Wikipedia:Peer review/Waterfall Gully, South Australia/archive1

Waterfall Gully

Attempting to bring Waterfall Gully (a suburb of Adelaide, South Australia) up to featured article status, but want to be thorough in doing so. Spent considerable time on the web finding references as well as riding around the place with my friends and camera! I believe there may be minor spelling and grammatical issues, if you find them - please edit/fix them! Any advice will be heeded and acted upon, so please comment!

Thanks! G 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the peer-review is a good idea - to polish the article somewhat - but I don't believe this article will become a feautred article (there's a difference between that, and WP Adelaide's "feature" standards). The standards there are ever-raising, and there seems to be a growing view among some that some topics just shouldn't be features. (I see it as a natural progression, regardless of topic: from stub through feature). Although you've already provided many references, one of the things people will be asking for is footnotes. I'll try to have a proper look at the article later on. The article is fantastic and you're to be commended (especially for actually taking the photographs yourself!).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes? I'll add them in tomorrow! ;) - G 14:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Footnote3 and Wikipedia:Footnote4. The first is now considered the standard style, and it's the one I use. But I know others who use the latter because it better allows for multipal references to a single source.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a number of footnotes and reorganised the references. When you (or anyone) has a "proper look" at the article could you advise me as to what other points need specific footnotes or referencing? - G 05:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has a good chance of being featured - it's certainly well along the way there - but there are a few things that need to be fixed. Firstly, it needs to be neutral - there's quite a few instances of personal opinion, and with a bit of a reword, it may be possible to take that out and still keep the general point. Secondly, it'd also be nice to see the prose tightened up a bit - it's pretty good, but could be improved a bit. Thirdly, wonder if the history could be expanded a bit - there's more about the mines as a tourist attraction today, for example, than there is about their importance as part of the area's history. Fourthly, I wonder if the "attractions" section could be made a little less tourist-guideish. Some of the already-featured articles on cities and towns might be of assistance here. Fifthly, a demographics section mightn't be a bad addition. Finally, while the politics section is excellent, would it be possible to base the section on the statistics from the nearest booths, rather than its electorates as a whole? I'm also not sure the member list is necessary, as the electorates have (or should have) their own articles.

I'm sorry to be a bit nitpicky, but these are all things that are likely to get picked up if this was nominated for featured status. It's one of the best examples of a suburb article I've yet seen on Wikipedia. Ambi 13:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If possible would you (or anyone!) be able to list the instances of where it is not as neutral as it should be? I'm well aware that it could be in some parts. In regards to "demographics" I was under the impression that the residents section covered this well enough - nonetheless I'll add one with more specific resident details if that is the consensus. I was looking for more suburb-relevant political data, but had to rely on ABS figures which do not go as far down as "booths".

Thanks for the advice, though! I'll see to what I can! - G 13:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The residents section is essentially a demography section (perhaps change its name?). The AEC provides details on polling places in the Division of Sturt. The State Electoral Commission should provide similar results.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewriten the politics section with the new results, and provided references (cheers for the links Cyberjunkie). What parts of the article are not neutral? I'll concentrate on that next. Thanks for the help so far! - G 15:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I still haven't read through the article thoroughly yet (I will sometime this week), I can quickly refer you to some pages that might help you decipher "neutral". See Neutral Point of View for an overview of the concept. I suspect Ambi might be refering to language that is a little too glowing. Failing to provide specific examples, this generally comes from the use of weasel words, something that people invariably do. Hyperbole can also be a contributor. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. It's pretty easy to do. :) Thanks for adding to the politics section - would it be possible to clarify that they are booth results, as opposed to electorate results? It looks like you've changed them, but the text still makes it sound like they're referring to the whole electorate. Ambi 16:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected a number of words and sentences in the article in regards to overly "glowing" language... and the politics section should not be more relevant to the suburb and make it clear that the results are from the closest booth. - G 05:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]