Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamersley, Western Australia/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 16:49, 25 July 2007.

Contents

[edit] Hamersley, Western Australia

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at WP Perth and WP Western Australia, and Orderinchaos

I would like this article reviewed by people not directly involved in the creation of it. It has created some significant discussion since I started editing it a few days ago. See discussion: Talk:Hamersley,_Western_Australia#this_article. I disagree with the status of Featured Article for a number of reasons:

  • History section - is very long and verbose. it's not "well written" in my opinion as it's not concise. almost every single planning decision is included up to 1980 (not all of which is notable) yet there is a considerable gap from 1981.
  • Some editors think I am questioning the comprehensiveness and factual accuracy. Not true. it is well citated and referenced. My issue is with the number of facts, some of them are minor, like the relevance of the history of bus services, or that school used to be a community hall till 1975. the only thing I would question about comprehensiveness of this article is this Talk:Hamersley,_Western_Australia#Jump_in_history.
  • However, I think the article fails the last criteria of Featured articles: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail"
  • Structure is not clear and does not bring out the suburb's key notability or key facts. Compare the readability to other featured article locations: Birchington-on-Sea or El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda.

Thanks for your consideration. Michellecrisp 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • As someone not in any way involved in the creation of this article, I disagree. Firstly, I note that this is a relatively recent promotion, and I don't think standards have changed since it was promoted. I found the history section well-written and covering all the important facts - the lack of information post-1981 seems to be based more on a lack of actual important happenings rather than an oversight. I have no issue with the level of detail in the article, or the facts you cite specifically above - I find them quite relevant for an article on a suburb as small as this. The article is of a good length for an article of a subject of this type (similar to other FAs covering similar ground), and doesn't go into unnecessary detail; rather, it actually makes for an interesting article on a suburb, which is not an easy feat. The article remains, in my opinion, quite possibly the best article yet written on a suburb, and certainly of equal standing to the other two FAs on Australian suburbs. I'm just not seeing Michellecrisp's claims borne out at all. Rebecca 08:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments, your statement is "lack of actual important happenings rather than an oversight" is a presumption rather than based on fact. Surely similar detailed planning decisions have been made since then. for example, this is omitted http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/home/development/Schemes+Policies+and+Legislation/District+Planning+Scheme+No+2.htm which came into effect in 1985 or this work http://www.stirling.wa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/BA489B94-A042-496B-AA55-384E0CE20BBA/0/CarineHamersleyDiscussionPaper.pdf
    • 2 notable and important omissions, which I believe was omitted because it was not researched not because it was not notable.Michellecrisp 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • It also fails to mention golf course in any detail (not at all mentioned in amenities), and it's one of the busiest in Perth [1] (as claimed by Council). another notable omission. Michellecrisp 08:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
          • (Disclaimer: As the person who wrote this section...) Golf course despite the name is 2.5 suburbs away in Karrinyup (see here left of the X), hence the lack of a mention in this article. The enactment of a district planning scheme for a rather large massive area that happens to include Hamersley, which relates more to R-codes than anything else and is well beyond the scope of a suburb article (if anywhere it belongs in City of Stirling), was simply not included. A link to the R-codes PDF was actually included in the "External links" section at the bottom of the article, as it included a reasonable land use map of Hamersley Orderinchaos 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not really seeing the planning scheme change as warranting inclusion, let alone being a requirement. The history section contains the information on town planning and such because it strongly pertains to the creation and development of the suburb. The current planning scheme, however, seems irrelevant (and, ironically, too much detail); we don't mention them in any other suburb articles (including any of the FAs) - why should this one? The golf course, on the other hand, seems like an entirely pertinent addition, but why this justifies the aggressive attitude towards the article I'm not sure. Rebecca 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Close as content dispute Firstly, the user who has opened this FAR has tried to place conditions on top of WP policy. You simply cannot impose your own level of process on an FAR, everyone's opinion here is welcomed regardless of if they have edited the article or not. For the record, I have not edited the article in question, but participated in the FAC and voted in support of it when there. The