Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waterfall Gully, South Australia

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Waterfall Gully, South Australia

edit

Self Nomination. Previous peer review is here and the points listed there have been addressed. I'm hoping that this will be the first featured article of a suburb! I've pretty much been the major contributor and have taken a number of photos for it myself (with the rest being that of my friends). Please leave any comments, any issues will be attended to promptly. Thanks!

G 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. It's good, but a little on the short side; admittedly, for a suburb, it's going to be shorter than an article from a larger city. However, these are a few comments I had upon reading it:
    • There are more than a couple one-sentence paragraphs. These should be merged into an adjacent paragraph or expanded into multiple sentences.
    • The lat/lon at the top of the page should go under ==Geography== (i.e. "The town is located at...")
    • Sections shouldn't start with a left-aligned image, as it pushes the text too far over from the heading. I'd move the picture under ==Transport== to the right, rather than keeping it where it is.
    • Rather than having sub-sections for each attraction listed under ==Attractions==, it would make for much better prose to combine them all into a longer main section of 3-4 paragraphs. I'd help as far as I could, but knowing nothing about the town makes it rather difficult...I'll be glad to provide a critique, though, if you'd like.
    • Under ==Transport==, when you refer to the CBD, spell it out the first time you use it (I'm assuming it's Central Business District?). Also, make sure you reference exactly which CBD you're talking about -- is it Adelaide's or Burnside's? The article is unclear.
    • External links within the article should be moved to the bottom of the page, with all the other external links. You could also wikilink the topic, although you run the risk of a red link in doing that.
Good luck! Let me know if you need any help. PacknCanes | say something! 07:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These things happen when one person edits while another's reviewing... :) The only thing I see that was addressed in my list was the left-aligned image under ==Transport==. The only problem with where that image is now is that it pushes the ==Residents== heading over to the right. Maybe the image could be a few pixels smaller? But the prose does look much better after the copyedit, indeed. PacknCanes | say something! 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At what resolution are you viewing the page? It appears fine at 1024x768 pixels. Also, the CBD thing shouldn't matter any more, given it is spelt out in full at first appearance with acronym in parenthesis. Furthermore, I've replaced most occurances of CBD with other phrases anyways.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see the CBD definition there now. I must have been using a cached version earlier. My resolution's set at 1280x800, and I'm not making a point of objection based on how it pushes over the heading on my screen...I know that it's dependent upon the resolution, and it's not fair to object based solely on the article's appearance on my own screen. I probably should have tagged it as a comment, in hindsight, but unfortunately my regular vision is a bit worse than my 20/20 hindsight. :) PacknCanes | say something! 09:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've corrected a number of one sentence paragraphs, but I'm not quite sure how to go about the "attractions" changes. Would you like to have a go PacknCanes? And I believe that the lat/lon is standard for Australian suburb articles. Thanks for the comments so far and Cyberjunkie for the top copyedit. G 15:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I took a shot at un-sub-sectioning the "attractions" section, with a little reordering for nicer segues. While I was in there, I ran across one sentence which absolutely stumped me: "...the mines are roughly 1700 mm in height and 1000 m in width." What does that mean? 1.7 m by a kilometre? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's well on its way. The attractions section looks very good now...like I told G earlier, I was just a bit antsy about messing around with the content not knowing exactly what the relevant points were. All that's left now is to get rid of the one-sentence paragraphs and the in-article external links...neither of which should be too tough to tackle. It's looking very good, though...I have a feeling I'll be able to support sooner rather than later. PacknCanes | say something! 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. :) Support; very good job. I'm impressed. PacknCanes | say something! 05:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object for now but I do think this is a very good article that should get there soon.
    • "The suburb's natural beauty attracts residents as well as tourists and could be categorised as upper-middle class." The natural beauty could be categorized as upper-middle class? Something's gone awry. In general, it needs a little more copy-editing here and there.
