Talk:Point Walter/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 21:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Reviewer Comments

General Writing

So I did some clean-up in the lead but large sections of this article reads awkwardly to me. Not grammatically incorrect, just awkwardly. Having done GAs for articles written in both Candian and British English (in addition to my own American English) and having spent some time in Australia I don't think it's that it's a different kind of English. A more experienced/better copy editor would likely have more insightful comments.

As an example of what I'm talking about: Point Walter was named in honour of Sir James Stirling's brother, Walter Stirling, in 1827 during his survey of suitable spots for settlement along the Swan River. I might try cleaning that up to something like During his survey of suitable spots along the Swan River, Sir James Stirling named Point Walter after his brother, Walter Stirling.

I don' think it's "reasonably well-written" (criteria 1a) right now. Fixing more of article would be beyond what I'm willing to do as part of a GA. I know you waited about 6 months for this review so I'm hesitant to ask you to wait longer for someone at WP:GCE to do a pass, though they would probably do the best. What I can do is offer you the sentences which read awkwardly and let you have a go at improving. If this is OK I'll make a list of such sentences. Let me know which option you'd prefer (waiting for GCE or doing it yourself).

I'm currently in a brief study break, so if possible I would like to have a crack at making the text less awkward, so you pointing out awkward sentences would be much appreciated. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did some changes here as I'm not seeing anything that jumped out at me like the first two times I read it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

*Both here, in the first sentence even, and later on it says that this place is notable for the sandbar, but in neither place is there a reference for this assertion. One isn't needed here, but it does need to be referenced somewhere.

Source added JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*I did an attempt at some editing for clarity in the second paragraph of the LEAD. Thoughts are welcome.

Despite being initially removed by Mitch Ames, I have reinstated it as it definitely leads to better clarity. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I (obviously) agree.Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

query re the text: At that time, it was rehabilitated from a state of disrepair, and an army camp was built on the premise, which later was transformed into a migrant settlement camp you sure? lots of slippage for a lead, but as a summary I feel it could be better expressed than that. JarrahTree 03:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and I fail to understand why the word premise remains there JarrahTree 08:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch it's a homophone error (now corrected) as it should be the word premises. As for the query I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... initially removed by Mitch Ames, I have reinstated it ... — Could you include links to the initial removal and reinstatement. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the 2nd paragraph of the lead section says: "Through a series of events, the point suffered a drop in patronage from the late 19th century to World War II.", but "a series of events" here is so vague as to be meaningless. What events? "Teasers ... that ... omit crucial details ... should never be used on Wikipedia.". I suggest deleting "Through a series of events, ". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

*Source for It was a place traditionally for women and children, but when through the end of the paragraph?

Sources added JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about for the part about the tree? I did a quick search of this source and didn't see it there.

This is understandably difficult to find the source for that, but as I had in-line references to source [2] twice in that Aboriginal history subsection, I didn't think I needed it again, but I've put it in. It is difficult to find as that source has various audio recordings from Aboriginal elders, but it can be found about 40 seconds in into the recording labelled "The Hair". JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you used a different inline source it's good practice to then put the source in again when it references new material. I will admit I haven't listened to the recordings (as complete source checking is beyond the scope required of a GA review). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*When did Lionel Lukin and Alfred Waylen acquire the land?

Added information JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Source(s) for Point Walter was named in honour of Sir James Stirling's brother, Walter Stirling, in 1827 during his survey of suitable spots for settlement along the Swan River. The land was then acquired by the settlers Lionel Lukin and Alfred Waylen. After acquiring the land, Waylen developed it by building a villa in 1830 which later burnt down, and in 1831 his land was extended 700 more acres to include part of the suburb to which he is the namesake, Alfred Cove. During his time at Point Walter Waylen constructed an inn known as "The Halfway House" due to its location between Perth and Fremantle, and a canal through the sandbar for ease of access for boats.?

Sources added JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about the brother/uncle part is really interesting.

*The source seems to be unsure about whether it was Class A reserve in 1905 or 1907. This should be reflected in the article

Added uncertainty JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Probably worth clarifying that the controller in George Randell, then controller of river traffic was because of his being in-charge/owning rather than as some some of official position (in other words paraphrase the source more)

Added information JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*By 1915, a tramway had been constructed between Canning Road and Point Walter, which was not considered a success as it rarely ran at a profit except during summer months, and closed down soon after the 1950s. Further troubles came from the Depression of the 1930s The tram shut down in the 1950s, right? So how is that further troubles of the depression in the 1930s?

Attempted to clarify, albeit clumsily, but I will have another guy at making the sentence less awkward. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the general facts of this paragraph work but current wording can/should be improved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Think it works now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*to the point where in 1950 the matter had to be addressed in The West Australian What does this mean?

