Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Osmond, South Australia/archive1

Mount Osmond, South Australia

The third suburb article to be worked to such a standard. Earlier suburb FA's are Waterfall Gully and Yarralumla. Earlier peer review is here. Photos are either taken by myself (and licensed under the GFDL) or are public domain due to expired copyright. Please feel free to be critical, issues that can be addressed will be addressed promptly. Thankyou! michael ^talk 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is a cite.php convertion reasonable? It'davoid themessing up between the notes' and the links' (in the footnotes) numbering systems. Circeus 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't quite get what you are referring to (probably because I don't know what a cite.php covertion is), could you possibly elaborate? michael ^talk 02:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's talking about converting the article the new mediawiki citation format m:Cite/Cite.php, which automatically creates the references section at the bottom. The Catfish 03:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I avoid that type of citation format, I just find it more annoying and intrusive. Shouldn't make too much difference though? michael ^talk 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to cause your notes' external link numberings to start as "17", as if there'd been 16 links in the articles... If it wasn't for that I would not necessarily complain. Circeus 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object. Unless there are other Mount Osmonds of equal significance, the article should be at Mount Osmond. It is not necessary to add country names or other geographical entities into article titles, and even when it is necessary for disambiguation, it should be Place (Country), not Place, Country, as the latter is the common form to denote place names in the U.S., but, as far as I know, not elsewhere. Kosebamse 08:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats standard practice for all South Australian (a state) suburbs to be labelled as suburb, state, as outlined in Wikiproject Adelaide guidelines. ...maelgwn talk 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The format looks slightly irritating, as one usually sees it only for U.S places, and when articles like Venice, Italy come up (which is why I erroneously wrote "Country" instead of "State") one is inclined to move them, but if it's the standard usage,that's fine with me. Kosebamse 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I agree, the name of the state is unimportant and should be removed from the title. Criterion 2a is not yet satisfied; the whole text needs a thorough run-through to weed out awkward and unexplained statements.

Here are some examples.

"Mining operations in the 19th century gave the area notoriety, but it has since developed slowly into a small, quiet residential suburb." This is left unexplained, at the end of the lead. "Gave notoriety" is unidiomatic. The contrast between notoriety (which needs to be fleshed out) and small, quiet residential suburb (what suburb isn't residential?) is awkward as currently worded. Remove and explore somewhere in the body of the article.

"Mount Osmond did not enjoy any early prospective buyers"

"the lots that composed Mount Osmond"

"His family readily developed the suburb"

And there's much more. Tony 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please fix the spelling of 'kilometer' (Australian please). Tony

Thankyou - I have made changes to those specific problems - and would like to reiterate the standard naming system for Australian suburbs: [suburb name], [state/territory]. This format is used in both of the suburb featured articles so far, and in all Australian suburbs so far - details can be found here. michael ^talk 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the WikiProject Adelaide suburbs sub-page is just re-iterating policy. The naming convention for Australian towns, suburbs and cities dictates that they must have the state or territory suffix, except for the capital cities (although Perth and Darwin are necessarily disambiguated).--cj | talk 08:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, can you find someone who is relatively distant from the text to run through it carefully? That is what is required to satisfy 2a; it's about two hours' work. I suppose I find the guidelines for Australian suburbs regrettable in that respect; they are only guidelines, I assume. But the title's no big deal; the body of the text is. Tony 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can an non-Australian editor please review this article and give recommendations and/or a copyedit? It would be much appreciated. michael ^talk 02:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Not at all clear that the images taken from deviantART are free enough for our purposes. For example, what evidence do we have the redistribution and derrived works are permitted for the lead image? --Gmaxwell 23:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images used are those that have been specifically requested for use (and are free). They are my friends' deviantart images, and are as free as any other image I have contributed (bar a request for attribution). michael ^talk 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information provided on this request. Has he agreed to release them under a free license? If not, why not? Does his grant include the things that a free license would include (unlimited commercial use, derivative works, unlimited redistribution, no extra restrictions outside of attribution and potentially share-alike (i.e. copyleft))? ... These rights are reserved to the copyright holder unless they are explicity released, and I can't tell from anything on Wikipedia if this is the case... When you ask a photographer "can we use this?" they don't usually think you mean the above terms.. we must be explicit. --Gmaxwell 05:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I followed the link to the Deviantart page, and found it was taken from waterfall gully, South Australia. Now, I know Mt Osmond and Waterfall Gully are right next door and all, but shouldn't we have a Mount Osmond Image up there? Mike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.184.197 (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]