Talk:Addiscot Beach

Note to reviewers

The user, Triptothecottage reverted this page back to draft mode. I am adding this note here for the reviewers of this draft as to why I fundamentally disagree with this move, which, in my opinion, was pedantic.

Triptothecottage left this note on my talk page regarding this article:

"Thanks for your contributions to Addiscot Beach. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while."

For starters, the page has already has 11 sources. Not only does it have reliable sources in and of itself, there is a range of sources, from news, websites, and an actual book that dedicates a whole section to this beach. The book, "Stories from Beneath our Feet: Exploring the Geology and Landscapes of Victoria and Surrounds", which has a picture of Addiscot Beach on the front cover because the beach is geologically significant, has a verifiable ISBN.

"...it consists of machine-generated text." This is what irked me the most. Admittedly, for past articles, I have employed AI to collect sources and then collate the information into paragraphs which I would then copy over to a wikipedia article. After fixing these edits, with other experienced editors pointing out the inconsistencies and errors between the citations used and the texts, I have markedly changed my practice and I have stamped this out completely. Understandably, I can understand why Triptothecottage would not have the time to go into depth about why they're of the believe that the text is machine-generated on every page that is reviewed if other pages WERE actually generated.

I SUSPECT that the references I wrote, particularly the news citations, had titles that weren't the complete title of the actual news-piece, and I attempted to summarise the news-piece in the title spaces when typing out these citations (again I stress, none of these were collated or found/created by AI). Perhaps, as Triptothecottage has reviewed several pages that contain ACTUAL machine-generated text, these citations are what caught their eye.

I did not see anything wrong by summarising the news-pieces in the form of a shorter title, but if this is incorrect I can stop this immediately (again, all other information in these citations is there, including the authors, the actual news site/newspaper, etc.).

As for the notability, I was of the belief that the Beachsafe (an official Surf Life Saving Club website) citaiton was already enough to establish notability. I would've listed the geology book citation here, but it's the section that immediately follows, so I didn't think it was necessary, but I have now cited it at the top and spelled out "why" the beach is "notable". This is what I believed was pedantic, and didn't warrant moving back into the draftspace.

But alas, here we are, and here is my explanation.

I welcome your review. Thank you! 1geel0ng1 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)