person who has nominated this article for FAR has failed to specify the criteria which s/he believes the article fails to meet. Additionally, the nominator has failed to propose any reasonable remedies for the issues they perceive with the article. In light of this sub-standard FAR nomination, I have reviewed the article in full against the FA Criteria. I am of the reasonable opinion that the article adequately meets all the FA requirements, and that the changes that were made to the article without consensus by the user who nominated it for FAR would actually reduce the likelihood of the article retaining it's FA status. And while I generally avoid Ad hominem points, the user by their own admission and demonstrated through their edits does not have a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter being covered. Further to this, the article in question is generally considered by the Australian projects as the gold standard and benchmark for suburb related articles on the project. A majority of the suburb articles created by more experienced editors are in fact modelled on this one. This FAR was opened only for the purpose of advancing a single users' position on a content dispute, which I consider a WP:POINT disruption, and thus this FAR should be closed with prejudice as soon as possible. Thewinchester (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (I think I'm excluded from a 'vote' :-) Several outstanding reasons have been given to close this discussion, is there no policy regarding this? The best reason is the waste of energy and disruption. Any of those 'things that live under bridges' would be madly cutting and pasting this debacle for future reference. Anyway, here is a fun fact from El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda: "... a well-known local restaurant called "Mauricio's" mixes Swiss and French food with Caribbean gastronomy. El Hatillo also offers many varieties of confectionery, such as churros, pastry and ice cream.[2]". Fully referenced of course! ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 12:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response thewinchester said "The person who has nominated this article for FAR has failed to specify the criteria which s/he believes the article fails to meet." I have already stated 2 criteria it fails to meet: It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and Well written. Remedies include creating separate entry for history section, and rewriting some sections in a more concise manner. Michellecrisp 15:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, I have been subject to a bad faith vandalism accusation by User:Thewinchester concerning this article which an administrator is found to be inappropriate. He/she seems intent (in my opinion) to close this discussion down with comments such as "the user by their own admission and demonstrated through their edits does not have a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter being covered". In addition, the user is from Perth, so WP:OWN may be an influencing factor. These are solely my opinions.Michellecrisp 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:OWN is this case has been used by the FAR nominator as a defence against someone who has a legitimate and sound disagreement with their reasoning. You literally have tried to suggest that by virtue of the fact my userpage states I reside in the state of the article's subject I am unable to objectively contribute let alone draw a reasonable view on the issue. Was trying to place conditions on top of WP policy not enough for you, now you've labelled all WA based editors as being unable to contribute objectively to the topic, the talk discussion, and the FAR on account of what you perceive as WP:COI because of where they live? That's the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard all week (And I work in the public sector so I hear rubbish constantly), and by your own logic would suggest that not even the key authors and contributors to the article should of contributed or are permitted in your mind to discuss the issues you have raised. This is a massive WP:AGF problem on your part. I'd reiterate my call for this FAR to be appropriately closed as on account the FAR was opened by the user to grandstanding and advance their viewpoint on a content dispute, which FAR is not the place for. Thewinchester (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd also like to remind Michellsecrisp that the point of this page is to address any perceived issues with the article. As such, the people who wrote it not only should, but are the best people to, actually respond, since they are the ones with the knowledge and ability to fix any issues. This, I might add, is impossible in this case, since no substantive criticism of the content has actually been put forward. Rebecca 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - as someone who originally picked up on the editing of this article, I feel I should comment in this FAR. For a start, I uphold and defend the right of Michellecrisp to run this FAR - I believe her intentions are in good faith and her aim is to improve articles, not to take away from them. Despite the fact that the FAR has taken place less than 3 months after the promotion to FA and that Michelle asked for non-Perth people only to participate, I think these can be overlooked out of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and a desire to see some different people view the article on top of those who have had a hand in the article. Further to this, after my revert of her initial changes, I believe that the minor edits