Talk:Addiscot Beach

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Victoria Low‑importance

	Australia portal Addiscot Beach 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Note to reviewers

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Note to reviewers