Talk:Skyrail Rainforest Cableway

	Australia portal Skyrail Rainforest Cableway 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Two technical sections?

On Skyrail's website (→ About Skyrail → A brief History) they say that in May 2005, they replaced the haul rope on the cableway's front line (Caravonica to Red Peak) and in May 2007, they replaced the haul rope on the cableway's back line (Red Peak Station to Kuranda Terminal). I thus assume that technically speaking, the Skyrail has two sections, one from Caravonica up to Red Peak (2.7 km), and one from Kuranda up to Red Peak (4.8 km). On POMA's website, I did not find anything except the short note in 1995. Are there any details available?--AHert (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longest cableway?

On the same sheet, they say that Skyrail was the world’s longest gondola cableway at the time of completion. Apart from the 13.2 km of the old Norsjö aerial tramway, I think that they are right. The Gondelbahn Grindelwald-Männlichen is said to be the longest but it is only 6.071 km long (in two nearly equal sections). Sandia Peak Tramway (4.467 km) is said to be the longest aerial tramway (i.e. in one section) but it is shorter and it is not a gondola lift. So if it was the longest, which one is longer now? --AHert (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup required

This article is looking messy. The lead is supposed to present key facts and by a concise overview. Its too random at the moment. The Famous Guests section is problematic because it has potential to create disputes regarding who is famous enough to be listed. Instead only the most notable should be included within the History section. The Awards section, and the following two, are just a bulleted lists when they should be prose. There are two many one-sentence paragraphs which is another no-no. The formatting of the references is poor. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]