    • The same sentence shows an example of overlinking that's a problem throughout the article. Linking residents is over-the-top, as are links to things like brook, miners, agricultural, mayor, walking trails, park, etc. etc. I could point to some style guides that talk about not overlinking, but common sense is the best thing here: link topics relevant to the article and ones that have more use than just a dictionary definition, unless if it's an obscure word.
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a go at fixing both of those. The second lead paragraph has been rewritten, and I've gone through and removed a number of non-relevant links. Mind having a look and tell me if it's good enough, and well, if you now support it? Any minor changes would be great! michaelg 05:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Objections struck; don't have time right now to do a thorough going-over of the article to decide regarding support yet. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Object. This is a good article for sure, but much of it could still do with a copyedit for prose; some of the language is a bit odd in places (i.e. Since European Settlement the native plant life has suffered considerably, though there's quite a lot of other examples). There are also some problems with image formatting - in the attractions section, there's four images side-by-side, which looks terrible on a smaller screen. 'd also like to see a reorganisation of the content in the Attractions section - what is there is all good, but the way it is organised could do with a little bit of work The first objection particularly could take some time to fix, but apart from these qualms, it's the best article on a suburb that I've ever seen. Ambi 06:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you mean by "side-by-side"?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the prose fine, even excellent compared to what is was before. Would you like to have a go at improving it or tell us which sections specifically need improvement?
  • The edit which positioned the attractions images as they are now is much better compared with before (see the history for sake of comparison if you wish). I just did an edit of the attractions section, which hopefully makes for better prose and organisation.
Thanks for the pointers though, but if you could elaborate further on these qualms it would be of great assistance! - michaelg 07:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the prose is bad, per se, but there a lot of examples of awkward and convoluted wording (the example I gave wasn't a great one, but I digress). I tend to do the same thing when I write articles myself, which is why I try to get at least one or two people to copyedit them afterwards. As to the other objections; the images don't warp the text anymore, but it still does look strange having four side-by-side - wouldn't two of them be able to illustrate the article just as well? The attractions section is quite improved, although the sentence "Earlier treasure-hunting efforts..." doesn't make much sense in its current context. Ambi 07:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't help much! Argh! I can't fix anything if I don't know what is wrong with it - you've given two examples so far and practically retracted your objection to one of them. That said, I'll change the "treasure hunting efforts" to something better. Would anyone like to experiment in regards to the images? I don't know what to do in regards to that. - michaelg 07:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
<Blush> Turns out Ambi's original example is of my writing </Blush>. What I think makes it awkward is that there is practically no elaboration or examples. How and why has native vegatation suffered? --Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced the attractions images to two (which still looks suprisingly decent). I've also got information on native vegetation here and here. Just added another small bit to do with geography and added a footnote for reference. Should make it a bit clearer, but a small copyedit might help. - michaelg 07:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the image issue, but I'd appreciate if you could at least try to fix my most substantial one. I'll supply some more examples:
Before the colonisation of South Australia, Aboriginal history of Waterfall Gully and the surrounding Mount Lofty area was notable in the Dreamtime story of Yurrebilla
They discovered it in April 1837
With continued development further up the catchment region, such as farms and orchards, the water quality quickly became poor
In 1945 much of the area that is today's Cleland Conservation Park was purchased by the State Government (it doesn't make much sense unless you know what the park is)
Residents continue to be drawn to Waterfall Gully by its picturesque scenery, relative seclusion and proximity to the city proper. (has NPOV issues), Much of the north-eastern side of the gully is part of Cleland (clarity - should at least spell out again what Cleland is)
Since European Settlement the native plant life has suffered considerably
Recently, the Burnside Council has been creating footpaths