she did of the article were positive and were done out of an attempt to improve the article, and since I asked her to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page, she has done so. I don't believe her actions have assumed bad faith. As Orderinchaos has said elsewhere, I think that if the outcome of this FAR is that the article is improved, then that is a good thing. However, as someone who was not involved in the creation of the article (although I did approve the FA under my old username), and someone not from Perth (I live on the other side of Australia), I also must disagree with the reasons cited for this FAR. Firstly, as to the number of facts, I don't believe that the comparisons with the two other FAs are valid - the first is a small seaside village that has been around since 1240, the second is a municipality in Venezuela of about 115 square kilometres - neither are comparable to a small suburb of less than 4 square kilometres that has been around only since the 1960s in a city of 1+ million people. To have an article of featured standard for something this small, there have to be minutiae, and we need to go into detail for some sections. I'm a firm supporter of the WP:NOT#PAPER policy and think that some details are appropriate for Wikipedia which might not be appropriate for a paper encyclopedia like Britannica - so the things like the history of bus services are an interesting and relevant addition for a Wikipedia article on a small suburb, as an important part of its public transport history before the introduction of the Northern Suburbs Railway. Secondly, if the article is too long, then it should be split into other articles if there is enough information available. However, the article is less than the recommended splitting size (in Wikipedia:Article size) of 60KB (it's only 53KB) so there is no real need to do so at present unless we can sustain a whole other article from a particular section. Thirdly, as to verbosity in the article, I'm yet to be convinced and I can't find any section that is too wordy, (although some more specific examples where the language could be expressed differently might help my thoughts on this). For these reasons I must disagree with the FAR; though I support any (discussed) attempts to improve the article by making some minor changes. In my opinion, I think this is probably the best Australian suburb article on Wikipedia, but any attempt to make it even better is more than welcome. I hope these comments are helpful. (Finally, an apology to the Perth editors for spelling the name with two m's!) JRG 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment my request for third party review is only confirmed by some of the comments here. On one front with respect to well written I am not looking for subject matter experts but testing the readability of the article (as with someone that saw the article for the first time like I did ). For example, the article has a detailed history that could be better presented/structured as perhaps bullet points by year arranged in chronological order to indicate milestones.
  • I believe that the number of Ks is only a guide. The actual length and readibility is a better guide. To me, if someone has to scroll down through a whole lot of minor history. Michellecrisp 04:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the first dot point above (re dot points with years) would not allow the article to pass FA. Also, some years (1968, 1969, 1970) would be very hefty while others would not, so I don't see how this would improve readability. Orderinchaos 04:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is that it could be grouped by decade as with other locality articles. Michellecrisp 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response If this a FA article, then it should stand up to international scrutiny. Could someone from outside WA get a solid understanding from reading the article? I am not questioning that the information is there. It's its presentation. Michellecrisp 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, on both grounds, as you've been told by numerous people from outside WA. I do believe this is the most aggressive handling of an FAR by a nominator that I've ever seen in my time on Wikipedia. Rebecca 05:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Review by Hesperian
  • Lead is fine
  • Geography section is mostly fine but natural history section is overly detailed. One possible solution would be to identify and write articles on the vegetation communities present in Hamersley; then we would only need to link to them rather than characterise their composition, and of course identify any way in which Hamersley vegetation is atypical.
  • Name section contains a bit too much information that reads as only obliquely related to the name. If this is necessary to the narrative, then perhaps information on the name should be worked into the other history sections, and this section abandoned. Also, the {{see also}} is redundant as the link already appears prominently in the text.
  • Early history: Again, I think the {{see also}} is redundant. Otherwise, good.
  • Hamersley Development Scheme: Good.
  • Suburban development: Fine by me; I'm satisfied with the level of detail presented here.
  • Demographics, Amenities and facilies, both fine
  • Education - I'm not convinced this level of historical detail is needed here. If it is that important to the history of the suburb, put it in the history section.
  • Transport - A bit long - I would probably work the historical information into the history section, or discard it.
  • Politics - good.

