Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anstey Hill Recreation Park/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:07, 29 March 2009 [1].

Anstey Hill Recreation Park

edit
Nominator(s): Peripitus (Talk)

I am nominating this for featured article as to my eyes it is a comprehensive, well referenced, well illustrated article that meets all the criteria. It had a comprehensive GA review last year and has had the text tweaked to correct remaining errors since then.. Peripitus (Talk) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS. (copy-and-pasted here).

  • Anstey Hill Joint Steering Committee (1983), Appendix A Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead--TRUCO 03:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, fix the dab links found with the toolbox dab thingy.--TRUCO 03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also 2 dead external links, found with the link checker tool in the toolbox.--TRUCO 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • multiref fixed, fixed the one dead link (dept moved the pdf) but cannot find a second though I've opened all links, what is the "toolbox dab thingy" ? - Peripitus (Talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Reftools gives me no errors now (except that the article is usually not using citexxx templates which is intentional) - Peripitus (Talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "toolbox dab thingy" - gives you wikilinks in the article that need disambiguation. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaaah - devious people hiding things in plain sight. Fixed the three that there were - Peripitus (Talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC) And fixed the second dead link - Peripitus (Talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for my inaccurate explanation "thingy". Dabs, external links, and ref formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 00:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
    • Fixed - 10:35, 28 February 2009 (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. I have viewed the original she took this from but, lacking a page number in my notes, chose to not poorly reference the offline source. This reference may vanish with the contractions needed to deal with the references below Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Removed and fixed - information referenced is not really pertinent - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have two refs that are "Unpublished manuscript held in the Tea Tree Gully local history collection." I do not believe these meet the threshhold for published reliable sources.
    • Looking at this now. Both of them are, on re-examination today, well referenced and I will either come up with a justification for them as reliable sources or use the sources they used - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 gone - the remaining one should be cleared out to a new reference (or the material removed) tommorrow....just have to find the referenced works on my bookshelf - Peripitus (Talk) 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) - Done - Both references no longer used. I've consequently removed some personal information but referenced the rest to published sources. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Interesting, reasonably well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • I agree with Ealdgyth - I don't think Clair Barker's manuscript, The Koppler Family, is a reliable source; at this point it doesn't even seem to be a self-published source, more like family notes.
    • As noted above the text is well reference but I see your point. Klopper's notes are duplicated on-line by the Tea Tree Gully Historical Assocation but I will work on going to the original source she used and cutting her work out of the listing - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) - Done - using published references now - Peripitus (Talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization in the Today's park section seemed just a bit off to me. Both the first and second paragraphs contain sentences describing people's use of the park. I think that the little bit in the first paragraph (about no visitor facilities and walking trails) belongs better with the information in the second paragraph.
    • Done - bit moved and 2nd paragraph slightly rewritten to incorporate text - Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do'nt know what isohyet means, and when I clicked the link the lead of that article scared me away. Any way to simplify this sentence in the article?
    • Done - changed this to write in plainer english - 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A few sections don't start well. Rather than focus on how that section ties into the rest of the article, they appear more like stand-alone sections. For example, Naming, and Newman's nursery both start off talking about people, with no real intro into why these people are important.
    • Done ( I think) - changed the lead to all three sections (the two above and Klopper's quarry) so that the section subject leads in. Some biographical info removed as unneccesary - Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the details of Charles Newman's life are inappropriate for this article. It doesn't matter to the part that his name was changed or when he was born and married. (these are examples - I think a lot of the personal information can/should be trimmed)
    • Done - with the removal of the Unpublished sources this has been trimmed to his original name and arrival date. Note that after some research I have left the arrival date as 1840s - the source used makes it clear that the primary sources do not agree but rather than include this I've left the range they use - Peripitus (Talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why should we care what his original name and arrival date were? That seems trivial. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps a sign that I got a bit overenthusiastic at keeping even peripherally related facts in....early in the research. Gone now - Peripitus (Talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a common problem :) I've probably stripped out about 1/3 of what I originally included in Battle of the Alamo. Karanacs (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward wording - "The nursery attracted many awards and prizes for its produce" - I don't think attracted is the right verb there.
    • Done - reworded but keeping the thrust of the sources intent - Peripitus (Talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by karanacs (talk • contribs)

  • Not thrilled with the state of the writing. It needs a fresh person to go over it finely so we can be proud of the article.
  • "and is seen as a significant reserve of bushland"—If you don't tell us by whom, just make the statement.
  • Can the "foreign" be dropped? Invasive is enough, maybe; unsure. "Uncommon" is not quite the word I'd use. "rare"? Unsure.
  • "but public pressure led to the park being declared in 1989"—erk: noun plus -ing. And it's fuzzy. What about "led to its declaration as a national park in 1989"?
  • "Anstey Hill, standing 371 metres (1,220 ft) high, and the surrounding park are named after a road built by agricultural pioneer George Alexander Anstey." Confusing; is this what we've been talking about the whole time (as "the park"). Punctuation is awkward.
  • "The park is frequently burned by bushfires—mostly deliberately lit—and it is seen as an "arson hotspot" by fire authorities." Surely reverse the order? "Fire authorities regard the park as an "arson hotspot", and it is frequently burned by bushfires—mostly deliberately lit."
  • "The Adelaide-Mannum pipeline crosses the park and the Anstey Hill water filtration plant lies on its southern boundary; together, they supply 20% of Adelaide's water usage." They don't supply usage at all; they supply water. En dash required for the pipeline. See WP:MOSDASH.
  • You know I hate "various". I suppose we don't know how many ... Tony (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done the first pass of addressing your comments, pending a fresh set of eyes. I'll check later today again to make sure my fixes havn't added extra issues. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues you raised (with the lead section) and the various uses of various in the article. The only one not fixed is "Uncommon". I used this instead of the wobbly "significant" or the inaccurate "rare"...Rare species are those listed as rare and within the literature uncommon is, well, commonly used - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose fails Wikipedia:Five pillars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a. It's interesting, but there are too many problems right now. I found many in "Today's park" before I got too far. Below are some sample issues, but I recommend a thorough copyedit by someone new.
    • "Its boundaries are largely formed by Lower North East, North East, Perseverance and Range Roads, with a small section lying ..." The noun plus -ing construction and "with" connector need to be shown the door; I see Tony pointed one out above, so the whole article should be audited.
    • "The hill is not the highest in the park, a nearby unnamed peak is 50 m (160 ft) taller." Grammar/punctuation.
    • "The park is part of the Greater Mount Lofty Parklands; which are also known as Yurrebilla." Grammar/punctuation.
    • "... there were none planned as of 2006." Prefer the smoother "none were planned"
    • "It has hot dry summers, as does all of Adelaide, with December to February's maximum daily temperatures averaging" Another noun plus -ing.
    • "Most of the park is sloping terrain with a gradient steeper" Awkward.
    • "Serious bushfires occur frequently in the park." The placement of "frequently" is ambiguous—it could be read that they occur, frequently in the park and sometimes out of the park.
    • "Most fires in the park are deliberately lit" Please, no easter egg links. See WP:EGG.
--Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't get to work on this so hoping for a helpful grammar checker. I'm on a business trip until the 6th of April and will have almost no net access - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I don't think the prose is quite up to scratch yet, despite the improvements made in the last couple of weeks. The lead seems especially stilted in places. Maybe it's no more than a good few hours' copyedit away, but with the nominator unfortunately absent for the next week-and-a-half, it may be prudent to withdraw until he/she returns, so the outstanding issues can be tackled at the nominator's leisure. Steve T • C 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anstey_Hill_Recreation_Park/archive1&oldid=1138454620"