. Steelkamp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Refs 34 and 35 redirect to the main LXRP page. Steelkamp (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done- added new sources from different sites. Due to the merging of the LXRP website and Big Build they haven't yet merged this across. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• There's a paragraph under Architecture and urban design that has no sources. Steelkamp (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

? Where? They all do?! HoHo3143 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, it only had one source but that has been fixed with an additional source at the end of the paragraph. Steelkamp (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Acknowledged. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• It could be stated that the LXRP increases car use, at least according to ref 39. Steelkamp (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Stable

Y Acknowledged. HoHo3143 (talk) 6:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible

• You should add alt text to all images. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done- maybe double check to see if the images have good alt text. HoHo3143 (talk) 6:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The architecture gallery still doesn't have alt text. You can find out how to add alt text for galleries at Help:Gallery tag#Extended syntax. The alt text for the other images is good. By the way, here is an easy way to view the alt text for all the images in the article if you are interested. Steelkamp (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the only thing in this section left. Steelkamp (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done! Is there anything more or is the article all good to go? HoHo3143 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• I feel that a better image could be put in the infobox. The current one doesn't show very well that the station is elevated and that a level crossing was removed. Images such as File:Reservoir railway station level crossing removal 2020.jpg or File:Rosanna railway station Melbourne during level crossing removal June 2018.jpg would better capture the essence of the project. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done- hopefully I can find a better portrait image of any crossing removal in the future that encompasses more of the road and station. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• According to WP:GALLERY, galleries should be avoided where possible. It is possible to avoid a gallery on this page if the station images are put to the right of the table of rebuilt stations. (I'm ok with the architecture gallery as that section is quite small and won't be able to fit those images otherwise) Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Done- added some images along the side. HoHo3143 (talk) 6:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• File:Clayton Road level crossing with manually operated gates.jpg should have the label at the bottom cropped off. I'm also sceptical of whether this image is actually in the public domain. I know that the Monash Public Library Service says it is public domain, but I'm not sure on what basis they are making the claim. Can you find out when that photo was taken and by what person/organisation? That will give me more information to make the image's copyright status clearer. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Monash says its from the Public Record Office [of] Victoria. You can see more information on flickr about this image if need be. Also would you be able to crop the image- I have no clue whatsoever how to do that. HoHo3143 (talk) 6:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The original PROV listing for that image is here. PROV publishes under a Creative Commons 4 license as per here so it counts as public domain (would count from the year this is likely taken anyway, but this image is undated). I will update that image with the higher-res PROV one, and it also doesn't have the label. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

? Thank you- do I need to take any further action with this issue or is it all good? HoHo3143 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I can update the image file, otherwise copyright should be fine in my view. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Thank you! HoHo3143 (talk) 8:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cropped the image. Steelkamp (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Thank you! HoHo3143 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• No copyright concerns with the remaining images. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Yay! HoHo3143 (talk) 6:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

General

I'm looking at the article right now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Y Thank you. HoHo3143 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Level Crossing Removal Project, an agency of the Victorian government, is removing 110 level crossings by 2030, which is the fastest rate in their history? Source: https://researchrepository.rmit.edu.au/esploro/outputs/9921860675101341
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Recently made a good article and therefore I think it should be added to the did you know section

Improved to Good Article status by HoHo3143 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC).

• Hi HoHo3143 (talk), review follows: article promoted to GA on 17 December, is well written and cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources; hook is interesting, stated in the article and cited (to a source I cannot access but happy to assume in good faith that it supports it); no QPQ required. I think the hook would be improved by stating the country (I am not sure how well known Victoria is as a state globally) and in the article it states that it is no longer an agency. "Liberal MP Brad Rowswell criticised the Andrews government for a lack of local consultation on the project, and said it was "indicative of a government that was out of touch with the community"" is identical to the source and the quote is not actually indicated as a direct quote from Rowsell in the source, can you address this? The Earwig tool also picks up that "32 of the crossings chosen featured in the top 50 of a 2008 list by the Department of Transport of the state's most dangerous, and just 28 were prioritised on a 2013 VicRoads removal list" appears in this news article from 14 December 2017, it did not appear in our article until after this date so appears to have been copied from there - Dumelow (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the problems in the article that have been mentioned. Would a better one be "... that the government of Victoria, Australia, has a program to remove 110 level crossings by 2030, the fastest rate in the states history?" HoHo3143 (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: "... that the government of Victoria, Australia, has a program to remove 110 level crossings by 2030, the fastest rate in the state's history?"

Thanks HoHo3143 (talk), looks fine to me. I've formatted it as ALT1 and struck out the original - Dumelow (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Privatisation

The sale of an income-generating asset through privatisation doesn't yield a "magic pudding" which can be used to fund non-income generating projects, such as urban infrastructure. I'll add a section on this. JQ (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)