Recent developments to the area in the form of making the restaurant wheelchair accessible, an expanded car park, renovation of the restaurant, installation of a pay phone and public toilets and information signs, as well as numerous safety and cosmetic features began in 1995 and were completed in 2005
I'm sorry to be a grammar nazi, but these really do stand out in a close reading of the article. Also, would it be possible to add the current member for each electorate in there? I just noticed that at least one of their websites was linked under external links, but not mentioned in the article. Ambi 08:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou! :D I've gone through and corrected these, take a look! And in regards to the MP's - they did used to be in the article (when it's politics section was more comprehensive than that of the actual electorates) but were removed due to non-relevance with the suburb. Are you sure you want them back in? - michaelg 08:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The full lists were a bit much (they did belong in the electorate articles), but I think having the current members would be helpful. Ambi 08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's looking much better. I've switched to support - this really is an excellent article. I just noticed a couple more (minor) things, though - do you have any more information on the history of the area? It seems to cover some things quite briefly (like the mention of bushfires in the 20th century had me wondering if the suburb was actually damaged)? Finally, I wonder if "residents" wouldn't be better entitled "demographics". Neither of these should be considered as objections to this being featured though. Ambi 09:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyberjunkie, I've fixed that, and included new and clearer info (one of my source websites had changed it's Yurrebilla story). Ambi, the history has been compiled from plaques and information signs scattered all over the gully (I've been out alot) and from internet sources. To gain more information I would have to start attending Burnside Historical Society Meetings! And in regards to Residents/Demographics, I'll see what future community consensus says about it! It doesn't really matter *too* much. Thanks for now supporting! :D - michaelg 09:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Object -- the article is well laid out but I've found some problems. 1. Why is the title "Waterfall Gully, South Australia" and not "Waterfall Gully"? other Australian cities do not have the state appended to the title. 2. "Unfortunately" for the Aborigines --> this is emphathy, change to "However" 3) text inside parenthesis. including Waterfall Gully's First Creek; skewed due to the height of the surrounding hills). Please convert these and other instances to normal prose so that it flows. 4. Since its a geographic article, a map is needed. 5. The political parties list should be converted to prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nichalp. Waterfall Gully is a suburb not a city, and is named per the conventions for Australian locations. Capital cities (Adelaide, Canberra, Sydney etc) are the only exceptions.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rightio! Well here we go:
  • It's not an Australian city, it's an Australian suburb. And as laid out by the guidelines in WikiProject Adelaide this is standard for Australian suburb articles. (however Waterfall Gully does redirect to this article)
  • Aborigines empathy bit fixed.
  • Prose issues you described corrected
  • There is a map given in the form of the NASA image showing location of Waterfall Gully in the Adelaide Metropolitan Area. There are no other fair use images available yet that would constitute a replacement map.
  • By political parties list do you mean the election results? These are displayed better as a list, and I would create a pie graph showing the results before making it harder to read by making them prose. Can you offer further comments?
Cheers for the advice! - michaelg 10:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok you got me on the title, but a redirect should be created. Ok, I've copyedited the text and I've noticed you followed up on it. However I am still not satisfied with the following:-
  1. Location map is still absent. Its hard to figure out where the place is. See: Image:Johannesburg map-withannotations.jpg. I would like to see some images on the region. I could draw a map if you could source some sites.
  2. That chart should never be a .gif file. Ideally it should be .svg (openoffice supports svg), but if you cannot get an svg file, then png is the correct filetype. Use ".png" extension and not ".PNG".
  3. The tone of ==Transport== and ==Attractions== need to be more in the encyclopedic tone. Promotion of a restaurant etc; specific buses give the article more of a tourist brochure read to it. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
  4. Population should be mentioned in the lead.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • Okay... hmm.
  1. If you would be able to draw a map, that'd be great. Refrence maps: here, here, here and here if you want to give it a go.
  2. Image reloaded as a .png .
  3. The tone I will have a go at, but I'm not sure exactly how to get it out of a tourist-esque feel if it still has it (I heard this complaint before and made changes).