Altered sentence to clarify JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this time the land was a popular location for the general public for crabbing, camping, swimming and picnicking. The only way to access the point was by boat, so a jetty was subsequently built. Point Walter was then very popular, and to deal with ferries and yachting parties two tea rooms and a timber bathing house were constructed. Later a limestone road was constructed allowing access by horse-drawn carriages - you could say most of that about a number of places in the Perth region - fail to see where there is a WP:RS for any of the assertions - also then very popular. when? JarrahTree 03:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the criticism 'you could say this about most areas in the Perth region', because that shouldn't be a reason not to have something in the text. Also all that is covered by source 6, the Heritage Council of WA, which I would say is a very reliable source. I have added info a source for when it was popular. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I would debate as to whether Heritage Council reports are very reliable - they are capable of getting things wrong, always better to have a trove reference over and above a derivative Heritage Council item... JarrahTree 07:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not 100% in the area of Heritage Council report reliability, I assumed it was reliable due to the official nature of it all, so it's understandable if I made an error in assessing the reliability. However, after reading this, I would say that even though they are capable of getting things wrong, this is not something you should automatically assume for them, or for any sources. Using Trove is always preferable, but when writing this article I integrated a lot of the information it had into the article. I also would not say that Trove is always preferable to Heritage Council reports, in the spirit of prioritising secondary sources over primary sources. I will, however, make an effort to try to minimise the article's dependence on these sources. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(b) you could say this about most areas is not a criticism, but as this is a GA review - a challenge to provide informed and well sourced references that establish that what you claim are in fact things that happened at point walter are substantiated. JarrahTree 07:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(c) In my understanding the history of the swan river this article has a problem with exceptionalism and how I interpret WP:UNDUE - there are other locations on the river, with as equally interesting and varied histories - I fail to see any reference to a number of standard bibliographic items that I would expect to find relative to the river and the range of issues that arise from the larger picture - as a result - the focus on the point and the way it is written feels like more of a term essay than say something more like an overview of such features on the river which one expects at higher levels of studies. No sign of seddon, hodgkin, or birmingham - which for me suggests the narrow focus is fine for the purpose of the article - but lacks the understanding of the broader river issues that pass the point on every tide and flood. This is not criticism, but observation from a point of trying to ascertain where does the pount fit into the larger scheme of the river? JarrahTree 08:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This potential issue with WP:UNDUE could originate from the fact that at the time of writing a lot of the article, I had read a bit about the 2005 Azores subtropical storm, which is known for being the shortest featured article on Wikipedia, and which inevitably led to me reading the section on this page, which I interpreted as aspirational. I then sought out to be comprehensive with the article, expending most reliable online sources. I understand that by doing this it seems to make the article seem exceptional in the context of the Swan River, but I do not know how this could be combatted. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of response makes me much more supportive of this attempt at GA - the acknowledgement that it can seem to bring one location on the river out of context slightly - not a problem if the estuarine issue is addressed, and also the bigger picture texts like seddon, hodgkin (either by or about) and birmingham are established texts and need to get in there somewhere, if it is to have a status of GA - on the basis that even if they (the texts) have been superseded by more recent texts, they are established print items that - where they mention the point or sandbar - are also looking at the rest of the river as well JarrahTree 09:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and as a result, control was passed in 1929 to the Parks and Gardens Board - so says who? JarrahTree 03:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Added in-line citation for this. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The state of disrepair continued until the reserve was again put in the hands of the Melville Roads Board, which made several alterations to the site, including all old buildings being removed, the river beach being restored, and new changing rooms, toilet facilities and a kiosk being built. In 1947, the army camp was converted to a Migrant Reception Centre, which was operated from 1947-1969 by the state government and from 1969 until closure in mid-1971 by the Commonwealth Hostels. so many assertions, so few refs. Arm camps are notoriously difficult to reference without some digging, admittedly, but hey first sentence - where how when? The second sentence - a ref would help... for each point JarrahTree 03:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources, and specified when some things took place. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbar & Geography

*Not sure why these are two sections as they feel pretty connected. If kept seperate order should be flipped so it goes from the general (Geography) to the specific (Sandbar).

Kept them separated as a combination created a wall of text, while also flipping them as recommended. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure there have been hydrology publications about the sand bar, and issues arising...

There are aspects of recorded and predicted issues arising from: [1] it would be interesting to know whether such material is considered relevant to the vulnerability of features like Point Walter and its sand bar - being both in the estuarine region of the river and also at a point where despite the recorded history - may not have been actually as pronounced in earlier river history... JarrahTree 08:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I have missed it somewhere else in the article,I would suggest that if the article is about a feature on the swan river - then ignoring the estuarine nature of the river behaviour at this part of the river, would for me not let it anywhere near GA - for instance https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=swan+river+estuary - surely there is something there than can be sourced. JarrahTree 08:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

*You might want to alternate some of your pictures to the left side

Tried but resultant was not aesthetic JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*The panoramic picture is such that you might not also want the bird life picture so close to it.

Moved bird life picture JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Thanks for going and taking several of the photographs yourself.