Hesperian 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comments. Despite the fact that the FAR has taken place less than 3 months after the promotion to FA ... Incorrect, the article was promoted on March 7th. Will the original nominator please follow the instructions at the top of the FAR page, and notify all relevant parties, including original nominator and most active editors, and leave a note at the top of the FAR? Also, FAR is not dispute resolution; please focus on the issues that should be reviewed with respect to WP:WIAFA. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That's my fault - I read the date of display on the Main Page (April 14th) as the date of promotion to FA. I agree it was done on March 3, 2007. Sorry for any misunderstanding. JRG 06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on Public Transport This relates to the criteria of (un)necessary detail. I am mentioning this because if FAs are top class articles, then precedents for other locality articles are set. From the paragraph starting with During the morning and evening rush hour, is it really necessary to list the pattern of timetables such as between 8am and 4pm etc. would it be better to summarise the main bus routes and where they connect to? this relates to: WP:NOT#GUIDE . Wikipedia should not be in my opinion an explanation of bus timetabling to a particular suburb. Secondly, is knowing which year a bus service was introduced to a suburb necessary? do people really look up Wikipedia for that information? I've suggested to someone in Sydney that this type of information is more relevant for a specific article like Buses in Sydney, you would think a more transport inclined person would visit that article for specific info. I ask because then it would be similarly expected to provide similar info on all other locality articles in Wikipedia. Bus services can easily be introduced or removed by the government or bus operator at the flick of the switch. this is not like railway stations or railway lines which are usually permanent. Of course something notable like buses replacing trams is worth reporting as in Vancouver#Transportation. Other FAs like Waterfall Gully, South Australia provide no information on bus service history, nor do city articles like Canberra or Detroit (however, info may be provided in linked articles). Michellecrisp 13:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply - I really must disagree with you on this. The paragraph on bus routes does exactly what you asked for - it summarises the bus routes and where they run in the suburb, and has a bit of informative history about public transport in the area before the Railway came in the mid-90s. The reason for the times of some bus routes being listed is that the various routes do not run at all times of the day. These sentences are informative and are relevant to how public transport works in Hamersley. They do not violate WP:NOT#GUIDE. An example of a violation of "Wikipedia is not a manual, guide or textbook" would be a listing of every bus stop in the suburb and which buses you could catch from it, or saying "to get to the Perth CBD you can catch a 431 from X street to Warwick Train Station, then catch the train into the city". The article does not read like a directory; it reads as a statement of facts about public transport availability and usage in the area. The comparisons with Canberra and Detroit (both cities) are not valid, as a listing of bus routes for a whole city's article would definitely be unencyclopedic - at the very least they should be in a "Transportation in X" article; it's a matter of degree as to what is and what isn't valid. This is a very small suburb in a large city and some detail is necessary, as I have already said. And we must also remember that Wikipedia is not a static encyclopedia (see WP:NOT#PAPER), so the fact that Governments change bus routes doesn't matter - that's just an invitation for us to alter the information and improve the article. Waterfall Gully probably doesn't have a history of bus services because no reliable source outlining that exists - it's not valid to compare other articles, it's a matter of what sources are and aren't available. JRG 06:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification After discussing with Rebecca (thanks), I'm aware that some have taken exception with my initial request for third party commentary only. To clarify I only wanted initially third party input as I wanted independent scrutiny of the article, for something to be put up and supported as FA is of course done by the authors. Having said that, I understand that those involved in it may want to discuss. but what I was trying to mean was that I would have appreciated more input from others especially those who perhaps got their own locality entry up as a FA in a different place as they may or may not have had similar questions about meeting criteria. Thanks. Michellecrisp 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on Education Here are my views on the Education section, which I believe is not well written ,although not bad either but I'm applying that "excellent" standard.
    • No private schools are within the suburb or near its boundaries is this sentence necessary? can it be safely assumed if there is no mention of private schools (or unis etc) that they don't exist?
    • Is street location of schools necessary? doesn't usually appear on locality articles. see other FAs Yarralumla,_Australian_Capital_Territory#Suburb_amenities, Birchington-on-Sea#Education or a city FA Tulsa,_Oklahoma#Education and also think it relates to: WP:NOT#GUIDE.
    • As schools were built in those suburbs in 1974–1976, congestion eased considerably This seems obvious statement of fact, whenever new schools are built in existing suburbs congestion is eased. Although I guess it relates to previous mention of congestion.
    • The school and kindergarten were also used as a hall and meeting place by residents and groups until the recreation centre opened in April 1975. Necessary or notable statement? In many many suburbs in Australia, school halls are used for community groups. do people really need to know this stopped happening in April 1975?
    • East Hamersley Primary School, in Doon Way, accepted its first students for the 1979 school year. couldn't this be more easily said as "East Hamersley Primary School opened in 1979"?

