Wikipedia:Peer review/Anstey Hill Recreation Park/archive1

Anstey Hill Recreation Park

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is as far as I can tell a comprehensive treatment of the subject but requires text polishing before approaching featured article status. Seeking in particular commentary on MOS issues and the comprehensibility of the text

Thanks, Peripitus (Talk) 03:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from MeegsC
 * In the first paragraph, the word significant is used twice within two sentences; can one of these be reworded?
 * Fixed - first changed to "uncommon" which is an alternate used by the source


 * The meaning first sentence of the second paragraph is unclear: did the government begin buying land because of that report, or is the reason that the government started buying land contained in that report?
 * Report caused the purchases - I've swapped it around to remove the ambiguity


 * Anstey Hill "and surrounding park"; should there be a "the" in there before surrounding park?
 * Perhaps....not sure so I've added it in


 * Mannum is linked at least twice.
 * And once linked incorrectly - all fixed here.


 * Yurrebilla is enclosed in quotation marks in the lead, but not in the article. It should be consistent.
 * Quotes gone - it seems just used in most places (sources) as a proper noun


 * As of 1983, 145 species of birds were either known or expected to be found in the park. There have been 98 bird species sighted in the park's area by 2006, though not all specifically within the park's boundaries. That's a pretty significant drop; is the reason for the decline known?
 * No drop. in 1983 they expected to see 145 species but had only recorded 98 by 2006. This is usual for wildlife reports in the Adelaide hills as there are a large number of species that are uncommon but seen in many places. Reports often list these as expected species though, due to the lack of recording and small numbers of animals, it's unlikely all will be seen. Do you think this is unclear enough to need rewording ?


 * The Gun Emplacement (or just Emplacement) is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not; again, this should be consistent.
 * Fixed - only one place. The remaining overcapitalised use is referring to a generalised emplacement not the Gun Emplacement directly.

These are some initial comments; if you'd like more, please respond here! MeegsC | Talk 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the look and comments. - responses above - Peripitus (Talk) 23:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the ref formatting for you. IIRC NE Road and LNE Road have no hyphens per the street deirectory.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Blnguyen - the hyphens felt intuitive but I see you're correct. I changed a couple more - looks to be consistent now - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Per the MOS, titles of weblinks shouldn't be in all capitals.
 * Aaah - fixed now - Peripitus (Talk) 01:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/australia/SAgermanindex.htm a reliable source?
 * I used this as it was an easily available secondary source. I have access to the primary records but it seemed better to use an available online source so others could verify. As to the reliable question: The website is maintained by Sue Swiggum (noted in some places as a professional historian of immigration history). She notes that the data is sourced from The South Australian Register, Saturday Janaury 24th, 1846 and, given the non-controversial nature of the data, it seemed unnecessary to question her accuracy of reproduction - 01:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Always helpful to get critical review...thanks ! - Peripitus (Talk) 01:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)