  4. Number of people now in the first line of the article.

Thanks for the advice, and especially for the offer of drawing a map. - michaelg 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so, I disagree with Nichalp's objection about the article seeming "touristy". Earlier versions did certainly have that feel, but I really don't see any particular problem with listing the buses that go through the area (just as you'd say which train line it was on if there was one), and the waterfall is clearly one of the major reasons the place is notable. Ambi 12:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instances of text such as "all close at 6 p.m. on weekdays; the restaurant keeps the area open later some nights" ; " mines are not marketed in any local tourist guide or council publication"; " It is at the south-eastern end of the road (four kilometres from its start)". Other text such as Joseph Di Stasio's stomach problems (focus is on the suburb remember!), time taken to reach the place etc, certainly makes it more useful to a tourist. I've already modified some sections, you can go through the changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the objections you noted then. However, I still believe the bus route information should stay - michaelg 13:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what Ambi said. I took into account a specific complaint about the restaurant and sorted that out a bit though. - michaelg 12:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS> If you aren't comfortable in having the political text converted to prose, you can insert it as a table and right-align the table. (One more thing, its not an objection, there's an ugly red link, could you fill it?) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a Mount Bonython stub. - michaelg 13:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the map. I've also copyedited the text and left some comments. Please addresss it and let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the map and left a link to it on your talk page. I also checked the comments and copyedits and made suitable adjustments - nice work!
Cheers, - michaelg 01:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just caught one other thing while looking through the article again - under "Attractions", the last sentence of the first paragraph is somewhat odd. Would it be possible to fix this? Ambi 04:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just took a copyediting pass through the whole thing. I don't think it's too touristy; comprehensive detail on an area this small is by its nature going to contain material like this. Getting the map in there would be great. By the way, I'm red/green color blind and in the current satellite map, I am totally unable to determine what area is "highlighted in red". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Bunchofgrapes! And Ambi, I've tidied up that last sentence. I guess the only two things outstanding now are a table for the politics results (would someone else be able to have a go at this, I don't know tables here at all!) and the map. - michaelg 04:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Recent developments began in 1995 and were completed in 2005 and provides a good view of the falls. - seems still to be there. Ambi 04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! And I've just spent the afternoon getting to know photoshop and editing the map - it's now in the article. - michaelg 04:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Titoxd has graciously fixed up the politics table for us. I think this satisfied the last standing objection. :) Ambi 06:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some minor reformatting (added party colours, put percentages last). The article is great. The only thing wrong is those bloody reference numbers in the tables that just don't seem to want to order themselves correctly. But that can't be helped..--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Loving the party colours! Cheers to all, lets hope User:Nichalp drops by soon. - michaelg | talk 07:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good work by michaelg, cyberjunkie, ambi and all. I'm sure you and Ambi will agree that the touristy text has now been removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why no infobox? Those are useful for orienting non-expert readers to where and what they are supposed to be reading. By glancing at the article someone may think it is about a natural feature, not a suburb. If the article is about a suburb then show pictures of suburban developments. A map of the street layout or urban form (land use) would help. --maclean25 08:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Among Australian suburbs, this one is probably the most developed. There has not yet been consenus as to what infobox should be made to accomodate all the suburbs of the country. When consenus has been agreed among all the Australian wikiprojects, I think this would be the best time to introduce an infobox. As the article states in it's lead: "the suburb encompasses one long gully with First Creek at its centre and Waterfall Gully Road adjacent to the creek". The 'geography' section expands further on the layout. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 08:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra. There's a suburb infobox in development for Canberra. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw it in, and will also chuck an example on the WikiProject: Adelaide suburbs page aswell. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 10:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious to know what you thought of it. I probably should have raised it at the WikiProject. Don't feel as though you have to use it. There's a modified version at Sheidow Park that I was planing on using for Adelaide Suburbs. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll retract my previous comment then, the Sheidow Park one looks good - however I want to keep the iamge of the Waterfall up the top. I'll see about integrating them, but if it doesn't work out well I won't bother.
Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 10:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howzat! Looks tops IMO. Thanks for that, Cyberjunkie! Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 10:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiproject Adelaide Suburbs page states that "Politics (local issues, what state and federal electorate the suburb is in, who are the current local members, is it a safe Labor seat/safe Libs seat/marginal seat)." This is discussed in the politics section to explain why it is a safe lib seat, etc. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 01:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I for one think the political section is great. It's not overly wordy, all of it pertains exactly to the suburb, and it's quite an interesting read. Ambi 01:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Waterfall_Gully,_South_Australia&oldid=1136094753"