Talk:Mount Osmond, South Australia/GA1

GA Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There are two dead links in the References section.[1]

• Each online source cited should have a last date accessed, as the link given in the References has. Notes and References should be formatted consistently.

• "... C.W. Lloyd, sold 200 acres around the golf course ...". Elsewhere the article uses metric measurements. Should use either metric or imperial consistently, preferably with conversions from one to the other.

• "A somewhat "ring" of reserves exist on the slopes ...". Don't understand what a "somewhat ring" is supposed to be.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm working on Waterfall Gully as a FAR at the moment, but the references will be largely the same, so I'll clean up this while I'm at it. It will probably take a couple more days, though, due to work commitments. - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's no hurry. Thanks for attending to this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Any update? I'd like to close this review soon, but there are still too many sections either without citations or undercited to meet 2a of the good article criteria, notably European settlement, Geography, Residents, and Politics. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I should be able to fix those tonight - Waterfall Gully and Mount Osmond share the same census stats, so residents will be mostly a case of rewording the Waterfall Gully text to highlight Mount Osmond in the residents section. Politics is relatively simple, and the other two I should be good with the sources I have. Luck holding I'll have something properly sourced by tomorrow. :) (Plus I just finished taking my last class for the semester, so a WP editing session will be perfect to celebrate). - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's great. Just let me know when you've finished. And, of course, here's hoping that your exam results are everything you'd like them to be. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)