Wikipedia:Featured article review/Waterfall Gully, South Australia/archive1

Waterfall Gully, South Australia

Notified WP AUSTRALIA, WP CITIES, Beneaththelandslide, WP ADEL

Fails factually accurate criterion in particular, numerous statements that have not been citated. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the FAR by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications with {{subst:FARMessage|Waterfall Gully, South Australia}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If it became an FA without them, then it is usually fine. But per SandyGeorgia above. Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article is certainly in need of citations. On the plus side, it looks like the structure is ok - I'll see what I can do with it. (It is also listed for 0.7, so the work would be useful either way). - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree structure is fine, just applying the very high standards of a FA! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This was approved when standards for FA were quite different a few years ago. Some work will be required to bring it up to current standards, but it helps that it is very well written to start with. (Note this is simply a reply to Michelle, not a review comment.) Orderinchaos 05:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm already getting Playford flashbacks... Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That was, however, a more recent featured article which met the standards of a later time. Some of the comments in that link (re number of sources) are just lame. :P Broadly speaking anything late 2006 or later has been assessed fairly consistently on the new rules. Orderinchaos 07:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Delist The article is in need of a great many citations and there are numerous MoS problems: non-breaking spaces; image locations, captions, and sizes; article is littered with vague terminology when better figures or at least estimates could be found (e.g. "attracted many miners and young men from all over Australia", "Many residents are high-income earners"). Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm..."In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status". Daniel (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The remedy is simple, that citations be added. However, other editors have commented on other areas of improvement. Overall, this does not make it a FA quality article in its current state. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Delist are not declared in the review phase; the purpose of review is to identify and hopefully address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake about the declaration, but I think my comments still stand. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've managed to correct the licenses on the incorrectly tagged images, but ideally Image:Waterfall Gully 1866.jpg and Image:Wgully 1872.jpg should have sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Both are from the National Library of Australia collection. The first is here, and the second here. While both predate 1955, and therefore are out of copyright under Australian law, I'm not sure how that fits the standard library claims of ownership. (I have a replacement for the first image from my own collection, and should be able to replace the second, if this is deemed necessary). - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great! I think that clears up any issue over images. I'll add the sources to the image pages tomorrow. DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to keep this side of the process informed, I've found enough sources to reference everything, and I'm slowly working down the article, extending it where the sources suggest that more weight should be given to an issue, and either referencing or rewriting claims to meet the sources. Hopefully it won't take too long to finish the process so I can start addressing any other concerns. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What would we do without Bilby? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)