Talk:Anstey Hill Recreation Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Anstey Hill Recreation Park has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 27, 2008.
April 24, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Flag
Portal
 Anstey Hill Recreation Park is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide.
Assessment comments

[edit] Good Article review

This is a well-written article. I know that it looks like I've left a long list, but my concerns are fairly minor. I have gone through the article and done some copyediting for minor issues. Some of my remaining concerns about the prose are:

  1. There is inconsistency throughout the article over whether is it Newman's nursery or Newman's Nursery. Since it seems to be the name of a location, I believe that nursery should be capitalized.Y Done
  2. From the third paragraph of the lead, "crossing the park the Adelaide-Mannum pipeline" sounds awkward. It seems to need another verb (crossing the park is the Adelaide-Mannum pipeline?).Y Done - reworded this
  3. From the third paragraph of the lead, "Ellis cottage on one of the earliest homes in the area." This is not a complete sentence, as it has no verb.Y Done + inconsistent capitalisation of this. as "Ellis Cottage" seems to be a proper name in the context I've capitalised it throughout.
  4. At the end of the second paragraph in the "Today's park" section, "there are none planned as of 2006". Is this the most recent information available? If so, I would switch "are" to "were".Y Done - were is correct. 2006 is the latest official statement on the issue.
  5. In the final paragraph of the "Today's park" section, "parts to the east in 1981 and much of the park again in the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires". This needs to either be joined to the beginning of the sentence as part of a list or have a verb or two added.Y Done - reworded
  6. In the second paragraph of the "Foundation" section, "insufficient rehabilitation work had been completed". Insufficient for what?Y Done - insufficient removed and changed to "did not meet the standard required by the Planning Authority" as this meets the gist of the source.
  7. In the second paragraph of the "Newman's Nursery" section, "and show exhibits from 1871". This needs a verb.Y Done (hopefully) - reworded.
  8. Later in that paragraph, "all three diplomas on offer for their exhibition line". I don't understand what this means. What is a diploma in this context?Y Done as far as I can. The source is unclear and the news articles of the day assume it's self-evident for readers. By the context I'm putting in quotes as it seems to be a name for a prize level ( like 1st prize)
  9. Later in that paragraph, "Victoria park Nursery". "park" should probably be capitalized.Y Done
  10. In the third paragraph of the "Newman's Nursery" section, "John Payne’s gully". Is this the name of the gully? If so, "gully" should be capitalized.N Not done - it's not named on any map as such, just in one source and appears descriptive rather than a proper name. From the context I am assuming that the land was purchased, by the Newman's, from John Payne; so it is "the gully formerly belonging to John Payne" rather than "named after John Payne"
  11. Later in that paragraph, "The latest owner removed". Could "the latest owner" be rephrased? Perhaps "The new owner".Y Done - agreed "new owner" is better
  12. In the first paragraph of the "Mining and quarryig" section, "They supplied dressing stock". Who are "they"? And while I'm thinking of it, "quarry" should have a wikilink the first time it is used in this section.Y Done - "They" is now "the quarries" + first instance wikilinked
  13. In the section paragraph of the "Mining and quarrying" section, the wikilink for "flux" doesn't seem right. Perhaps linking it to Flux (metallurgy)?Y Done yes + linked "smelting" as the bit on this in the flux article is sketchy.
  14. From the "Ellis Cottage and Rumps Bakery" section, "A Mr Daw built rumps Bakery". "A Mr Daw" sounds awkward.Y Done dropped as no source gives me his first name + sentence combined with the following one
  15. Later in that section, "Since the late 19th century, the building was frequently used". Is it still used for this purpose? If so, I would rephrase this as "the building has been used".Y Done - changed to "Until the mid 20th century". No years are listed in the source but this fits with the facts.
  16. In the first sentence of the "Water filtration plant" section, "an area at the top of the park, adjacent to lower North-East Road was chosen". Who chose it? This sentence would also work better in the active voice (eg. [Name] chose the area at the top...).Y Done - passive voice removed + some cruft taken from the sentence.
  17. From the second paragraph of the "Roads" section, "William Haines was district clerk for Tea Tree Gully for 35 years from 1867 and Member of Parliament for Gumeracha from 1878 to 1884. From 1862 he had lobbied..." The first and third uses of "from" are a little awkward. Is there a better way to say this?Y Done third is now "since" and the years converted to "(18xx–1xxx)" format
  18. The first item in the "Notes" section would be easier to understand if it were written in complete sentences.Y Done

As for the references, do the references at the end of paragraphs cover everything in the paragraph? It would also be good to add a reference for the end of the first paragraph of the "Today's park" section. Y Done Each reference covers the preceding text from the previous reference mark so the end-of-paragraph ones simply cover the end of the paragraph, not the entire paragraph (unless there is only one ref for the paragraph eg: last bit of "Mining and Quarrying"). I've added the reference for the last bit of the noted paragraph - left out originally for some reason.

I have no concerns about the breadth of coverage, stability, neutrality or images. I am placing the article on hold for one week to allow the prose issues to be addressed and a response to be given about the references. It would be greatly appreciated if you could indicate which issues are addressed by crossing them out like this or placing a Y Done check after them. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this review - give me a couple of days (just got back from camping holiday today) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Think it's all done but will come back and read through tommorrow again. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You've done a great job on this article. My only remaining concern is the phrasing of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph in the "Today's park" section: "Much of the reserve was burned in 1980, just eastern parts burned in 1981 and most of the park burned again in the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires..." Does "just eastern parts" mean that only the eastern parts were burned? If so, I would recommend removing the "just": "Much of the reserve was burned in 1980, the eastern parts were burned in 1981, and most of the park burned again in the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires..." And while I'm thinking of it, Ash Wednesday should have a wikilink. Sorry to drag the review on for one small phrasing issue. If I had access to the information, I would fix it myself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All of my concerns have been addressed. To summarize the GA criteria, this article is well-written, broad in coverage, verifiable, neutral, stable, and appropriately illustrated.
This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.
Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)