Michellecrisp 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Withdraw or close - Procedure for review submissions was not followed, the perils of which have been realised in subsequent discussions. I therefore do not believe it would appropriate to continue discussing improvement on this page; it is in the interests of the community and its productivity that the discussion revert to the talk page. Since having the article pointed out in a discussion of a revert, (Carlingford) - 06:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC), the nominator, unfortunately oblivious to the consequences, proceeded to reduce the article size from [responded by cutting 10129 bytes from Hamersley - with the rationale to this action];
  • (54,654 bytes) (→Public transport - history of bus services is too much detail for a locality entry and not consistent with other localities)
  • to (44,525 bytes) (→Governance - rm verbose)
[ and ...] summaries of 'too much detail', if any, at the intervening edits. It is reasonable to conclude that the editor has made an unannounced and substantial disruption, to the continuing improvement of this recently scrutinised article, in order to further a position that has only an incidental bearing on it. This review is part of that campaign. The editor is a quick-study, but the pedagogical benefit of this exercise has been exhausted. The nature of this review is such that I must draw attention to this by ad hominem argument in a sense, but this is due to the neglect of any form of procedure, my apologies to the editor who has been civil with me in discussion. I believe that she can help to improve article. Perhaps others will take an interest also, its all good.
However, this review was not required, all FAs can be edited - discussion prior to doing so is encouraged. Withdraw per the many and crucial reasons given by others, here and elsewhere, please. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment clarified with strike and [insert]. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 11:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Procedure for review submissions was not followed, ... What procedure was not followed, Fred ? It looks like a valid and warranted review, and I don't find anything that was done incorrectly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response. Not agreed. Using my edits on Carlingford is not related to the WP:WIAFA discussion here. Carlingford is not a FA. I have attempted to outline specific examples of where this article fails WP:WIAFA. If you want to discuss Carlingford leave it to the talk page, I am happy to discuss my Carlingford edits there not here. Why not respond to the above issues I have on specific sections? Michellecrisp 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fred.e gives examples of my changes and reasons, may I say upfront that I apologise for the large scale edits I did a few days ago and have not attempted (nor will I in the future) do large scale edits of highly rated articles. That is not the rationale nor reasoning for the FA review. I do not oppose supposed "unilateral" action being reverted, I believe in consensus that is why I have put this up for review, especially to get a wider audience on how it meets criteria than simply listing on Talk page. I have stated after my initial putting up for review, specific sentences and areas where I think this article fails WP:WIAFA. it is not a content dispute I believe, I am applying the highest level of scrutiny for a FA, especially as it should be the benchmark for other locality articles. For evidence, that I am willing to work significantly to article improvement, check the last 500 edits of this [2]. I digress, let's stick to the WP:WIAFA discussion, I appreciate it if anyone would comment specifically on the Education and Public Transport sections, some of you have already. thanks Michellecrisp 11:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] page break
Review by Alansohn