Thankyou :) JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

*Most of the Melville City links are dead. Guessing they've just been renamed? http://wcit.wa.edu.au/WCIT/media/WCIT-Media-library/Images/About%20Us/Mooro-Boodjar.pdf is also showing dead

I found live links for all dead links, and archived the webpages in case it happens again, as this seems to be problematic with local government websites. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and thanks.

Discussion

Can JoshMuirWikipedia or other interested editor confirm they are interested in going through the GA review process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for taking time out to conduct this review Barkeep49, I am interested in going through with the process. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshMuirWikipedia: Great. My general process is to do an initial read, followed by a detailed read where I leave comments as I go along. This article isn't too long so I would hope to have that done in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I've amended most of the issues, but the issue of awkward writing is still prevalent, so it would be much appreciated if you could go through and list awkward sentences, and I'll have a crack at fixing them. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshMuirWikipedia: Think the stuff beyond the quality of writing has all been addressed except for one point in History. Thanks for your work on that. I will go through sometime today or tomorrow to identify passages whose writing could be improved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

The lack of signing in the review comments and answers - difficult to quickly appraise who is saying what - if it is a reviewer and the main editor - then a signature could help. Even if it is not usual practice JarrahTree 03:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC

@JarrahTree: Fair point. I frequently do that but did not in this particular case. You can safely assume that the first point under review is mine and that if it's struck through that I consider that point addressed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if any other Perth, Western Australia editors chose to actually query within the review what is going on or who said what, they would have to sign, otherwise it turns into gravy JarrahTree 03:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have signed my items JarrahTree 03:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JarrahTree I'm not sure how much familiarity you have with GA review but is designed to be a "lightweight" process, conducted by a single reviewer and as many editors of the article as are interested. I think I already fall on the more demanding side of GA reviews as compared to some other reviews I've seen (which is not a criticism, just a note of the varying styles). All that said, I appreciate our (yours, mine, Josh's) commitment to making this the best article possible. I believe my concerns have all been addressed. If there are things which concern you I would encourage you to make the changes directly and note them as I think this article is close to being ready, in my mind, to passing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I do not like about the process in GA or FA where a person knows nothing about what the subject is, or the local context. However, the attitude and the general disposition of Josh outweighs his short comings as to the literature that he should be familiar with. That said, thank you for your concern, it simply reassures me that GA and FA can easily fail a subject by lack of local knowledge or context. JarrahTree 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion

I came to pass this and starting to read it over decided I would feel more comfortable if another reviewer weighed in on criteria 1a before passing. I worry that I have just become too close to the text to evaluate it at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It did need some improvement in the writing - I'd like to think it's a bit better now. (See individual edit summaries for the reasons for some of the changes.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49. I assume that you no longer need a second opinion? If you do, specifically on 1a, then let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I was hoping for another person with review experience so yes I'd welcome your second opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem imho - Mitch doesnt necessarily know anything about the history of the locality or context as any other editor removed from the context. I do think that the whole process could actually ask local project editors for an option to check - it would be very easy to do - and in most cases external removed editors might be able to get a context of the 'read' but known nothing about the subject. The possibility of articles going through and getting passed by editors who know nothing about the subject or locality might actually have a difficulty in understanding where inaccuracies can be easily got through. JarrahTree 13:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I have assessed over 30 GANs, so I hope that I count as moderately experienced in that respect. I do a lot of copy editing for GOCE, some of it of topics of which I know little, so I hope that I am qualified to judge the prose. To be clear, I am asked to give a second opinion on 1a - the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. I shall restrict myself to that unless something else leaps out at me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queries.

"During his survey of suitable spots along the Swan River." Suitable for what?
"Local Aboriginals believed the sandbar was the hair of the Dreamtime figure Djunda". Is the use of past tense intentional? Ie, do the Aboriginals no longer believe this?

Progress report. I have finished my first run through. I will have another run through with fresh eyes tomorrow and then report back. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree and Barkeep49: I have read through in detail twice. I have also applied a light copy edit. A couple of other editors seem to be chipping in with a more rigorous scrutiny. JarrahTree, could you let me have the answers to the two queries above? And could you let me know if you are content with the changes I and other editors have made to the article. If not, could you make whatever changes you feel are necessary and let me know once you have. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected and specified the queries, though I have not yet added the estuary section. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JoshMuirWikipedia: Could you confirm, or not, that you are happy with the article as it currently stands? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Ready to Pass

Thanks Gog the Mild for your work and the pinging of JoshMuirWikipedia and Jorrah Tree. I have wanted to wait an appropriate length of time, however my general feeling has been that given the second opinion offered by Gog on the prose, that this GA is ready to close as a pass. My thought is to continue to wait a couple more days before passing if there is no explicit confirmation that everyone is pleased. Best, Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: For the avoidance of doubt, it is my opinion that the article as it stands meets the Good Article criterion 1a Prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]