Wikipedia:Featured article review/Waterfall Gully, South Australia/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 15:04, 19 November 2008.

Waterfall Gully, South Australia

 * Notified WP AUSTRALIA, WP CITIES, Beneaththelandslide, WP ADEL

Fails factually accurate criterion in particular, numerous statements that have not been citated. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please complete the FAR by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications with Waterfall Gully, South Australia and post them back to here as in the sample at Featured article review/Felix the Cat. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it became an FA without them, then it is usually fine. But per SandyGeorgia above. Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is certainly in need of citations. On the plus side, it looks like the structure is ok - I'll see what I can do with it. (It is also listed for 0.7, so the work would be useful either way). - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree structure is fine, just applying the very high standards of a FA! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This was approved when standards for FA were quite different a few years ago. Some work will be required to bring it up to current standards, but it helps that it is very well written to start with. (Note this is simply a reply to Michelle, not a review comment.) Orderinchaos 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm already getting Playford flashbacks... Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was, however, a more recent featured article which met the standards of a later time. Some of the comments in that link (re number of sources) are just lame. :P Broadly speaking anything late 2006 or later has been assessed fairly consistently on the new rules. Orderinchaos 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delist The article is in need of a great many citations and there are numerous MoS problems: non-breaking spaces; image locations, captions, and sizes; article is littered with vague terminology when better figures or at least estimates could be found (e.g. "attracted many miners and young men from all over Australia", "Many residents are high-income earners"). Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm..."In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status". Daniel (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The remedy is simple, that citations be added. However, other editors have commented on other areas of improvement. Overall, this does not make it a FA quality article in its current state. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Delist are not declared in the review phase; the purpose of review is to identify and hopefully address issues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sandy. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake about the declaration, but I think my comments still stand. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've managed to correct the licenses on the incorrectly tagged images, but ideally Image:Waterfall Gully 1866.jpg and Image:Wgully 1872.jpg should have sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Both are from the National Library of Australia collection. The first is here, and the second here. While both predate 1955, and therefore are out of copyright under Australian law, I'm not sure how that fits the standard library claims of ownership. (I have a replacement for the first image from my own collection, and should be able to replace the second, if this is deemed necessary). - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great! I think that clears up any issue over images. I'll add the sources to the image pages tomorrow. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to keep this side of the process informed, I've found enough sources to reference everything, and I'm slowly working down the article, extending it where the sources suggest that more weight should be given to an issue, and either referencing or rewriting claims to meet the sources. Hopefully it won't take too long to finish the process so I can start addressing any other concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What would we do without Bilby?  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 07:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Status? Marskell (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to delay it a bit while I did some marking and got hold of one of the original sources - The First Hundred Years. I have a copy now, so the rest of the inline references will be completed over the next two days, and I can focus on any other concerns that are raised here. At this stage, though, the bulk of the difficult referencing is done, with the "protection" section the next to be completed. The other sections are more factual, and thus easier to dig up. - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - it proved difficult to track down all the sources I wanted, and given that this is/was (and hopefully will remain, all going well) a featured article, I wanted to be extremely careful about how they were used. At any rate, everything tagged has been referenced, reworded and referenced, or removed, as has much that wasn't tagged. Removed sections are mostly opinions or stuff that I simply couldn't source, and which didn't seem significant to the coverage. I'll add them back if I find sources in the future. I've also generally expanded the history section, both because that's the area's main claim, and to reflect the weighting given to it in the various sources. I've got a couple more old (early and pre 1900's) photos I would like to add, but I'm holding off until I can make a second trip to the site to take new photos, as they'll give me "then and now" comparisons, which should help the article (I went recently, but the photos came out with a bit too much glare). At any rate, I'm sure there are many things I still need to do, so any suggestions or comments on what to do from here would be gratefully received, and I'll do my best to act upon them asap. (This seems a good opportunity to make a better article, but I guess that's why this process exists). - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The photos have been added now. I have some others I might try, but the new ones have the before and after effect I was hoping for. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Statistics and data in image in "Residents" needs references. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm looking into it. I'm presuming it comes from the 2001 census stats, although not having much experience working with the ABS figures I'm finding it tricky to get stats for Waterfall Gully - it isn't big enough in terms of population to warrant a separate listing, being largely a reserve, and thus they only seem to list the wider area. But I'll keep going.
 * Done, or so I hope. I found a source for the 2001 and 2006 data, and it matched what was already there, so I referenced accordingly, as well as taking the opportunity to update for 2006 figures. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Do people feel this can be kept now? Marskell (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet.
 * Prose: First sentence I read says: "The Mount Lofty Ranges ... was first sighted by Captain Matthew Flinders ... "   There are places where the prose gets a bit snakey, would be good for Tony to have a look.
 * MOS: WP:MOS, spaces around ellipses; WP:MOS, punctuation on sentence fragments vs. full sentences; mixture of spaced endashes (correct) and spaced emdashes (incorrect), see WP:DASH, no spaced emdashes; incorrect image placement above section headings, see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS; WP:OVERLINKing (examples:  olives, grapes, restaurant); underlinking or undefined terms (what are ... especially from the Mügges ... ); quotations should not be in italics (see WP:ITALICS and WP:MOS); incorrect use of hyphens rather than endashes on number ranges ( ... younger (0-17) ... ); missing conversions ( ...  and 100 metres of road ...  average elevation of 234 metres above sea level ...); I didn't scan beyond there.
 * Citations have three different date formats: unlinked ISO, unlinked day month year, and linked.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed date format, appears to all be unlinked, ndashes and conversions attended to, rmved the italic quotes, fixed the Mugges, rmv common noun linking from the obvious words, and fixed dashes.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ellipses and picture placement too I think.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I finished up: still don't know what Mügges are, a family I guess, it would be nice if it was clarified. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of that - I think it is worth rewriting the lead, so I'll give that shot today as well (sorry disappearing for a week - end of semester panic). - Bilby (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the lead, referenced the last sections that I thought needed more support, and tried a general copyedit on the prose - I'm still a bit close to the article to be particularly effective, but hopefully I improved some of the sentence structures and the wording here and there. - Bilby (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.