The article demonstrates most of the characteristics of a featured article, but contains portions that are far too detailed to justify inclusion in an article of this caliber. The article needs to be trimmed in some sections to provide better balance and focus, in other places additional sources must be provided.

  • Geography - trim down details re naming of streets. If retained, sources need to be provided to support the statements.
  • History - Source must be provided to support 1906 as first use of name.
  • Suburban development - focus on Hamersley Gazette, and its coverage is overbroad and unbalanced for a featured article. Details of a specific crime and brushfire are unnecessary.
  • Demographics - source needed for religion details.
  • Public transport - specific details on timing of routes is too detailed for a featured article.

This article demonstrates that you don't need to have millions of residents to justify a featured article and should inspire editors to improve articles for smaller communities. Addressing these issues will bring it up to appropriate standards. Alansohn 06:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "specific details on timing of routes" in the public transport section - your complaint refers to a single clause of a single sentence that gives two times. I could easily change that to "off-peak hours", which would give you no complaint on these grounds, but that would be vague and possibly misleading a non-Australian reader. As for the crime and scrubfire, they refer to notable events which have taken place in the last decade or so in the suburb; to take them out would present a non-up-to-date view of the suburb. JRG 07:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Alansohn was referring to the reference to specific hours of operation, I guess the issue is almost every small suburb has a peak and off peak bus timetable all around the world. is it necessary to spell it out that this happens? secondly, giving an idea of specific roads that a bus route travels eg which linked Greenwood to Perth via Eglinton Crescent and Glendale Avenue/Aintree Street respectively, traveling along Blissett Way is that too detailed? surely origin and destination should be sufficient for this encyclopaedia not which roads buses use. I don't want to be replicating travel info when it can be found at http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/ or say for Sydney www.sydneybuses.info for government buses. Michellecrisp 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Alansohn highlights a couple of things that could do with a source, but I again disagree with his suggestions regarding the development of the suburb. The information is verifiable, it is pertinent, it is interesting, and its removal solely because information of its kind wouldn't fit in articles on say, an older suburb, would be only to the detriment of the article. Rebecca 09:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Re the Transperth web site comment, said site does not contain timetables prior to 1987 (which these routes related to), only current ones. The point was that service has, unusually for a stable area, decreased its scope and scale over time. Re development - the focus is only in one small part of the article, and the article itself indicates to what extent the paper can be viewed as a reliable source. The West Australian and other publications do not cover news of this type within a suburb, and recordings or transcripts of TV and radio news broadcasts from that period, which would have contained it, cannot be obtained (I did try). Orderinchaos 09:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment on transport section, the timing is a useful piece of information as the Bus service during the peak period are design to take passengers northwest, while in off peak times they take passengers south via the eastern edge of the burb even though passengers on both services are heading towards the CBD.
The crime was a major news item of the time in Perth and reported in national media as well. The fire had a significant impact on all transport to the northern area of the Perth metro area, and is likely to have repeat effect in the future. Are they necessary to the article, IMHO they offer a balance view of the burb by providing the negative aspects of the area. WP:OR warning -- the burbs around this are significantly more notable locally(in WA) for severe crime issues. Gnangarra 11:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
View of Twenty Years
  • I have been monitoring this for a short while now. I would agree largely with Hesperians comments regarding the name section. This is a slight problem. Also in the education section; the last line is quite out of place, consider merging into another section.
  • I think that the nominator may also consider, next time that he or she puts an article up for FAR that they adequately notifiy the concerned parties (most notably the main contributor - OIC). In this case i think that it may have been somewhat considerate for them to wait until this person had returned from their wikibreak to put it up for FAR, considering it was so soon, it would have given them (OIC) more time to address the concerns about the article. Although it is not nescessary by any means (waiting, that is) it would be somewhat considerate, and something to consider in the future. I think we have all learned well from this experience.
  • Back to the system: My opinion is: Keep as FA and Close debate ASAP - nom did not notify people related to it, and etc. Simple: learn the lessons. Thanks.Twenty Years 15:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Procedures are supposed to make it easy to do things like request reviews, not harder. Perhaps, as you guys say, procedure was not followed. But now that we're here, can we just get on with reviewing the article please? Hesperian 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. Please do close this review, then immediately open a fresh one, so that the article can be reviewed without all this squabbling. Hesperian 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
STRONGLY SUPPORT HESPERIANS VIEW - Close this, open it fresh. And lets get on with building this encyclopedia. This is become a rather large waste of valuable admin time. Thanks. Twenty Years 02:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? Amidst all the bickering, there still hasn't been a single substantive criticism of the article that hasn't been challenged by several people. I don't see any need to drag the article over the coals again unless something else is raised. Rebecca 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rebecca. The review has started. No one has commented on my education comments which to me don't stand out as "excellent" quality. I note orderinchaos has made some small changes to education in the article. Nor have we resolved the Public Transport issue, others have raised issues about its current presentation too. Michellecrisp 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The public transport issue isn't "resolved" because there isn't even any consensus that it is an issue. The education is similar - I outright disagree with a couple of the changes, and the other two suggestions are very minor changes of debatable value - hardly something that would result in a demotion from FA status. Rebecca 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You may wish to bring them up again just below: People get a bit lost in 35ish KB of info above. Please do, so others can respond to them, thanks Twenty Years 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments by Melburnian

I live 2700 kilometres from Hamersley. I've never been there and in fact I didn't even know it existed until I came across this article some time ago. It's a very small piece of the geography of Australia, and the level of detail, I believe, is well scaled to the area described.

If I were looking at moving to Perth I could examine the article to see how Hamersley shaped up as a place to live. I'd like to know what the public transport is like, including the frequency of the services, and what parts of the suburb are best served by it. I might check out the politics section to see if people there are raving lefties, raving conservatives or somewhere inbetween. If I selected Hamersley as a good place to live, I could work out the best location, maybe on Rannoch Circle, so I could have good views to the city and be near Warwick Centro and a bushland park (I'll also know what the bushland consists of). There's a school there too. It's not near a community centre like the other one, but maybe being built 9 years later makes it slightly more modern. The median property values in the suburb average $432,500 (roughly the median for Perth), so maybe I'll need $500,000 + to live in that particular area (oh dear). The history section tells me that the area was mostly developed in the 70s so that's the era of house I'll most likely come across here. I'd want to be in the western part of the Rannoch Circle area, so I wouldn't have to walk too far to the bus stop on Eglington Road. I can go straight down Eglington Road to Bunnings so that will be handy if I have to do renovations to the house. The crime rates pretty low, and it seem like there hasn't been too many major crimes committed in the area. It looks good - hang on- I don't think I want the ABC coming through my phone, thanks very much. Let's see what the suburbs around it have to offer. I'll have a look at Girrawheen. Let's see... its got a Video-Ezy and ... never mind.

That's all a long-winded way of saying that I personally find the level of detail in the article is appropriate although I understand everyone has different thoughts on the appropriate level of detail in articles, and it is sometimes difficult to judge the cut-off line. I also understand concerns about having history passages in various subsections, but I think that putting them all in the history sections fragments the various topics.

I had some minor comments on the talk page, but these have now been addressed.Melburnian 03:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Orderinchaos (main contributor)

I've fixed a few small things here and there per some comments above. The education section was modified a bit - moved last line to end of first para (per Twenty Years), got rid of the private schools line (per Michelle), and reworded the Doon Way line per Michelle's suggestion. Hesperian's suggestion to remove the see also and Alan's suggestion to reference the religion were also adopted, while Melburnian's fix to the towers section makes a lot of sense. Are there any other obvious things that need fixing? Orderinchaos 04:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Zivko85

I strongly agree with the idea that everything should be continually assessable, as standards and ideas change and nothing is ever incapable of improvement as we are all human. Furthermore, bringing more heads and eyes onto a topic can often result in improved perspective. However, on this occasion, I see no reason to remove the Featured Article status from Hamersley, Western Australia. This article still meets the featured article criteria against which it was assessed in March 2007, and with which it was featured on the main page on 14 April 2007.

The article is well written - there are no spelling or grammatical errors, and the prose is fairly tight without an abundance of complex or ambiguous words which would confuse International English readers. As others have said, it also manages to hold the reader's interest, something very rare for an article about an administrative geographic entity! The article contains 76 references from a range of reliable sources, including state and local government publications, primary and secondary historical references and newspaper articles amongst others. No major fact within the article is unreferenced. It would be difficult if not impossible to assert that any part of this article is untrue or biased.

In considering what level of detail is appropriate it is necessary to consider the nature of the subject - in this case, a suburb. A good article should address the key questions of how, what, where, when and why. In reading Hamersley, I know where it is, and can see a map for more detail. I know what it is, and what it contains. I know how it came about, and have some idea as to how it works today (noting that the latter is more the domain of an oral history project at a local library rather than an encyclopaedia, but we have transport, land prices, education, etc which give us clues and leads). I know when key events in the suburb's history unfolded, and I know why it is called Hamersley, why it exists and why it was created. The latter is critical in answering questions raised above about the description of the planning of the suburb - in my view, the council information is not given in excessive detail but only so much as to indicate why Hamersley developed when and how it did - it would appear that if it had proceeded to the plan by which it originated, it would be a very different place from what it is today.

Areas for possible review include historical public transport, education and the name - while I don't think any of it should be removed per se, I'm not sure that it all belongs in *this* article. As Hesperian said, perhaps companion volumes with a different focus could emerge and provide a more natural home for these pieces of information. However, I don't believe the maintenance of any of these where they are reduce the quality of the article as it stands today. Zivko85 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure, length, and focus (2 and 4). Marskell 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Lots said above and I see people think it still a good article. Moving it here to get crisp keep or remove comments. Marskell 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. There hasn't been a single matter raised here on which there is even any consensus that there is an issue. Rebecca 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. fine article, fulfils criteria. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article fulfils all criteria, no consensus on any alleged flaws beyond several minor points which have been fixed successfully. Zivko85 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Rebecca and Zivko85, no consensus reached on issues, article meets criteria, and the FAR was opened to further what was essentially a content dispute. Thewinchester (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is a benchmark for locality articles on Wikipedia --Melburnian 07:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Melb and TWin Twenty Years 08:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "Looks OK to me." DrKiernan 08:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.